I have just finished reading this book, which I found most interesting, and I'm trying to make sense of the range of reviews.
I can understand it not really being the cup of tea for those readers who prefer the purist climbing books of gasping for every breath, thrusting the ice axe into a precariously thin ice, clinging onto a rock face contemplating the next move or staring down on the lights of civilisation far below with the sense of not belonging there, and books of a similar genre.
But, and this is a rather large but, I bought this book after seeing an advert in the climbing press, which also had a website adaytodiefor, this I took the time to look at. I'm struggling to understand how this book can be getting one and two star reviews from some readers when the professional reviewers are time and time again using words such as `compelling read' and `must read'. I can see why it might be given a modest review by those for whom this book is not the purist type, but I do question the motives of those seemingly trying to put others off reading it. Is it because there are several famous people connected to the international climbing world implicated in this book and who have very serious questions to answer?
`A Day To Die For' is as much, if not more, about what happened following the 1996 Everest disaster as the actual event itself. One of the professional reviews I read, boldly, in legal terms, went as far as to say that the earlier authoritative accounts of Everest 1996 are missing important facts bordering on deception.
From my own perspective I found this book to be about one man's fascinating personal journey intertwined with an outstanding investigation, which in the end let me decide what caused the disaster in the first place and the truth about what followed after the tragedy.