Jeffrey Archer's insult to Sir Ed

Last updated 05:00 15/03/2009
Sir Edmund Hillary: not the first?

Relevant offers

Best-selling author and former UK politician Jeffrey Archer has taken a swipe at Sir Edmund Hillary's legacy with a novel based on the premise a British mountaineer was the first to conquer Everest.

Paths of Glory is a fictionalised account of the life of George Mallory, whose ill-fated attempt to scale the world's highest mountain in 1924 has long been shrouded in mystery.

Mallory was last seen a few hundred metres below the summit and died shortly afterwards after falling from a ridge. Many of his admirers believe he made it to the top and deserves Hillary's place in history as Everest's conqueror.

Archer's political career ended in disgrace in Britain in 2001 when he was found guilty of perjury and sentenced to four years in jail. His writing career has suffered little damage however his three volumes of prison diaries were bestsellers, as was his 2007 novel based on the life of Jesus.

His new book, which ends with Mallory becoming the "first man to stand on top of the earth", has rekindled speculation about whether the dashing adventurer might have beaten Sir Ed to the summit by 29 years. Archer makes a central plot device of Mallory's promise he would leave a photograph of his wife at the summit; when Mallory's body was found on the mountain in 1999, no photograph was found in his belongings.

But fellow mountaineer and friend of Sir Ed, Graeme Dingle, said of Archer's premise: "He's dreaming. There's essentially no chance Mallory got to the top. All the evidence points to them not making it."

He said Archer's interest in portraying Mallory as the first to summit the mountain was motivated by wounded English pride at having been beaten by a colonial.

"The English were desperate to get to the top and they didn't get there, even in 1953. I think the English are pretty sensitive about it. They've got nothing to be ashamed about, they had a lot of glorious failures."

He said one aspect of the speculation surrounding the doomed climber which was omitted from Archer's book was that Mallory chose climbing partner Andrew Irvine because of a homosexual attraction between the pair. Irvine, too, died during the 1924 attempt, although his body has not been found.

"Some have said the flaw of Mallory's character was he chose Irvine because of a possible gay relationship, and not based on good, sound mountaineering judgement," said Dingle.

Ad Feedback

But not everyone felt Archer's fictional contention was off the mark. Auckland journalist Pat Booth, author of an unauthorised 1993 Hillary biography, said he had been intrigued by Mallory's story since his body was discovered, offering clues that suggested he may have reached the summit and was making his descent when he died.

"I can understand Archer's curiosity with the whole theory. It's a gripping and challenging proposition," he said, adding that admitting as much was contentious "here in Hillary country".

Whether Mallory reached the summit is a mystery that is unlikely to be resolved. But Hillary's place in history is safe, given the widely held view expressed by Sir Ed and Mallory's son John that a successful ascent involves getting to the bottom again safely.

Said John Mallory: "To me, the only way you achieve a summit is to come back alive. The job is half done if you don't get down again."

74 comments
Post a comment
Adam   #74   05:49 am Jan 26 2011

Mallory didn't make it first as everyone knows where the ENglish go the Germans get their towels down first

Seriously though it is just a theory based on what could have happened. There is no insult either actual or implied

Janaki   #73   05:19 pm Jul 23 2010

I think the book definitely cannot be considered as an insult to Sir Edmund. Its a partial fictional work making a fascinating reading. A tribute to the courageous efforts of a devoted man.

Scott   #72   01:15 am Jul 08 2010

I've just the read the book and was absolutely fascinated by the story and couldn't wait to find out how it ended. It's prompted me to spend hours reading information about Mallory, Hillary, Everest etc. I thought it was a really well-written story and it does leave you wondering whether Mallory and Irvine actually made it. I like to think they did, but that takes absolutely nothing away from Hillary and Tenzing's phenomenal achievement as the first to make it to the top and back home again. Still, if it's ever proven that Mallory and Irvine made it there first (only the missing Kodak camera would do this), the record books should note this - if Armstrong and Aldrin hadn't made it back to Earth in 1969, would anyone dare to suggest that they weren't the first humans to land on the moon? Hardly.

rebekah   #71   01:46 pm Jun 20 2010

i dont belive this is an insult

mike   #70   09:16 pm Jun 14 2010

As a New Zealander, and having just finished reading this great book, I in no way find it an insult to Sir Ed. There has always been speculation as to whether Mallory made it to the summit first, and, as far as I can see, unless they find the camera, it will remain just that. There are opinions that he did make it, there are opinions that he didn't.

Finally, at the end of the book, he includes Sir Ed saying that he was the first to "conquer" Everest, and even included a section on Mallory's grandson, stating that Sir Ed was the first to conquer Everest as he made it to the summit AND back.

So, an insult? Not at all. Perhaps the book should be read first, before comment made.

Mary Plumley   #69   09:00 pm Jun 13 2010

What if Hillary, whom I respect alot found that picture of Ruth on the summit of Everest and destroyed it. All evidence is gone. who knows about the Kodak camera. With not that many bodies on Everest @ that time maybe Mallory and Irvine were easy to spot. Just a thought. I am a tremendously huge Mallory and Cottie Sanders admirer. I really want to believe Mallory and Irvine conquered Everest but the the cold and terraine could have done them in, butI am still waiting for some valid evidence. Unfortunately time is the enemy.

KurtB   #68   06:26 am Jun 10 2010

I'm with 'jimmy': How is this an "insult"? Honestly, I was under the impression that New Zealanders were easy going and fun loving. I guess Peter Jackson & the Flight of thre Conchords are the exception? I doubt that. Regardless, as has been stated before, Hillary made it back alive and Mallory, tragically, did not. Therefore, Hillary holds the record. Archer, in his book, makes no bones about this. Where is the insult? Like jimmy said prevously, rubbish (and typical Internet nonsense).

T   #67   09:31 pm May 01 2010

stupid article...

Chris Chalton-Wells   #66   04:13 am Oct 20 2009

George Mallory may well have got to the top of Everest,though the evidence is admittedly inconclusive. The fact remains that he or Irvine did not return, and in the words of another distinguished climber; " going up is optional, coming down is essential". In this sense Mallory and Irving failed. This takes nothing away from Hillary or rightful New Zealand pride in a great man. Hillary and Tensing were the first. I am English through and through and can say I am just as proud of Hillary. These were the first, the few,the essential adveturers. It is a constant dissapontment to me that the 1300 or so who have followed are to my own mind pointless and selfish climbs centered on total self aggrandisment and intense personal ego. Not what the likes of Mallory or Hillary had in mind at all. Its been done to death, literally!

Julie Summers   #65   02:01 am Mar 17 2009

Could we just set one tiny fact straight in amongst all the brooh ha had about this book? The comment by Mr Dingle about Mallory picking Irvine only because of a homosexual attraction is disproved by letters found in 1999 that show Mallory had chosen Irvine as his climbing partner before they had even reached base camp. As to Archer's fiction. It is just that.


Show 15-64 of 74 comments

Post comment


Required

Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.


Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content

Omnivore blog pointer small

The Omnivore: Jeremy Taylor on food

Alex James - what are you playing at?

Moata

Moata's Blog Idle

A Sheep's Show

David Farrar blog pointer small

By the Numbers: David Farrar watches the polls

Mondayising Waitangi and Anzac Days