It's times like these I have to remind myself that three star reviews aren't bad reviews. Because I enjoyed 'Into Thin Air,' I did, but when it came time for me to rate it, four stars seemed like too many, and two stars too little. (Goodreads, I'm begging you yet again, add a .5 star option.)

I think most of my hesitancy with 'Into Thin Air' came from when, after beginning it, I was reminded of why I don't usually enjoy non-fiction—I was having so much trouble getting invested into Krakauer's story. It's at this point that I usually lose both interest and motivation in non-fiction books, rarely coming back to finish them, but luckily with school over for the time being I have very little else to occupy my time and was able to power through. I don't want to blame this difficulty entirely on Krakauer—re: my bad relationship with non-fiction—but be warned that, if you're like me in this regard, 'Into Thin Air' may not be the book for you.

Luckily, once I made it past the first third or so, I can say with confidence that I was invested. (You can tell from my progress updates jumping from forty-or-so pages at a time to a hundred.) The chapter lengths were perfect—short enough that they didn't exhaust me, but complete—and Krakauer is an excellent writer. You can tell he's a reporter, though this works to both his advantage and disadvantage. No one can deny the amount and extent of information provided on the May 1996 incident in 'Into Thin Air,' but at the same time, at points I found Krakauer to be throwing so many names, dates, and places around that I couldn't tell which were actually relevant. This was another aspect of 'Into Thin Air' that I initially had trouble with but that improved as the novel progressed.

Otherwise, I can't say much other than I really could've done without the fifty-or-so pages of finger-pointing in the afterword ("fifty-or-so" is probably an exaggeration, but it sure felt like it dragged on for ages). I get the need to clear things up and such, but personally, I really disliked it, and didn't see the reason behind stuffing it all into the back of the novel. Though I understand Krakauer wasn't arguing with himself, so he's not singularly at fault, it still came off as childish to me. But the afterword has little to do with 'Into Thin Air' as a memoir itself, so altogether, I did enjoy 'Into Thin Air' and Krakauer's retelling of May 1996. I will have to find some other resources on the incidents for a more complete understanding, but I feel Krakauer did well and that 'Into Thin Air' is a good starting point.