Ah well, I think that we all agree on Whillans and the points that come out in the biography, but that last point about the greater ranges is an interesting one. I felt that he had considerable success in the higher altitude climbs (Annapurna being the pinnacle achievement) and was certainly the best and most competent climber on the trips was a part of. It seems to me that the reason he was left out of subsequent expeditions was one of personality clashes with other members of the Bonnington clique, noteably JP points out Nick Estcourt Bonnington's closest friend, (Mick Burke and Dougal Haston also). Chris Bonnington has given his version of why he left Don out of the SW Face expedition, but reading between the lines it seems that Estcourt probably said something along the lines of '..if he goes I don't.' and Bonnnigton chose his friend over the better climber. If this is the case then no wonder he became bitter as he no doubt saw Bonnington and his climbing partners as the public school old boys club from which he was excluded. All the old bitterness of the old school tie and your accent being wrong, the little working class man being kept in his place by the toffs etc... But as to this part of the book I felt that Don may just have had a point, particularly as the majority of that expedition did not live long enough in their climbing career- talented as some of them were- to have the opportunity to waste their talent as it is suggested he did.
"It seems to me that the reason he was left out of subsequent expeditions was one of personality clashes with other members of the Bonnington clique" Philip, it wasn't just on the Bonnington trips, by that time he'd gained a bad reputation beyond that.
After Annapurna he could have gone on to prove his brilliance, maybe a second coming, but instead, he continued the downward spiral.
As far as class or culture are concerned, Don was his own worst enemy. I think, in his own way, Bonnington even tried to bring him back from the brink. Yes, they were poles apart in term of class or culture, but Bonnington probably wanted him there, but Don was to blame, not Nick Estcort, Burke, Haston or others.
Having re-read the section of the book about that time, and the Annapurna expedition in particular, it is clear I think that JP places great significance on the rivalry between team members and the decision by Bonnington to sidleine Estcourt in deference to his own and DW's summit bid in respect of the make up of future expeditions. He was in great demand immediately after but the although ultimately unsuccessful he again proved himself to be the best climber at that time. Leaving him out of the Everest expedition was a shock similar to leaving Jimmy Greaves out of the 1966 World Cup team. No-one would suggest that he was an easy or even likeable man in many respects, in particular his laziness and prima donna attitude when it came to climbing and load carrying. But there are plenty of climbers around today who aren't well liked or easy to get on with; but they are better climbers than 'nicer' blokes. Bonnington chose his team on the basis of 'the team' being a succesful mix of personalities. This however would rankle anyone who knew they were a better man for the job but saw themselves sidelined by a less able man. In whatever respect you regard such disappointment would depend upon your personality and I suggested that DW would see it in the terms I described. These may not be accurate, but nevertheless would be heartfelt. For my part I think there may have been more than a grain of truth in his perspective although I accept entirely that he was in many ways his own worst enemy as you suggested. Having read the book I think I would have preferred to have him climbing with me (not that I could for a second) than any of the other members of the expedition because not only was he a better, more experienced and more careful climber, at least with him what you saw was what you got.
I think you could be right that DW might have viewed his exclusion from the Everest exp. partly in the way you described.
Possibly no one would have been able to tell him differently. Even the person who might dare suggest that Burke was just as working class, just as Northern and just as abrasive a character. Equally, Boyson and 'Tut' Braithwaite were certainly not public school, so why were they going?.
Their reasons for excluding him, I would like to think, were purely down to his own 'self-serving strategies' and work avoidance, but who knows.
I remember from the book, one point which also might be seen as Bonnington having made the right decision (or it having been made for him). DW went to Denali in 1976 and whilst all his peers of the time where climbing new hard routes on high peaks, DW was reduced to plodding up one of the easy ridges. The point being that physically he could prehaps also have been seen as spent by that time. I found it quite sad that JP suggests later that DWs role on expeditions was almost reduced to camp jester, as he was unable to play any serious role on the mountain.
Your last comments are quite true for the likes of us who might feel safe with someone with those atributes, but in the DW story he was climbing with people who considered themselves at least his equal. They would almost certainly have had the opinion that they didn't need to be on the mountain with someone who didn't do their fair share, from basics like making cups of tea and cooking, to load hauling. If I'd have been in their shoes, I could have seen myself arguing against his inclusion, nothing to do with class.
Having just finished the book I thought JP handled it all very well. That DW was reduced to such a sad role is part of the story and, I suppose, part of the tragedy.
.jpg)
