Ok, I've just broken the 200 page mark. I'm not sure what the point of this book is. All of the chapters kinda read the same:
"They/he start(s) climbing, there will be a scene of distress, they/he descend(s) the mountain. The End."

There is nothing in the narration that tells me anything about the mountain, the individual challenge, the climbers involved, ... or anything else that might be interesting.

Mountain no. 6 is done and my thoughts so far are:

• Messner is a living testament to human endurance and willpower.
• The fact that he is still alive is a miracle.
• I think, when it comes to climbing a mountain, Messner is an incredibly egotistical and selfish person. Which I don´t mean as a criticism, because mountaineers, especially the professional ones, have to be that in order to achive their goals. With this book, I´m getting some fascinating insights into the psyche of a professional climber, which I´m always eager to learn about. But it makes me wonder if he really minded the public backlash and criticism as much as he tries to make me believe in his narrative.
• My favorite passages in this book are the ones in which Messner is up on a mountain and he has to face a dangerous situation. You can feel the tension in some of those passages and Messner´s almost haunted narrative style emphasises this even more. 

I have to say, though, so far it´s not my favorite book about the mountaineering world. I haven´t quite made out yet why. Maybe it´s the episodic feel of these small snippets about every mountain, maybe it´s the narrative style ... I simply don´t know. 

That is even possible to climb the highest mountains on earth in alpine style is still mind-boggling to me. And absolutely awe-inspiring.

I finished the chapter on Nanga Parbat.

I knew that Messner's brother died on their first trip there, but I didn't know the details. That must have been a difficult chapter in his life to write about  -- whether in this book or Messner's other works about this mountain -- but not as difficult as to try and go back to the mountain, to the very spot indeed, several times after the tragedy. 

Maybe it was some kind of way to deal with it? He doesn't say so, but just maybe it was?

I tried to make a start last night but ended up falling asleep after just a few pages. 

It was me, not the book. 

It's been a really long week. 

Anyway, from what I have read so far  - which is only a little bit of the introduction - my main question is still why the first couple of sections are introduced by quotes from Jon Krakauer. 

Seriously, whose idea was this?

Every time I've come across one so far, it's just made me go "ugh...".

Maybe I'm allergic?