Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
that several of the Annapurna victors were seriously injured, their wives were given
not a shred of information. “They insist they have had no news, but no one can ignore
the likelihood that they are kept in absolute darkness by M. Lucien Devies because of
the exclusive contract the Fédération Française de la Montagne [FFM] has granted to
the newspaper
Le Figaro.
”
A few voices spoke out in defense of Devies and Herzog. In
La Montagne et Alpin-
isme,
Claude Deck pooh-poohed the controversy as a tempest in a teapot. The distinc-
tion between professionals and amateurs in climbing was obsolete by 1950, Deck main-
tained. The contract interdicting publication for five years had been a normal expedi-
tion practice for decades. No one had censored Lachenal: rather, Gérard Herzog, at the
request of Lachenal, had collaborated in a biography. (This was nonsense, as Philippe
Cornuau pointed out in a letter to Deck: “Gérard never had any contact with Lachen-
al in connection with this topic.”) There was no evidence, Deck argued, that Lachenal
really wanted his diary published.
Deck grew passionate in praise of Devies, who, he acknowledged, had long been
editor-in-chief of
La Montagne et Alpinisme:
“It is indecent that anyone should so
lightly betray the memory of Lucien Devies. . . . All his authority derived from his
intense labor and from a great intellectual rigor.” Deck ridiculed the notion of the
FFM—“with its two desks and four chairs at the foot of a staircase”—wielding the
power to suppress uncomfortable truths.
Inevitably, the journals sought out Herzog for comment, and he was willing to talk.
The stance he consistently took was one of earnest puzzlement that any controversy
had arisen. He had nothing to hide;
Annapurna
after all told the whole story. Thus,
interviewed by
Le Monde,
Herzog baldly stated, “What I wrote in
Annapurna
is the
exact truth. I am willing to put myself in the line of fire if anyone says I lied about
anything. My writings have never been contradicted.”
As for the sharper entries in Lachenal's diary, these Herzog attributed to the passion
of the moment, spontaneous outbursts of discontent or disappointment. “One consigns
these feelings to the page [of one's diary], and there they stay.”
Montagnes
asked Herzog about Ballu's story of the Himalayan Committee member
threatening Lachenal's job if he tried to publish in 1951. “I find it bewildering to
picture Lachenal suppressed like this! Imagine, in that climate of apotheosis—to fire
Lachenal from ENSA would have caused a veritable scandal! No minister would have
taken the risk.”
The so-called censorship of Lachenal's diary? “There was no blocking of inform-
ation. If none of those passages were published, it's because they didn't interest the
