Man, this is one of those questions that pops up in climbing forums every few months. I'm not a mountaineer myself, but I read Krakauer's book when I was in college and then came across a bunch of the controversy later. His version is incredibly gripping—you feel the cold and the panic. But the accuracy? It's complicated.
A lot of the pushback came from other survivors, like guide Anatoli Boukreev, who argued Krakauer misrepresented his actions and decisions during the storm. Boukreev wrote 'The Climb' in response. Reading both, you get wildly different pictures of the same tragedy. Krakauer was a journalist on assignment, so he had that outsider's eye, but he was also a climber caught in the disaster, which inevitably colors the perspective. I tend to think it's a deeply personal and accurate account of what he experienced and perceived, but the mountain was so chaotic that day. A single 'accurate' account might be impossible. The debate itself is part of the story's legacy now.