Steve House and the Russian Way

As an alpinist who uses House as a model for my approach to climbing, I wanted to bring attention to an article I read that I hope will prompt discussion about ethics.

climbing.com/exclusive/feat…

"Yet there exists a category of people with a firm knowledge of how one is supposed to live. For them, personal happiness isn’t enough; they need to make others happy. To them, it’s absolutely necessary that everyone around them live life by their patterns. If such a zealot is given no power, he is merely amusing and is quite harmless. But God forbid that he is given the means to try out his recipe on others."

This comment in the article really bothered me. It's pretty harsh criticism of House's opinions, but I find this argument a little ridiculous. It should be generally easy to see that leaving a bunch of crap behind when you leave the mountain is not acceptable, and this cannot be chalked down to differences in opinion or one person forcing their opinion on others.

Great article. I wonder when it was written?

The philosophical discussion on "means" was intriguing to say the least.

" As suggested by this article, House pushes / promotes his style to the climbing world. I suspect he does this largely to prevent trash (ie ropes) from littering the mountains in only but the most dire of situations. This article vindicates Russian style; however, it is not siege tactic that bothers me about the Russian ascent. What bothers me is the fact they left the range with all that manpower without retrieving their ropes. Having this said, I will not judge the team until I understand their circumstances. "

There are two separate issues the article doesn't really distinguish the difference or emphasize equally.
1. Russians approach = a product of their circumstances and culture - hard for me to fully comprehend as an American.
2. House's sermon = style. - i think is valuable in the way that it sets a higher standard for abandoning ropes.

I think something that detracts when he relays a message; if he could dial it down a little bit and inspire more, his point of view would come across better.

dirtbag wrote:" As suggested by this article, House pushes / promotes his style to the climbing world. I suspect he does this largely to prevent trash (ie ropes) from littering the mountains in only but the most dire of situations. This article vindicates Russian style; however, it is not siege tactic that bothers me about the Russian ascent. What bothers me is the fact they left the range with all that manpower without retrieving their ropes. Having this said, I will not judge the team until I understand their circumstances. " There are two separate issues the article doesn't really distinguish the difference or emphasize equally. 1. Russians approach = a product of their circumstances and culture - hard for me to fully comprehend as an American. 2. House's sermon = style. - i think is valuable in the way that it sets a higher standard for abandoning ropes.

+1

For me this all boils down to a single point, however complicated it may be by the above. I firmly stand behind Steve's ethics because I believe the he has demonstrated the ability to bring himself up to the mountains level and not by brining the mountain down to his level utilizing large amount of rope, pitons, and a drill along with oxygen.

Maybe I am a bit of a cowboy though!?!

I think it's not only the idea that the Russians are climbing in what we think of as bad style and leaving trash, but are winning awards for it that pisses House off. The fact that the Russians won the Piolet d' Or after climbing in siege style and leaving fixed ropes is hard to understand.

I agree that House comes off as a little full of himself, and awards in alpinism shouldn't matter at all, but I might be angry if I were him, too.

Garrett Soper wrote:I think it's not only the idea that the Russians are climbing in what we think of as bad style and leaving trash, but are winning awards for it that pisses House off. The fact that the Russians won the Piolet d' Or after climbing in siege style and leaving fixed ropes is hard to understand. I agree that House comes off as a little full of himself, and awards in alpinism shouldn't matter at all, but I might be angry if I were him, too.

True dat!

GOod points Garett... winning awards for a climb where a mountain is left trashed encourages other parties to behave the same way. F*** that. Regarding House being full of himself, I think people are a) a bit sensitive b)a bit harsh on him c)jealous. ALso, IMO, it helps to be full of yourself when you are committed. that's another topic though and i won't comment on it any further.

Anyways, after reading the article I softened a bit for the Russians. I'm coming back to where I was now - no excuses, or at the very least NO AWARDS... i'm a young alpinist and these are new issues to me.

Old news, this article is about 2 years old and has been beat to death.

What's that, situational ethics?

From Steve's book:

"Unceremoniously, we leave everything we will no longer need at 17,200 feet: our rack of pitons, ice screws, rock gear and carabiners, one rope, all three helmets. ... As much as I hate to leave this trash, it is the price of survival."

Yep.

Brian in SLC wrote:What's that, situational ethics? From Steve's book: "Unceremoniously, we leave everything we will no longer need at 17,200 feet: our rack of pitons, ice screws, rock gear and carabiners, one rope, all three helmets. ... As much as I hate to leave this trash, it is the price of survival." Yep.

I hear you there but that is also about 1% or what the Russians left.

Garett and Mark, i wasn't implying you were a, b, c. I am just saying that I think this is often the case... actually, i'm especially guilty of being harsh on people, jealous, ensitive, and even full of myself which - probably why I feel inclined to explain myself. Thanks for the conversation while i'm stuck in ohio.

Aaron M wrote: I hear you there but that is also about 1% or what the Russians left.

Agreed. Didn't Kelly Cordes and Josh Wharton leave a fixed rope on Azeem Ridge, too?

The clear difference I see in the case of Steve House and Kelly Cordes and Josh Wharton is the intention of going up and taking everything off with you when you're done. Sometimes a situation is created where something must be left, but this was never the plan. They realize they are visitors for a very short time, and try to leave things as they are as best they can.

I see this as very different from the attitude of the Russians, who intended to or planned on having to drill, fix ropes, live on the wall. Sure, they could have done Jannu in this style and cleaned everything off at the end, but it seems like sieging the mountain lends itself to leaving a bunch of crap there.

Maybe that's the key difference between their approaches. In House's approach, if you're screwed and have to leave stuff, you leave your helmets and a rack. In the Russian approach, if you're screwed and have to leave stuff, you leave hundreds of feet of fixed rope and who knows what else.

Hi,

I have followed much disscusion surrounding this climb and others,
but I don't have the answers to these questions.

I read The Russian Way. I really appreciate the way the article provides a window into a foreign and fascinating climbing culture.

A second article, also very good, is The Walls, The Walls
By Alexander Odintsov, Alpinist, Number 19.

If somebody could post a link, I think the community wold appreciate it.

Together, these article shows that the Russians have a profound, true, deep relationship to the mountains--it is just different from the most recent, modern, Western view.

Taking these cultural differences into account, I still feel that leaving gear on wild mountains is somehow wrong. But I also very much believe in the quote at the start of this thread--about the danger of people imposing their views and judgments on others.

Therefore, like I said, I don't have the answers.

Certainly a good discussion.

Bruno

You think that Steve House is hard on the Russians, you should read this!

alpinestyle.blog.com/2007/1…

For those of you who don't know, Vince Anderson climbed the Rupal face with Steve. That assent granted them the Piolet d'Or.

I agree with whoever above said that it's two issues. Style to me is personal. You want to free the Nose? Awesome. You want to aid the Nose? Cool. You want to rappel the Nose from the top? Knock yourself out. My personal style may dictate that we don't enjoy climbs together but I'm not going to judge you based on that. Any one of those options is a step above the sit on the couch and get fatter style IMNSHO.

Everyone gets to define the style they aspire and adhere to. Steve's climbs are inspiring. I don't agree with Steve saying that siegeing Jannu is a step backwards nor do I think there should be awards in alpinism. The Russians certainly suffered mightily to put the route up that face and someone lead every pitch, ropes fixed behind or not. The option is there for anyone to return and improve on the style. And if you feel so strongly and do better, remove any fixed gear on the way up. Chopping bolts in the alpine certainly is a much more committing endeavor than those who rap in from the tops of a local crag!

The other issue is leaving trash. LNT is a great philosophy that I certainly aspire to but there is no way that every climb can be done, descended and zero trace of passage is left. Sure some lines can be descended with ropes through v-threads or off trees and without leaving fixed gear but it's by no means every climb. The question then becomes a matter of degree. If the Russians left fixed ropes and camps on the mountain, that's disappointing. It's also disappointing about all the trash on Everest. Steve himself has left gear on more than one occasion by his own writings. Twight writes about tossing the spent rope in the bergshrund. Those things are also disappointing. We should all strive to leave the outdoors how we found it, leaving a minimum of impact and encouraging others to do the same. Does a debate about "style" only distract from this? Maybe it does.

Just a few pennies..

First of all, I just want to say to a couple of you that the number one guideline when posting on this site is "don't be a jerk." Everyone has their own opinions and we need to respect them.

I think the real question is do any of us have the right to be in the mountains? Climbing as well as approaching and descending can be destructive enough, let alone leaving gear behind.

Weather in the mountains or not, most of us have left something behind while climbing: webbing, toilet paper, a cigarette butt, a stuck piece of gear... AND things get dropped, lost, and resurface days, weeks, months or even years later.

I don't like siege-style climbing and I will never do it; however, I can't say for certain that if in the end, this type of climbing is any less environmentally friendly than other types of climbing.

Before any of us have the right to bash any other climbers/styles/ethics, we need spend less time bitching at each other on the forums and more time rallying together and contribute to cleaning up crags, mountains, bouldering venues, and any other climbing areas we love. Respect the mountains and respect each other.

Brian in SLC wrote:What's that, situational ethics? From Steve's book: "Unceremoniously, we leave everything we will no longer need at 17,200 feet: our rack of pitons, ice screws, rock gear and carabiners, one rope, all three helmets. ... As much as I hate to leave this trash, it is the price of survival." Yep.

I can sympathize with Steve's reasoning and the Russians. Most of us, well at least me, will not face environs so corporaly hostile they force intentional equipment abandonment.

What I often find mentally intolerable, without fail, is driving anywhere more then 15 minutes in suburbia during warm weather and seeing drivers pollute roads with cigarette butts.

I don't think there is much to discuss here.

It's clear that Steve and the Russians generally share the same ethics. Both parties intend to clean the mountain of any sign of their passing. Steve and company generally do a much better job than the Russians but he is also not perfect. The Russians intend to clear the mountain of all their gear but don't always do as through a job.

The style of ascent of each is just different. The Russian style is old school and very successful but not necessarily any better than alpine style. Doing an ascent with less gear, less sponsorship and less fuss is always admirable but success on a face the scale of Jannu and K2 is also admirable. For its time the first ascent of The Nose on El cap was admirable and amazing. Just because now Hans and company can climb the same route in less than 3 hours doesn't take anything away from the vision and success of the FA.

Steve House is more of a purist and prefers climbing in a more minimalist style than these Russians or many other people. Other Russians climb in a simular style as Steve. Notice the new routes in the Kumbu area that have gone up on Cholatse and also the route up Changabang's North face.

Regarding Steve "being full of himself", well, that's understandable but harsh. Anyone who feels strongly about ethics will come across in a more fervent manner than those who don't feel as passionate about the same subject. Robbins feeling strongly about clean climbing, Ken Wilson coming out against the use of chalk in rock climbing, Chouinard advocating more corporate responsibility towards the environment etc etc. Any one of these climbers could be considered zealots and full of themselves when in actuality they are concerned more about the future of the sport they love.

Really the only concern or criticism that can be leveled at the Russians is if they intentionally left trash on the hill and at their basecamp. Style can always be improved on. So can ethics but ethics effect everyone. Style doesn't.