An unpopular take on The Alpinist

A V wrote:

Here is a fantastic essay written by Marc Andre published in Alpinist magazine - worth a read

Obviously it is fun and addicting and immersive to risk your life to climb mountains, and to be fully aware you are almost certainly going to die climbing, and soon. Perhaps your death is just one unexpected sunbeam away, if that is the margin of safety you are counting on to keep you alive. That was my take away reading this. Also obvious is that anyone can appreciate nature, deeply and meaningfully, without putting their life at risk due to uncontrollable objective hazards like avalanches. 

Especially in hindsight, he appears to identify with the moth, which had no business up there in that climate, and died. Nature squashed him while he was on that "foothold" unlike in the anecdote where the FA climber chose not to step on the moth. He knew he was the moth, drawn to the flame, and he clearly had no interest in leading a long life. When you don't value your own life or respect the multitude of possibilities life can offer, it is easy to risk your life, but I'm not so sure devaluing one's life makes you a hero, instead of just someone really physically talented and motivated to perform dangerous stunts for a few years. The "waste" was that a guy this driven and articulate is dead. That's all. He could have raised some great kids, been a great teacher or coach or mentor, continued to write and inspire, found other hobbies to attack with the same passion, and on and on. But we'll never know.

A V wrote:

I think this is an overstatement - that trope of the suicidal alpinist is overplayed and shallow. All of the alpinists I have met really, really want to live and are closely in tune with objective hazards. They are deep in the climbing rabbit hole, because it's where they wanted to be. For every epic story of a close call, you get hundreds if not a thousand of mundane "we climbed the thing, nothing out of the ordinary happened" stories. It's easy to convince oneself to take a singular risk to get the reward of a fantastic adventure, but obviously the risk gets much higher as time goes on. 

If death is how we judge people - then it's good luck you're not on the other end of this post - you did that dinner plate traverse on the West Ridge of Mt. Washington, and I'd consider that to be sketchier than somebody soloing bullet WI4, quite honestly. Had you pulled one of those plates off, you would have potentially joined that list of people who were unfortunate to suffer the entropy of the mountains, in spite of their careful judgement. 

Really, the only way to not risk our lives and futures is to quit the sport entirely. Put the needle down. But obviously, many of us are never quite ready to do that - yourself included. 

Earlier in the thread I said that if I die climbing, feel free to judge me, and learn any lessons you can. I felt I could safely lead a loose 5.4 (at most?) pitch, once. But doing it 100 or 1,000 times, still seeking the same "thrill," would be a different kind of risk taking. I'm sure you agree.

bryans wrote:

Earlier in the thread I said that if I die climbing, feel free to judge me, and learn any lessons you can. 

bryans, I think that's the thing - sure we can look at an accident and attempt to learn what not to do, but I don't think that gives us some additional right to judge the person and tell everyone that the mistakes they made stopped them from leading a life one personally thinks is more fulfilling. 

I'm glad you're living your best life, but your best life as you've described it wouldn't be compatible with my own hopes, dreams, desires - etc - your path to happiness is not universal. And I'm not trying to personally attack you, it's just how it is - I wouldn't apply my own values onto someone else, because (1 I can't and (2 kinda weird to want to try and (3 I have enough foresight to know I'm wrong most of the time, which is easy enough for me to understand looking back at my younger self.  

I don't personally know what's best for every individual and thinking I do is at the very least callus. No one wanted Marc to pass, including Marc. If he got run over by a truck while walking to his car after buying groceries, I think we wouldn't have this conversation.  But since he took part in an objectively dangerous activity that isn't culturally accepted as the status quo, that gives us the right to judge how he lived his life? I say: no. Those objective risks were accepted without someone forcing him to do it. Nothing in life is without risk and furthermore, there's no guarantees.

My opinion, but this whole convo is far too close to what a moral panic looks like.

bryans wrote:

 he clearly had no interest in leading a long life. When you don't value your own life or respect the multitude of possibilities life can offer, it is easy to risk your life, but I'm not so sure devaluing one's life makes you a hero, instead of just someone really physically talented and motivated to perform dangerous stunts for a few years. The "waste" was that a guy this driven and articulate is dead. That's all. He could have raised some great kids, been a great teacher or coach or mentor, continued to write and inspire, found other hobbies to attack with the same passion, and on and on. But we'll never know.

Once again, you are making a ton of assumptions and drawing conclusions about somebody you didn't even know. He lived his life. He did things that brought joy and meaning to him. Just because you can't wrap your head around why he chose to live his life a particular way doesn't mean that it was a "waste".

Click baiting climbers culture of risk



I’m posting Andrew Bisharat’s latest Evening Sends article because it’s relevant to the thread.

Fair Warning;

-It is paywalled after the first few paragraphs. 

-Also judging by recent proj activity may cause 10 pages of argument. Apologies in advance.

Part of the writing not paywalled;

In “Free Solo,” there is a sequence in which the filmmakers attempt to establish just how deadly free soloing is by invoking the names of several famous dead climbers who were well-known for free-soloing. Many of these people, however, didn’t actually die free-soloing. The film doesn’t explicitly state that they do, however, so it’s not as if the filmmakers committed any kind of factual error. But they were attempting to lead viewers into believing that free soloing is deadlier than it is by including this segment.

It’s obvious why they did this: if viewers are made to believe that “even the very best free soloists can and often do die,” it raises the stakes for Alex Honnold, the main character of the film. It’s a technique that works well, too. “Free Solo” is a great film because we see Honnold free solo El Cap and rationally know that he will be fine, but emotionally feel as if we might witness the death of the world’s best rock climber—because it could happen to him, just like it has happened to many before him.

It is remarkable, actually, to consider how few of the most famous free soloists actually died free soloing. Dan Osman died rope jumping. Dean Potter died wingsuit BASE jumping. Michael Reardon was (allegedly) swept away by a rogue wave. Marc André Leclerc and Hansjorg Auer died in (separate) avalanches. Brad Gobright rappelled off the end of his rope. Only god knows what happened to Ueli Steck, but he wasn’t technically free soloing when he fell in the Himalaya.

There may be a fallacy in associating free soloing with death potential, just as there is a fallacy that causes most people to feel more scared to fly airplanes than drive cars, even among those who understand what the real statistics say. In other words, free soloing just feels immediately, viscerally, and obviously deadly and dangerous in ways that rappelling doesn’t, even though many more climbers have died and will continue to die rappelling.

(Also: of course, it would also be a fallacy to say that, because so few of the best climbers have died free soloing, free soloing is therefore safe. So few climbers even free solo; often those who do tend to be really good climbers, which is precisely the thing that makes free soloing “safe.” Hence, this may be an example of the McNamara fallacy. However, it might be true to say free soloing, in fact, is very deadly for climbers who are not really good climbers. But mediocre climbers tend not to free solo; therefore, we don’t really know.)

Having written lots about risk, consequences, death, and many of the attending questions of whether it’s “worth it” or if one’s motivations must be “pure” for it to justify the risk to themselves or others, I am of the opinion that … it’s really fucking complicated. The reasons why are complicated and so much of the moralizing and hand-wringing about these topics tends to become paternalistic.

Complicated questions and nuanced takes don’t make for good headlines. Readers, or so editors often think, won’t click on esoteric subjects like climbing if there isn’t a hook that confirms their priors, which is that climbers always continue to do the thing that will ultimately kill them—the thing about which they are too dumb and too blinded by their own ambition and driven by their inflated egos to recognize will lead to their demise.

My take of the film, fwiw...

I thought the solo footage was breathtaking. And Marc seemed like a good-hearted, sweet and unique guy. But as a film, it didn't resonate much for me. His death was super sad, but I thought the rest was really lacking in the storytelling department. The filmmakers obviously realized that, so they tried to do a meta thing, like "Let's draw attention to the challenge of tracking a protagonist who's a ghost, who doesn't provide a viewer with the expectations of a usual lead protagonist." But that never solves the problem. It felt more like a collage of climbs, watching someone from the outside, not the inside. Makes for great footage, but not great cinema. 

Long Ranger wrote:

bryans, I think that's the thing - sure we can look at an accident and attempt to learn what not to do, but I don't think that gives us some additional right to judge the person and tell everyone that the mistakes they made stopped them from leading a life one personally thinks is more fulfilling. 

I'm glad you're living your best life, but your best life as you've described it wouldn't be compatible with my own hopes, dreams, desires - etc - your path to happiness is not universal. And I'm not trying to personally attack you, it's just how it is - I wouldn't apply my own values onto someone else, because (1 I can't and (2 kinda weird to want to try and (3 I have enough foresight to know I'm wrong most of the time, which is easy enough for me to understand looking back at my younger self.  

I don't personally know what's best for every individual and thinking I do is at the very least callus. No one wanted Marc to pass, including Marc. If he got run over by a truck while walking to his car after buying groceries, I think we wouldn't have this conversation.  But since he took part in an objectively dangerous activity that isn't culturally accepted as the status quo, that gives us the right to judge how he lived his life? I say: no. Those objective risks were accepted without someone forcing him to do it. Nothing in life is without risk and furthermore, there's no guarantees.

My opinion, but this whole convo is far too close to what a moral panic looks like.

Moral panic? Path to happiness? Best life? Knowing what's best for every individual? Those are your words, not mine! I wish I had better morals or knew how to be happier more often, or had any assurance I was leading my best life! :) 

I just thought the silence in the other Alpinist thread was deafening, and the only voices were fanboys like yay bro, way to keep it real, you are our hero for dying doing what you love doing. At least this thread has a diversity of opinions, which has its benefits and might let some of us reflect on why we take the risks we take. I was definitely not expecting consensus when I called my comment "an unpopular take."

Cole Darby wrote:

Click baiting climbers culture of risk



I’m posting Andrew Bisharat’s latest Evening Sends article because it’s relevant to the thread.

Fair Warning;

-It is paywalled after the first few paragraphs. 

-Also judging by recent proj activity may cause 10 pages of argument. Apologies in advance.

Part of the writing not paywalled;

In “Free Solo,” there is a sequence in which the filmmakers attempt to establish just how deadly free soloing is by invoking the names of several famous dead climbers who were well-known for free-soloing. Many of these people, however, didn’t actually die free-soloing. The film doesn’t explicitly state that they do, however, so it’s not as if the filmmakers committed any kind of factual error. But they were attempting to lead viewers into believing that free soloing is deadlier than it is by including this segment.

It’s obvious why they did this: if viewers are made to believe that “even the very best free soloists can and often do die,” it raises the stakes for Alex Honnold, the main character of the film. It’s a technique that works well, too. “Free Solo” is a great film because we see Honnold free solo El Cap and rationally know that he will be fine, but emotionally feel as if we might witness the death of the world’s best rock climber—because it could happen to him, just like it has happened to many before him.

It is remarkable, actually, to consider how few of the most famous free soloists actually died free soloing. Dan Osman died rope jumping. Dean Potter died wingsuit BASE jumping. Michael Reardon was (allegedly) swept away by a rogue wave. Marc André Leclerc and Hansjorg Auer died in (separate) avalanches. Brad Gobright rappelled off the end of his rope. Only god knows what happened to Ueli Steck, but he wasn’t technically free soloing when he fell in the Himalaya.

There may be a fallacy in associating free soloing with death potential, just as there is a fallacy that causes most people to feel more scared to fly airplanes than drive cars, even among those who understand what the real statistics say. In other words, free soloing just feels immediately, viscerally, and obviously deadly and dangerous in ways that rappelling doesn’t, even though many more climbers have died and will continue to die rappelling.

(Also: of course, it would also be a fallacy to say that, because so few of the best climbers have died free soloing, free soloing is therefore safe. So few climbers even free solo; often those who do tend to be really good climbers, which is precisely the thing that makes free soloing “safe.” Hence, this may be an example of the McNamara fallacy. However, it might be true to say free soloing, in fact, is very deadly for climbers who are not really good climbers. But mediocre climbers tend not to free solo; therefore, we don’t really know.)

Having written lots about risk, consequences, death, and many of the attending questions of whether it’s “worth it” or if one’s motivations must be “pure” for it to justify the risk to themselves or others, I am of the opinion that … it’s really fucking complicated. The reasons why are complicated and so much of the moralizing and hand-wringing about these topics tends to become paternalistic.

Complicated questions and nuanced takes don’t make for good headlines. Readers, or so editors often think, won’t click on esoteric subjects like climbing if there isn’t a hook that confirms their priors, which is that climbers always continue to do the thing that will ultimately kill them—the thing about which they are too dumb and too blinded by their own ambition and driven by their inflated egos to recognize will lead to their demise.

Most soloists don't die soloing but soloing can give a person an invincibility complex. Pull off some amazing solos and no doubt these guys feel untouchable, so then in the end it's less serious stuff that gets them.

Marc struck me as suffering from savant syndrome. I don't think he was manipulated directly by the film crew or sponsors but that had they not appeared is his life he might have taken a different track and perhaps survived. I don't know, it's hard to say but I can guarantee that filming and sponsors created an incentive to solo more agressively and opened up new doors to do more risky climbs.

bryans wrote:

I just thought the silence in the other Alpinist thread was deafening, and the only voices were fanboys like yay bro, way to keep it real, you are our hero for dying doing what you love doing.  

Most of that thread was COVID talk. Those who actually commented on the movie  had positive responses towards the movie and Marc. I'm having a hard time finding all the fanboys stating "you are our hero for dying what you love doing".

bryans wrote:

Moral panic? Path to happiness? Best life? Knowing what's best for every individual? Those are your words, not mine! I wish I had better morals or knew how to be happier more often, or had any assurance I was leading my best life! :) 

But you also say, 

He could have raised some great kids, been a great teacher or coach or mentor, continued to write and inspire, found other hobbies to attack with the same passion, and on and on. But we'll never know.

Not everyone wants that laundry list of things. You stated you've found joy in those - cool. But can you see how applying the path to your own joy to others isn't productive? Marc owes no debt to use for not living a life we suppose for him.

Kenneth Campbell wrote:

You can guarantee?  Please do explain this and the data you have to back it up. 

It's only natural to be influenced by sponsors and film crew, I think anyone with those would tell you so. 

In these soloist movies the subject is even touched upon but then shrugged off for the sake of the show. It's unsettling and these types of documentaries should not be made anymore.

Bill W wrote:

It's only natural to be influenced by wife and kids, I think anyone with those would tell you so. 

Missed this thread,  but the movie came up on Netflix and I've now watched it twice.  

Awesome free soloing, onsight, in some ways more impressive than Honnold in Free Solo. I didnt know the story, so the ending was a surprise, though also somewhat expected.  Like Free Solo, I think it did a good job of both glorifying and yet not glorifying free soloing.   

Anyway, if you haven't seen it, do. And then go climbing (with a rope), and imagine yourself there without one.

I appreciated the honesty about his party life before he got good, especially the part where they said his friends would all take a hit of acid and party all night while Marc would take 6 hits and disappear for a day or two. That helped explain a lot about his brain to me.

Speaking of brains, The River Runner is a doozy of a film as well. I especially liked the ending where he teams up with all the new blood for his final quest to run the 4 big rivers. 200 class 5 rapids in a day is complete insanity!

He lived life how he wanted. Clearly not how you want to live your life but that doesn’t matter. Pursuing your passion or love will never be a waste in my eyes.

All of us are exploited. Taxes, work, data, etc. good luck living an unexploited life and being capable of pursuing your passion. Or even just following the well trodden path of job, marriage, kids, mediocrity, death. Still gonna require getting exploited, a lot.

He definitely didn't get too exploited, certainly not on the level of the typical Red Bull athlete. Red bull exploits the land, the sports and the athletes. How he formed his desire to take it to that level is something we will never know.

Or even just following the well trodden path of job, marriage, kids, mediocrity, death. 

I think, as a soloist, and maybe a pro climber in general, you have to survive your career to be considered a success. The younger you fall, the less your exploits seem reasonable

I have to say?

The tiny, tiny, teaser that circulated when reel rock first went out? That caused gasps from all of us watching. SPECTACULAR footage....no words. No narration. No text. No title. No explanation. Just .....that solo footage. 

The Alpinist was good....but that teaser was a rare Holy Crap WTF!! moment. 

Best, H.