"Here to Climb" -- Sasha DiGiulian Doc on HBO

I would also argue that being asked to be on late night talk shows is not self promotion. Who knows how she would have turned out in a social media kinda world though. I mean my understanding is that Lynn still hustles to make money and travel….

Watching this documentary isn't as enjoyable as watching "The Alpinist" of course. That dude was awesome, and humble as fuck. It just might be worth watching in a hotel room on a work trip after watching End Game or some other such junk. 

I deleted my shit because fuck me I'm the asshole here. 

I'm still interested on the philanthropy shit, because I want to honestly see good work and I'll hold my opinion until I understand what's that all about. 

Take Janja Garnbret as a current example.  She dominates comp climbing utterly and completely right now.  She wins everything she enters, often by a long stretch.  And I think she's another Red Bull athlete (like Sasha).  But the two couldn't be more different when they talk about their accomplishments.   Listen to an interview with Janja and then listen to one with Sasha and you'll see what I mean.

There is a marketing approach that involves touting your achievements, setting aside all modesty, exuding bravado. The first time I saw someone do this was as a kid: Muhammed Ali talked about himself in over-the-top terms as the "greatest in history" (though at the time he probably was).  It was jarring to a lot of people who wanted their heroes to be modest and humble. But for him it worked.  It is almost a meme now in boxing, but still a rarity in most other sports.

Too much of the climbing community seems to love to hate when a climber expands their success form the insular climbing community to the greater public.   It turns out, the general public doesnt care if that 14d was really a 14c or whatever (and neither do I, because I can't climb any of that stuff lol). The world needs more positivity and less bickering. I'm glad to see Sasha, Alex, Chouinard, etc out there being a positive force outside. 

Chris C wrote:

Too much of the climbing community seems to love to hate when a climber expands their success form the insular climbing community to the greater public.   It turns out, the general public doesnt care if that 14d was really a 14c or whatever (and neither do I, because I can't climb any of that stuff lol). The world needs more positivity and less bickering. I'm glad to see Sasha, Alex, Chouinard, etc out there being a positive force outside. 

This depends entirely on what you categorize as a “positive force”. You could easily argue that two of the three people you listed have contributed far less, physically, than any old developer.

This was discussed during the Kinder debacle. Those in support of Joe pointed out that he did far more for climbing (from a developers perspective) then Sasha had. With Sasha’s shift into politics that argument obviously holds less merit, but you can see how the opposition might have argued this. 

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

This depends entirely on what you categorize as a “positive force”. You could easily argue that two of the three people you listed have contributed far less, physically, than any old developer.

The value of one doesn’t have to negate the value of another. 

Chris C wrote:

The value of one doesn’t have to negate the value of another. 

How philosophical of you, however at no point did I say that, nor intend to imply that lol

I’ll put it more crass for you. Some people might not give a shit, or find any value in what Alex Honnold, Sasha, or even Lynn Hill have done to/for climbing whereas they value very highly the work done by prolific developers like as Porter Jerrard, Boone Speed, Owen Summerscales, and many, many more. This does not necessarily negate what Honnold, Sasha, or Lynn have done, but to some it is quite meaningless, comparatively.

Eric Marx wrote:

I will watch it because I will watch anything with Lynn Hill in it lol.

Odd, I started climbing around the time Sasha was emerging as a top level climber, and somehow I missed all of this controversy and self-promotion until this thread. Have a lot of climbing drama to catch up on. One thing I noticed was that she never seemed to have a lot of “climbing friends” of similar caliber, but I always wondered if she just preferred doing her own thing.

Separate from whatever Sasha may have said, I do find climbers much more self-deprecating/self-loathing than almost any other sport. You never hear snowboarders talking about the meaninglessness of riding a piece of wood down a mountain, or football players talking about how useless it is to run a ball around a contrived set of lines in a field, or bodybuilders talking about how meaningless it all is, and so on, but a common climber refrain is that we participate in the most contrived, selfish, and meaningless sport imaginable. It’s not any more contrived or meaningless than any other sport.

Rock climbing is cool as hell and we should take pride in an activity which brings us joy, health, friendships, relationships, and wild experiences. Shameless self-promotion aside, the climbing community could use a little less “move in silence” and a little more psyche-building.

Can’t complain about how poorly climbing athletes are paid if we also want them to shut up about it and only talk about how we are the conquistadors of the useless.

For me, “Conquistadors of the Useless,” in addition to being a great read, points to the revelatory and transcendent contradiction of finding deep meaning in the absurd. It’s not self-deprecating or self-loathing, but joyous self-overcoming. To paraphrase Terray, it’s laying claim to an enterprise to which one can give one’s whole life and in pursuit of which, from time to time, we may momentarily cease to be slaves.

Andy Wiesner wrote:

For me, “Conquistadors of the Useless,” in addition to being a great read, points to the revelatory and transcendent contradiction of finding deep meaning in the absurd. It’s not self-deprecating or self-loathing, but joyous self-overcoming. To paraphrase Terray, it’s laying claim to an enterprise to which one can give one’s whole life and in pursuit of which, from time to time, we may momentarily cease to be slaves.

Drifting well OT here, but I wonder how many reading this thread, or on MP in general, especially those under 30 ( even under 50), know what you a referring to when you mention Conquistadors of the Useless--let alone have read it, or any of the other climbing classics. I believe that if folks had read and 'understood' those books, we'd have fewer of such threads as  'This trend is horrible...'.

Eric Craig wrote:

Well put Alan.

The problem from my (our?) perspective would be that people today don't take away the same things from reading books,  that I (we?) did.

If I  am wrong,  then "Starlight and Storm ", "Between Heaven and Earth ", and "Ice and Snow and Rock " should be mandatory reading for all who participate in guiding activities. For starters. 

I'm being judgemental, but I wonder how much folks are even reading anything today ( not at all just thinking about climbing classics). Bringing this back closer to being On Topic, it seems that many (most?) are probably getting their information from things like this film or just short bursts on social media, with little or no deeper background. I am well aware that 'background knowledge ' is not necessary for folks to enjoy climbing or even be physically extremely good at it ( and that many do participate that way). However I do strongly believe that having such knowledge does add greatly to the individual's experience and, more importantly, helps create and maintain a community with shared heritage and values. But then, I'm just a crusty old history nerd....

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

This was discussed during the Kinder debacle. Those in support of Joe pointed out that he did far more for climbing (from a developers perspective) then Sasha had. With Sasha’s shift into politics that argument obviously holds less merit, but you can see how the opposition might have argued this. 

I must have missed the outpouring of support for the juniper cutting, fat shaming from a burner account guy

Alan Rubin wrote:

I'm being judgemental, but I wonder how much folks are even reading anything today ( not at all just thinking about climbing classics). Bringing this back closer to being On Topic, it seems that many (most?) are probably getting their information from things like this film or just short bursts on social media, with little or no deeper background. I am well aware that 'background knowledge ' is not necessary for folks to enjoy climbing or even be physically extremely good at it ( and that many do participate that way). However I do strongly believe that having such knowledge does add greatly to the individual's experience and, more importantly, helps create and maintain a community with shared heritage and values. But then, I'm just a crusty old history nerd....

Certainly people (of all ages)  are reading hard copy paper books less these days.  Book circulation at libraries is way down but e versions are way up in usage.  There is more information easily available then ever.  More in accurate bad info too because its so easily "published".  I'm sure at some point someone cursed the printing press for its ability to mass produce faulty propaganda.  The one constant - the times they are a changing

Alan Rubin wrote:

I'm being judgemental, but I wonder how much folks are even reading anything today ( not at all just thinking about climbing classics). Bringing this back closer to being On Topic, it seems that many (most?) are probably getting their information from things like this film or just short bursts on social media, with little or no deeper background. I am well aware that 'background knowledge ' is not necessary for folks to enjoy climbing or even be physically extremely good at it ( and that many do participate that way). However I do strongly believe that having such knowledge does add greatly to the individual's experience and, more importantly, helps create and maintain a community with shared heritage and values. But then, I'm just a crusty old history nerd....

Going to go out on a limb here to posit that this is a spin on the Golden Age Fallacy.  

I'm 34.  My climbing/mountaineering non-fiction shelf has no less than 65 titles last count, many I have read multiple times.  There are so many other climbers of my generation that read and re-read climbing narratives and historical accounts.  There are also so many other climbers who don't give 2 hoots about reading about climbing.  I'm definitely not convinced that this has changed from 40yrs ago.  

The thing that has changed is that we have platforms like MP where a single person, often of the non-versed-in-climbing-history variety, can come an make their voice heard loud and clear.  And since Cunningham's law exists, that un-informed opinion will get lots of attention and seem to be more widely held than it is.  

In hopes of not over-simplifying- other things have changed. Like the introduction of social media and with it the desire to "go-viral", the ever increasing fear-based/risk averse mindset, the ever increasing availability and thus normalization of instant gratification.  

Despite these trends, I'm still very skeptical that there was a golden age of climbing where the majority was steeped in tradition and history.  I suspect all along most people just want to have fun at the crag.  We want to define "fun" for ourselves.  We want to believe that our reality is the true reality.  

And you likely have a kernel of truth to throw back at me so I WILL concede that if I were a betting man, I'd bet a smaller percentage of the population reads a book on a weekly basis than 50 yrs ago.

Alas, we have the Olympic Qualifier's streaming this weekend, otherwise I'd be watching this SDG doc on my lazy Sunday.  But I did thoroughly enjoy Russ Clune's Fool's Goal yesterday, having brought a hard copy of The High Lonesome on a quick overnight backpack over the last 2 days.

Top Roper wrote:

I must have missed the outpouring of support for the juniper cutting, fat shaming from a burner account guy

You’re from Washington, that checks out. 

Andy Shoemaker wrote:

Going to go out on a limb here to posit that this is a spin on the Golden Age Fallacy.  

I'm 34.  My climbing/mountaineering non-fiction shelf has no less than 65 titles last count, many I have read multiple times.  There are so many other climbers of my generation that read and re-read climbing narratives and historical accounts.  There are also so many other climbers who don't give 2 hoots about reading about climbing.  I'm definitely not convinced that this has changed from 40yrs ago.  

The thing that has changed is that we have platforms like MP where a single person, often of the non-versed-in-climbing-history variety, can come an make their voice heard loud and clear.  And since Cunningham's law exists, that un-informed opinion will get lots of attention and seem to be more widely held than it is.  

In hopes of not over-simplifying- other things have changed. Like the introduction of social media and with it the desire to "go-viral", the ever increasing fear-based/risk averse mindset, the ever increasing availability and thus normalization of instant gratification.  

Despite these trends, I'm still very skeptical that there was a golden age of climbing where the majority was steeped in tradition and history.  I suspect all along most people just want to have fun at the crag.  We want to define "fun" for ourselves.  We want to believe that our reality is the true reality.  

And you likely have a kernel of truth to throw back at me so I WILL concede that if I were a betting man, I'd bet a smaller percentage of the population reads a book on a weekly basis than 50 yrs ago.

Alas, we have the Olympic Qualifier's streaming this weekend, otherwise I'd be watching this SDG doc on my lazy Sunday.  But I did thoroughly enjoy Russ Clune's Fool's Goal yesterday, having brought a hard copy of The High Lonesome on a quick overnight backpack over the last 2 days.

Hello Andy, I'm glad that you and your friends are reading those books. While I hope that I am wrong, I still believe that you are in a minority in that regard. My evidence is only anecdotal--mostly from my personal experience, but those experiences have given me a very different impression. Again, I hope that my 'sample' is not representative.

I can say with more 'authority' though, that back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, the climbing community was much smaller and tended to concentrate in fewer areas, but there was consistently a common shared 'pool' of information. In the earlier period, there were definitely fewer books and sources of information ( and many of those had fairly recently been published), so it was more likely that folks had read the same things---but most had read them ( today many are ancient history). Additionally, much information was spread by word-of-mouth as well, usually around campfires and picnic tables. Once Mountain Magazine appeared, followed a few years later by Climbing and Rock and Ice there was even more common knowledge circulating, much of it providing historical background. More books appeared as well, and again, it seemed common that many had read them, even some who proclaimed otherwise. I recall at a meeting once, that a very prominent climber stated: "Climbing is something I do, not read about", but then within a few minutes made references to points obtained from books that he was indeed familiar with.

So, while I don't consider that time period to be any sort of special "golden age", from my experience, I do believe there was a greater awareness of the 'literature' of climbing, and more of a shared acceptance of the messages contained within it.

With this response, I have, fortunately, reached my post limit on this topic for the day.

Alan Rubin wrote:

I can say with more 'authority' though, that back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 

Fair enough.  I concede I have many fewer decades of experience interacting with the climbing community.  And it looks like we agree that now as before some people care about the history and tradition and some folks are really only focused on the climbing. Seems like we both have few facts and are making claims, or offering ideas at least, that are not much more than pure speculation.  Thank heavens neither of us is trained as a lawyer, used to refraining from conjecture.  

I will always default to thinking the most of people rather than the least.  Waaayyyy too depressing to go through life thinking most people today are just some worse version of most people 40 years ago.  Which seems the premise of your earlier post.  Not my cuppa.

Andy Wiesner wrote:

For me, “Conquistadors of the Useless,” in addition to being a great read, points to the revelatory and transcendent contradiction of finding deep meaning in the absurd. It’s not self-deprecating or self-loathing, but joyous self-overcoming. To paraphrase Terray, it’s laying claim to an enterprise to which one can give one’s whole life and in pursuit of which, from time to time, we may momentarily cease to be slaves.

You may be surprised to hear I have read it. I didn’t find it as revelatory as I found the Greek classics, any number of Shakespeare’s plays or the Bible, but it was an okay read.

Like Alan suggested, I don’t think 99% of people know the context of that quote when they use it, and I used it as such.

This has become a great conversation! I'm really enjoying it. I have a few things to add. First, while I'm not a big reader (too many exciting things to do in a day), I'll add to the stat here to say that I've read a few climbing classics like Gaston Rebuffat, Pat Ament, Rick Ridgeway, Steve House, etc. and get so much out of them. A lot of the time I'll finish a book and be so excited to share it with my friends, only to have that enthusiasm not met. I think in my generation and younger there for sure is a lack of excitement to learn where we as climbers/mountain people come from. That's not necessarily a bad thing in my mind, but it seems to have led to a large percentage of our community living in such a small piece of what could be, resulting in complaining on the forums about the bolts being more than 4ft apart, or people climbing 5.14 but never touching real rock. I'm not gonna complain about the last one; I prefer less people and also will never climb anywhere near 5.14.

I can also see the link between that way of thinking and the social media obsession/addiction. I think it's partially responsible for people being quick to judge and group people into us/them, and in general lack nuance in their thought processes. It's obvious when you look at the comments for any headline of any big world event, but also you can see it in the first page of this forum. I'm not trying to point fingers, but I've found that when I recognize something in myself that I'd like to change and bring that to the forefront of my mind, I notice it a lot more in other people as well. And I say all this as someone who does need to remind myself daily (at least) that I'm no more important than anybody else. My point is that I see a big lack of nuance in the world, but also there are people seeking wisdom and learning. They're maybe (or maybe not) more rare than the 'old days,' but in my experience that makes them that much more valuable and refreshing when you find them and get to learn from what they have to say. I personally love when I find a rich new podcast where they don't shy away from 2-5 hour episodes and get reeeally into a subject or guest. 

"The things climbers do to make a living from climbing..." 

I'm not a climbing media customer, so I don't really have an opinion about DiGiulian. If wallets are voters and dollars are votes, I have no say in the election of most popular Super Hero.