|
poodlemonkey
Oct 26, 2003, 2:26 AM
Post #101 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 11
|
I am going to buy multiple copies and spread them in a trail leading into the Sierra Juarez! And people will still get lost!
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 26, 2003, 3:17 AM
Post #102 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
no, what we have is a bunch of wannabe half-wits like dave kennedy and whoever the hell is helping him wanting to make their "mark" on climbing history by establishing themselves as the de facto "authorites" on canon tajo. desperate, just desperate to do this utterly uneccessary book.
robbing all future generations of the opportunity to go to a great area that remains unpublished (and spare us the "just don't buy the guide crap', you insult the intelligence of everyone on this forum and sound like a fool while doing it.)
as i started out saying long ago...a breathtakingly bad idea, and an obscure, unimportant but very deluded and harmful little man who is about to blow it for everyone, for all time. the climbing equivalent of the unabomber. shame.
'mexican standoff'....if only. at least in a mexican standoff both sides cannot take action, eh? not so in this case. he gets to publish, we cannot stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 26, 2003, 4:47 AM
Post #103 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
I have a suggestion that has been mentioned once or twice. Make it clear that after kennedy has actually gone to print the “locals” are going to provide either a free guide or a alternative printed guide. This would prevent him from incorporating the information in his first edition, and may prevent or delay a revised edition, due to losing money on the first.
This could serve as a financial disincentive to kennedy’s plans if it is publicized sufficiently.
Also publicize this issue with some letters to the editors and perhaps a feature article on Tajo with an emphasis on the history and traditions involved.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 26, 2003, 4:53 AM
Post #104 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: no, what we have is a bunch of wannabe half-wits like dave kennedy and whoever the hell is helping him
Yet more BVB personal attacks.
In reply to: ...wanting to make their "mark" on climbing history by establishing themselves as the de facto "authorites" on canon tajo. desperate, just desperate to do this utterly uneccessary book.
Completely unsubstantiated personal opinion, and one so far fetched that it is laughable.
In reply to: ..robbing all future generations of the opportunity to go to a great area that remains unpublished (and spare us the "just don't buy the guide crap', you insult the intelligence of everyone on this forum and sound like a fool while doing it.)
BVB means, "How dare you suggest something that IS perfectly viable and make me look like an idiot."
In reply to: as i started out saying long ago...a breathtakingly bad idea, and an obscure, unimportant but very deluded and harmful little man
In reply to: ad hominem attacks on individuals -- or, in the case, whole groups -- are the perennial tool of choice of those who cannot build a logical case on merit or fact.
In reply to: ...who is about to blow it for everyone, for all time. the climbing equivalent of the unabomber. shame.
Complete fear mongering, Chicken-Little, pesimistict crap.
In reply to: 'mexican standoff'....if only. at least in a mexican standoff both sides cannot take action, eh? not so in this case. he gets to publish, we cannot stop it.
*Gasp* who would have thought that actually working with Dave and trying to create a guidebook that is a comprimise but also respects and correctly represents the area was an option??
Surely not BVB. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 26, 2003, 5:29 AM
Post #105 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
oh, it's aaron...with another of his highschool jv debate club entries. going for a c+ average this year?
yer goddamn right i aint gonna "compromise" with anyone who's doing a guidebook.
well, anyway.....stfu.
whoops, never mind, i see you can't talk...looks like your mouth's already full.
ciao, little homeboy.
|
|
|
|
|
poodlemonkey
Oct 26, 2003, 9:57 AM
Post #106 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 11
|
robbing all future generations of the opportunity to go to a great area that remains unpublished (and spare us the "just don't buy the guide crap', you insult the intelligence of everyone on this forum and sound like a fool while doing it.)
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 26, 2003, 6:30 PM
Post #107 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
from the 1973 issue of Ascent magazine. Possibly the best analysis of the complexities of guidebook publishing eer written.
THE GUIDEBOOK PROBLEM
Just what is the “guidebook problem”? I’ve been wrestling with it for some time and the right definition still eludes me. Perhaps the best way of putting it is to say that a new awareness in American climbing is causing us to consider more carefully the implications of everything we do when we climb, and that the use of guidebooks, just like the use of pitons, must be re-examined in the light of today’s reality and our hopes for tomorrow. The guidebook problem is a natural extension of the ethical-stylistic-conservation debate which has animated climbing circles for some time.
Recent concern about the role of guidebooks did not originate with the climbing public which, with a few exceptions, has been pretty satisfied with available guides. Nor did it come from the various publishers who, in the rapidly expanding climbing market, have never had it so good. But perhaps, through over-eagerness to exploit this market, publishers have unwittingly contributed to the emergence of new attitudes on the part of guidebook authors—the most crucial group of all.
Among guidebook authors, the soul-searching and discussion have been intense. I first thought of writing this piece after a four-hour luncheon argument with the editorial gang responsible for the Sierra Club’s climbing guides. And more recently, Ascent organized a debate! forum of leading guidebook and mountaineering authors; their tape-recorded comments (boxed in italics below) serve to illustrate, or counterpoint, my own thoughts on the subject.
But first, to set the stage (and convince ourselves that something is happening), let’s consider the following significant developments. In a petition circulated in the Pacific Northwest, we read—”We, the undersigned, urge The Mountaineers to publish future Cascades’ guidebooks in a simple format with a minimum of route detailing in text, photos, and sketches. We also feel that widespread advertising and promotion of guidebooks is undesirable.”
And last May the Board of Directors of the American Alpine Club (AAC) met in Yosemite Valley and narrowly defeated, by a vote of 5 to 8, a motion that the AAC go on record against promoting guidebooks “in any way, shape or form.” A second motion that the AAC refrain
from publishing guidebooks to any new areas passed by an 8 to 5 vote. The board then created an ad hoc committee to review all aspects of AAC climbing guide publication . . . . Let us now try a similar review.
THE IMPACT OF GUIDEBOOKS: Change is guaranteed to make us uneasy. No one enjoys the idea that the future is now, whether we like it or not. Take the overcrowding and overuse of the mountains. The story is well known, and many serious, eloquent climbers have shared their anxiety on this score in articles and public laments. Many more have felt this same anxiety as their own ‘secret climbing spot has finally been overrun with strangers. When the latest up-dated edition of the climber’s guide appears, how can we avoid suspecting that it contributes to the destruction of our private mountain paradise?
Tuolumne Meadows didn’t suffer much when it had a little narrow dirt road that people couldn’t get up with all those big trailers. But as soon as you made it a little bigger, now it’s having an impact problem. This is what's happening with climbing.... When you centralize everything into a guidebook to a specific region, then you’re building an eight-lane freeway to the area. And you’ve got to realize that you are and the consequences of doing it.... You’re setting up a vehicle for people who are going to that area.
(Galen RoweIl editor of The Vertical World of Yosemite)
By far the biggest worry among guidebook authors is that actively marketing a guidebook is also a way of marketing the climbs themselves—so that the guidebook encourages people (who would never have thought of it otherwise) to visit an area. There is no hard statistical evidence, much less proof, that guidebooks encourage overuse. But this seems to be the natural conclusion.
I had to face this very question when the last edition went out of print. Whether or not to forget it, or to revise it, or what to do. In my case I was influenced by the Park Service’s attitude. They have strong feelings that it promotes safety and cuts down the number of bodies they have to carry out. I don’t know how they reach this conclusion, but they feel very strongly. And so they were very upset one summer when it was totally out of print and no books were available. It would be interesting to see if the accident rate were any bigger that summer. I sort of doubt it.
--(Leigh Ortenburg)
Guidebooks, in fact, have all kinds of impacts. They're certainly instruments of change as well as repositories of tradition. But let’s not forget that change can have extensitive aspects. Today most people are climbing better nd cleaner than they did a few years ago, with a finer ppreciation of the nuances of style than anyone possessed in the pioneering periods of American mountaineering. So change in climbing need not be feared as such. nd the same should hold true to the impact of guidebooks.
One of the most obvious impacts of a guidebook is the ray it influences one’s choice of climbs and the resulting ‘equency of use of certain climbs. if a climb is described I the guide as ugly, grungy or a real dog, it is thereby wed—at least from a rash of further ascents; while the Guidebook author who has been too lavish in praising a certain route can often reproach himself for having destroyed it, or, at least, for having turned it into an ugly thoroughfare. And when a climb, classic or not, is called classic in the guide, the well-known mechanism of the self-fulfilling prophecy comes into play.
Although the results of such influence have often been regrettable, such influence is not bad in itself. A more aware guidebook author could easily manipulate people’s tendency to follow the guide’ to good ends. He could shape and restructure the patterns of use in his climbing area—thus avoiding the overuse of a fragile route, redirecting the crowd to other, more resistant lines, or better yet, spreading climbers out more evenly by refusing to put gold stars on certain routes. Up to now, most guidebook authors have preferred to avoid such responsibility.
Of course, guidebooks can also influence the style of those who use them. And this may be one of the most valid functions of the guidebook today. The author can and should stress, for example, that certain routes are to be climbed clean, and he has a real duty to transmit those local climbing traditions worthy of respect. One author who has accepted this duty is David Lovejoy, who explains his position in the introduction to his recently published guide to Granite Mountain in Arizona: “So why did we write a guidebook? ... We see this guide as more than a collection of routes. We see it as a way of transmitting information about attitudes which have prevailed in this climbing area since its beginning. A sort of ‘city planning’ effort in an attempt to contribute some kind of order to the threat of a ‘rock-climbing sprawl’ . . . “ A praiseworthy attempt to achieve a positive impact with a new guidebook.
But if the physical impact of a guidebook is difficult to evaluate, then the psychological impact is doubly so. Overcrowding, parties queued-up at the base of routes and the deterioration of cracks, all are easy to see. But what of psychological attrition? What happens when your local climbing area is no longer an exciting place, when a whole range loses its aura of mystery and attraction, when a climbing area feels ‘used-up,’ even though there are a lot of routes you still haven’t done? We might call this the no more adventure/no more wilderness syndrome.
Guidebooks can contribute to the above syndrome in several ways: By over-describing an actual route so that it no longer contains any puzzles or enigmas and route-finding becomes a lost art. Or by over-describing a whole area, so that it’s no longer possible to find your own short-cut on the approach, no longer tempting to look for alternate lines of attack. Of course, guidebooks are not the only villains in this drama; they are, however, a tangible target at which to launch a counter-attack. (Equipment manufacturers, retailers and climbing schools might also be named if we were trying to dress a complete indictment.)
But one thing, at least, which we can agree on is that guidebooks do have an impact on the future of the climbing area they describe— so questions about guidebooks are really questions about the future. Right now, many climbers are trying to rediscover a meaningful future for their sport by re-inventing the rules of the game. Techniques, tools, ethics and style—all are being refined in the name of adventure and purity. Yet Marshall McLuhan has shown us that information is the most powerful tool of all. (The topo, the hardware list, the map and the guidebook—~all are tools, each with its own ethical and stylistic weight.) And that is precisely why guidebooks and their use do pose a problem. What are the possible solutions?
A FEW ALTERNATIVES: Something, it seems, is going to change—either climbing guidebooks, or the way we use them, or both. A wide spectrum of solutions have been proposed.
A few climbers (very few) deny the existence of any need to change. The old guidebooks, they claim, are adequate; let’s just keep up-dating them. Others (equally few) assert that any published information, on any route, or climbing area, is a form of sacrilege. Most guidebook authors, naturally, take a position between these extremes, and in their remarks we can discern a possible key to solving the guidebook problem:
I have very mixed feelings about guides, and maybe I’m not a good person to have in a discussion like this because / find the arguments on both sides so compelling that / can easily take the side that says we shouldn’t have guides, or I could take the side that says we’ve got to have guides, and / find it difficult to formulate in my own mind a really clear picture of what I would like. Guides are inevitable, whether you like it or not~ and maybe the only thing you can do is to try to set standards Perhaps there’s a difference between a big mountain and a practice climbing area. Every time / try to cut down on the descriptions of the climbing in some of the routes at Tab quitz, I get a lot of flak from some people. . . . My personal preference is to have local areas with rather detailed descriptions, not of hand-holds, but of the routes; in many cases the routes are almost artificial, because when you really get to the situation where you have eighty routes on a rock, you have to have some detail, simply to let the person know what makes the most consistently difficult line of attack, or which way did people go the first time, or whatnot. But on big mountains I certainly don’t like to have detailed descriptions. / think ones which just give general lines of attack make the climb more pleasant for me.
(Chuck Wilts, author of A Climber’s Guide to Tahquitz and Suicide Rocks)
I feel that you cannot isolate guidebooks from the context of mountaineering. ... You cannot say that guidebooks alone are responsible for the adverse impact that we all are concerned with, because if you took all guidebooks away, and somehow were able to prevent the development of bootleg guidebooks or undercover typed books, there would still be the journals, there would still be the clubs, there would still be the meetings, and so on. So, I feel that it is incumbent upon guidebook editors, as well as the journal editors, and the book editors, to have a similar ethical approach towards the mountain environment.
(William Putnam, co-editor of Climber’s Guide to the Rocky Mountains of Canada—South)
Seems to me that what one is trying to do is present accurate information as well as one can, and in this way assist climbers who are not among the elite, but climbers that are just beginning. In the Tetons you have a large number of climbers in their first or second year of climbing who haven’t a great deal of experience. In some cases (one hopes at least) the route description keeps them from getting lost and hung up and possibly from needing a rescue. (Leigh Ortenburger)
I interpret the message of these three statements (and other similar expressions of concern) as follows: There is no one single solution to the guidebook problem. If any solutions are possible, the first step is to realize that each climbing area (and indeed, each segment of the climbing public) is unique, and thattherefore the climber’s guide to each area must be very core fully tailored to the particular present and future needs of that particular area and its climbers; tailored to it in scope, detail, style and concept (and that includes the decision to publish a guide at all).
All this implies change. Many existing guides should, and will, be modified. What can be done? Alter the printed form of the guidebook. Eliminate the superfluous. Convey only the strict minimum on a kind of ‘needto-know’ basis to a particular audience, whether first-year beginners in the Tetons, or experienced cragsmen high over Boulder (as in the case of a recent ‘guide’ which virtually omits starting points and route descriptions). But is this enough? Can tailoring and modifying the format, or the ethical concerns of guidebook authors really solve the problem?
There is another solution, even closer at hand. Why not change the way in which we use guidebooks? Years ago in an essay on climbing games, I theorized that as the objective becomes easier, climbers must consciously limit their technical means of ascent to preserve a certain challenge. Why not extend the concept of ‘means’ to cover guidebooks? Can’t we learn to be judicious and choosy in our use of guides? This may not solve the problem of physical impact and overcrowding, but it will do wonders for the sense of psychological attrition we already mentioned. When our home areas are in danger of feeling ‘climbed-out,’ can’t we stop using the guidebook on purpose, yet still reserve the option of using one when climbing as a visitor in a strange area which still possesses mystery and challenge enough?
One of the finest ‘wilderness’ climbing experiences of my life took place in a climbed-out, over-populated, over-described area: the Tetons. My only previous climb there had been the Grand by a normal route, but this time we wanted to traverse the main chain from Teewinot to Nez Perce. To make things more exciting, we avoided looking at the guide and refrained from asking any directions, other than the names of the peaks we would encounter en route. Result: a formidable mountain experience in which each ridge, each move, each summit was a new puzzle. And this sort of experience is available in any area, no matter how detailed the guide. Just don’t use it. Unless of course the odds against you are so great that you feel it’s becoming a new game; then you can reach for the guide as you would for some new piece of gear.
So whether the guidebook format changes, or our way of using it does, there are a variety of ways to tackle the problem. Many of the suggestions for simplifying and reducing the amount of information presented seem particularly praiseworthy and idealistic, but there’s one big hangup we’ve avoided discussing so far: new routes (and the egos of those who make them).
THE FIRST ASCENT SYNDROME:
How many routes have people done just to get their names in the guide? Quite a few, although, of course, that isn’t the major reason. Actually there are far too many different reasons to list—a real can of worms, and the subject of a separate essay. Let’s confine ourselves to asking: Why should a first ascent be reported?
We’ve been going around about this for about the last six months on the east side of the Sierra. There are a lot of new climbs over there, and so far they’re unreported. The consensus at the moment is to leave them that way. I’m more concerned about this than most people. I would say there are between sixty and a hundred new rock climbs in the Sierra today that are not going to be reported in the new guidebook.... The feeling over there is that to leave them unreported will retain the wilderness aspect of the mountains, and then, if we can articulate this well—if we can get the word out that that’s why—that there really are routes, that the thing has been done deliberately, that it’s not accidental oversight, but deliberate, not reporting the climbs, then perhaps...
Doug Robinson, currently revising Starr’s Guide to the John Muir Trail and the High Sierra Region)
Well, why should first ascents be reported? For history, of course, to keep the record straight. To smooth the way for those who come after so they won’t make the same route-finding errors, or who maybe can do it without a bivouac. But ultimately to communicate to others thatyou have made a new route. If climbing is indeed an art, isn’t it then necessary to publish your first ascents for them to become real ‘works of art’? Can we imagine a painting no one sees, a novel no one reads? A ‘climb,’ after all, is a very abstract thing compared to actual climbing which is notoriously concrete and immediate. And what if, as contemporary tradition in the fine arts suggests, art is in the execution? How should we characterize the following letter to Climbing? “In late November of this year Mike Farrell of Berkeley, Gordie Smaille and myself of Vancouver climbed several fine new routes in Southern Arizona. However in accordance with the latest advance in the development of climbing style and ethics in which one does not publicly divulge the whereabouts of new routes in order to prevent precipitating overuse on climbing areas, we remain sincerely yours.”
Or should we come right out and say it? In most cases, the point of publishing your first ascent is to let other people (your peers or sometimes the general public) know how cool you are (or wished you were). This is far from evil. Surely it’s healthier to gain ego-gratification and peer-group respect by making new climbs, than by joining a motorcycle gang and terrorizing the countryside. If you have the imagination to conceive and execute a bold new line, why shouldn’t people admire you? Why shouldn’t you be able to point to your name in the guidebook?
I’ve come to see it a little bit differently and I feel less hesitation in advocating my position than I did before. Before, I was trying to find a reason for advocating guidebooks, which i felt slightly guilty about, because part of my reason is that i like to write them and I/ike to have my name in them, you know.... In the one case, the selfishness of liking to write guidebooks, to create this way, and also to create routes and to have it be in the record that you’ve done a route. Thatic pleasing to many of us, to lust about 99 and 44/lOOths percent of the population—although a good percentage denies it. (Royal Ropbbins)
It’s impossible to refute such an open, honest statement. But there is an evolution underway in climbing which runs directly counter to the mystique of first ascents. In American climbing the major change of the last few years has been the switch from pitons to chocks, to ‘clean’ climbing. Sometimes the use of chocks is harder, sometimes easier than pins, but that’s not why we consider them better style. It’s the conservation ethic in practice.
We’re really climbing clean for the sake of other people, for those who come after us; to preserve the quality of their experience, so that their experience will be more like that of the first ascent. Are we moving toward an ideal in which every ascent is the first ascent? Why not?
Well, for one thing, it’s illogical. There’s only one first. And of course there are many situations where such notions don’t make sense, practice crags for instance. But most likely, the notion of first ascent (or numbered ascents) is going to become less and less important. Eventually, in our home ranges, climbers will leave not only the cracks but the sense of discovery intact for those who follow. And most ascents will become the functional and psychological equivalent of first ascents.
It’s doubtful that this evolution will soon reach the distant, high ranges of the planet, still in the middle of what must be called their ‘golden age.’ Twenty years from now it will be tougher to be a hero, but still possible if you go far enough from the beaten track. In remote ranges the claims of history will be stronger for some time than our obligations to fellow climbers.
Certainly, here at home, the evolution away from the first-ascent concept will not happen overnight, and it won’t be easy. But it will come. Ultimately we can’t have it both ways. It will become impossible to preserve the mountains and traditional mountain values, and at the same time give our egos all the public exposure they used to receive. When the time comes to choose, I believe the climbing community will be mature enough to opt for real mountains and real climbing at the expense (a small sacrifice) of seeing our names in print in every journal and guidebook.
SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS: Perhaps the only conclusion that no one will argue with is our first vague one that “something is happening.” Yet given the current level of concern among guidebook authors, it’s safe to say that we’ll soon see some new approaches to the ‘guidebook problem.’ In certain areas, an open conspiracy of climbers will keep a guidebook from ever appearing.
I’m not trying to protect the area~ I’m trying to protect the experience, the exploration, which is as essential to the wilderness experience as the climbing is. This thing about people getting the best out of the time that they put in is one of the places where I stop. Obviously, you’re going to spend more time stumbling arouncd yet on the other hand, it seems to me, one of the characteristics of .llpinism is exploration; and the more of that there is around, potentially, then the more area there is to create in. If you write a guidebook you’ve eliminated the unknown. In large degree wilderness consists of the unknown, maybe as much as it does in land without roads. (Doug Robinson)
And finally, we shouldn’t be surprised to see the appearance of some totally new kinds of guidebooks which cut cleanly across our present conceptions. But one thing is certain—a climbing guide is no longer just a climbing guide. The decision to write, publish, buy or use a guidebook is more complex than it used to be. Publishers, editorial committees and climbing clubs may think they’ve got a handle on the problem, but ultimately the response must be an individual one. There may well be as many solutions to the ‘guidebook problem’ as there are climbers.
Ascent’s solution is to stop publishing the traditional Sierra climbing notes because of our feeling that the Sierra is too close to losing its remaining mystery and its remaining promise. At the same time we’re keeping an open mind about the need for guides, notes or clues to certain new, remote or exceptional areas. In fact, Ascent would like to participate in the search for new avatars of the guidebook genre, with less negative overall impact. From its inception, Ascent’s editorial position has been that the human, emotional and personal content of a climb can be more important than the statistical, historical content of a first ascent. And so we welcome the current reappraisal of climbing guidebooks.
On a personal level, I particularly admire Doug Robinson’s solution. The east side of the Sierra is Doug’s playground, and inevitably, many of his climbs are new routes. If a climb turns him on, Doug always shares it with his friends, but he doesn’t write it up. The result of this and of his devotion to pure style is that Doug has received a lot more respect and admiration from fellow climbers than could possibly have accrued from a published list of “firsts.”
If we’re looking for other examples, we might think of John Muir: “I have never left my name on any mountain, rock or tree in any wilderness I have explored or passed through. .. .“ But no one today is a John Muir, and the Doug Robinsons are few and far between. How will the average climber respond to the guidebook problem? I have my guesses, but for now, I’m through talking. I’ll work on my solution, you work on yours.
Lito Tejada-Flores & friends
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 26, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #108 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
I beleive Doug Robbinson's quote is worth stressing, as it is so germine to the canon tajo isue:
I’m not trying to protect the area -- I’m trying to protect the experience, the exploration, which is as essential to the wilderness experience as the climbing is. This thing about people getting the best out of the time that they put in is one of the places where I stop. Obviously, you’re going to spend more time stumbling arouncd yet on the other hand, it seems to me, one of the characteristics of alpinism is exploration; and the more of that there is around, potentially, then the more area there is to create in. If you write a guidebook you’ve eliminated the unknown. In large degree wilderness consists of the unknown, maybe as much as it does in land without roads. (Doug Robinson)
As is the Robbin's quote about wrting guidebooks being 99% about ego, although most deny this. Prior to his remarkable decision to publish a guidebook to Canon Tajo, Dave Kennedy had not invested one iota of physical or emotional energy into Canon Tajo. But he wants to publish. Why? WHY??
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 26, 2003, 9:12 PM
Post #109 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In an effort to keep this post something less than a TV Mini Series, I will focus on the points I feel are most relevant.
In reply to: Recent concern about the role of guidebooks did not originate with the climbing public which, with a few exceptions, has been pretty satisfied with available guides.
Ok, so the general climbing public is satisfied with the "state" of guidebooks. Of course, this is back in 1973, but if anything is relevant from 1973 to now ai would also include this statement.
In reply to: Among guidebook authors, the soul-searching and discussion have been intense.
Showing that guide authors are not simple minded greed whore like some would have you think *cough* bvb *cough*.
In reply to: And last May the Board of Directors of the American Alpine Club (AAC) met in Yosemite Valley and narrowly defeated, by a vote of 5 to 8, a motion that the AAC go on record against promoting guidebooks “in any way, shape or form.”
Even back then, the MAJORITY favored guidebooks. 8/13=62%. I love how they say "narrowly". Yes this doesn't show a bias in the article does it?
In reply to: THE IMPACT OF GUIDEBOOKS: Change is guaranteed to make us uneasy. No one enjoys the idea that the future is now, whether we like it or not.
Good point, get over it. The future is here and it will move on with or without the "old guard". Much as bolts were villified, its guidebook authors turn (in the CT case). The future is at your doorstep, and many fear it.
In reply to: Many more have felt this same anxiety as their own ‘secret climbing spot has finally been overrun with strangers.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! That sums up much of the "we hate guidebook movement".
In reply to: There is no hard statistical evidence, much less proof, that guidebooks encourage overuse. But this seems to be the natural conclusion.
Natural conclusion? I disagree and it shows the authors bias, yet again.
In reply to: In my case I was influenced by the Park Service’s attitude. They have strong feelings that it promotes safety and cuts down the number of bodies they have to carry out.
Land managers often support guidebooks for the safety factor. This has not changed since 1973. If people are going to go to an area, they may as well have the correct info which can help them from killing themselves and involving park/land managers/litigation etc...
In reply to: So change in climbing need not be feared as such, and the same should hold true to the impact of guidebooks.
Couldn't agree more.
In reply to: One of the most obvious impacts of a guidebook is the ray it influences one’s choice of climbs and the resulting ‘equency of use of certain climbs. if a climb is described I the guide as ugly, grungy or a real dog, it is thereby wed—at least from a rash of further ascents; while the Guidebook author who has been too lavish in praising a certain route can often reproach himself for having destroyed it, or, at least, for having turned it into an ugly thoroughfare. And when a climb, classic or not, is called classic in the guide, the well-known mechanism of the self-fulfilling prophecy comes into play.
Whats funny about CT is it is the EXACT opposite. Since there is little or no information available to the public, everyone and their dog (literally) goes to the same climbs over and over and over and over because THATS ALL THEY KNOW!! So in this case, a guidebook would spread people out thus reducing the impact on the easy access, easily "spotable" climbs.
In reply to: A more aware guidebook author could easily manipulate people’s tendency to follow the guide’ to good ends. He could shape and restructure the patterns of use in his climbing area—thus avoiding the overuse of a fragile route, redirecting the crowd to other, more resistant lines, or better yet, spreading climbers out more evenly by refusing to put gold stars on certain routes.
So lets talk about the damage to the area that may come if Dave publishes a guidebook with limited knowledge. In effect, the denial of information could in the end cause exactly what people are afraid of, over impact, however, if correct and current info was available (laughably as some people claim is through "networking" heheh yeah right) it could stop this self perpeatuating problem that those *against the guidebook* are creating.
In reply to: Of course, guidebooks can also influence the style of those who use them. And this may be one of the most valid functions of the guidebook today. The author can and should stress, for example, that certain routes are to be climbed clean, and he has a real duty to transmit those local climbing traditions worthy of respect.
BINGO!!! Yet another supporting statement that shows that a comprehensive, correct, and collaborative work can have a positive impact on new users coming to the area to help perserve the ethics and "feel" of an area. Someone else said that before, now who was it????? Oh yeah, thats right it was me :)
In reply to: We might call this the no more adventure/no more wilderness syndrome. Guidebooks can contribute to the above syndrome in several ways: By over-describing an actual route so that it no longer contains any puzzles or enigmas and route-finding becomes a lost art. Or by over-describing a whole area, so that it’s no longer possible to find your own short-cut on the approach, no longer tempting to look for alternate lines of attack. Of course, guidebooks are not the only villains in this drama; they are, however, a tangible target at which to launch a counter-attack.
Even the author recognizes it is easy to villify guide authors but it is because they are an easy target. The no adventure/no more wilderness has been disproven OVER and OVER by the new areas "unearthed" every year. YES, eventually this will happen, but then again eventually there will be humans occupying nearly every square inch of the world. It is the price of EVERYONE who promotes climbing, whether it be gear manfucturers, Mags, Books, Word of Mouth, Gyms, Etc... Singling out guidebook Authors IS easy, but it doesn't mean that they are the cause.
In reply to: Guides are inevitable, whether you like it or not~ and maybe the only thing you can do is to try to set standards
Yup.
In reply to: If any solutions are possible, the first step is to realize that each climbing area (and indeed, each segment of the climbing public) is unique, and thattherefore the climber’s guide to each area must be very core fully tailored to the particular present and future needs of that particular area and its climbers; tailored to it in scope, detail, style and concept...
Yup. Withholding info is a sure way of hurting an area in my opinion. You may disagree, but if a guide is inevitable, you might as well shoot for it being a collaborative and accurate affair that best serves the climbers interest, but also the preservation of the area.
In reply to: When our home areas are in danger of feeling ‘climbed-out,’ can’t we stop using the guidebook on purpose, yet still reserve the option of using one when climbing as a visitor in a strange area which still possesses mystery and challenge enough?
WOW BVB, you must feel like an idiot seeing that you pissed all over poodle above for suggesting it and yet it is also suggested as possible "fix" for the guidebook article written back in 1973! LOL...PWNED :!:
In reply to: Well, why should first ascents be reported?
He goes on to offer up some reasons, but I also see a reason that wasn't really touched on, FA vs Re-FA. When noone knows it been done, chances that fixed protection may be added is real. I bouldered a sweet V3 highball a few years back, but when I rummaged through the new guide to the area, I found out that it was now a 4 bolt sport route. Guess what! I didn't "report" my FA, I left it for others, and others viewed the line differently. I accpet that I am just as much too fault for the situation as how would the climbers who followed in my footsteps know that it was previously climbed? Yeah I cleaned the holds I used, but I didn't scrub a swath clean. I could easily see someone thinking, hey look at this cool untouched line!
In reply to: SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS: Perhaps the only conclusion that no one will argue with is our first vague one that “something is happening.” Yet given the current level of concern among guidebook authors, it’s safe to say that we’ll soon see some new approaches to the ‘guidebook problem.’ In certain areas, an open conspiracy of climbers will keep a guidebook from ever appearing.
Look at the bold. Proof is there that guidebook authors ARE concerned about their works impacts. BVB and others would have you believe otherwise. Authors often literally make PENNIES for the amount of time and money they put into a guidebook. They are not some evil sect that is out to exploit every and all rock.
In reply to: ...but ultimately the response must be an individual one.
As I have also said, EACH PERSON has an opinion, it is nothing more than that, and is no more valid than the next. Its tough when people disagree, but get over it, its part of life.
In reply to: Ascent’s solution is to stop publishing the traditional Sierra climbing notes because of our feeling that the Sierra is too close to losing its remaining mystery and its remaining promise.
WHEW!!! Glad they did that, because it certainly stopped guides from ever getting popular, heheh.
As biased as the author is, even he could not effectively "shoot down" the importance and permanent role that guidebooks have/will play in climbing's past, present, and future. If anything, I am surprised that BVB would be the one pushing the article because is concedes far more than Chicken Little does.
Well thanks for more proof contrary to your opinion BVB! Not that it was needed, but eh, help from the enemy is never expected, but is always appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 26, 2003, 10:50 PM
Post #110 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Some comments from John Smallwood, perhaps the most active climber at Canon Tajo.
In reply to: Kennedy has been to Tajo only twice to my knowledge, perhaps climbed a couple routes, but never done an FA, nor made any positive contribution to the place. He is using the Alpinistas accumulation of beta, w/o consent from the source, to profit for himself. Those topos floating around are based on info that was gleaned from CT developers, with the recipient's word of honor that it would not be reproduced in print. That trust has been violated and the beta eventually passed on to Kennedy for his personal and financial gain. Now you are actively soliciting for others to contribute to this? This is beyond poor boundaries; I consider it to be an insult to the developers of CT, a total disregard for the issues and pristine quality of the area.(snip) Dave Kennedy had absolutely zero investment in Tajo prior to this guidebook scheme. He seeks to profit off of the labor of others. He fancies himself to be a "journalist" and "artist" and writer and publisher. Can't manage a real job, it seems. He was quoted by a mutual friend as saying that he doesn't "...give a about Canon Tajo". I already knew that from my initial meeting with him. He uses denial, then rationalizes away any discussion of the potential damage to the quality of wilderness climbing and access issues. In refusing my personal offer of ten thousand dollars for a contract to not publish, Kennedy stated to me that he anticipates making in excess of fifty-thousand dollars on the guidebook over a few years. John Lohr, you are being used. Kennedy has selfish motives of status, ego inflation, and profit. Have you stopped to consider why he has alienated so many local climbers over incidents with the Valley of the Moon and Mission Gorge? Are you aware that when the Valley of the Moon first ascensionists refused to support Kennedy's guide that he made up route names? Not just giving them "unknown route A", but he had the audacity to rename them. He doesn't know crap about Tajo, and from what I guess, he's probably 50% wrong on what beta he can gather. Laughable, if it weren't so damaging to Tajo, and possibly dangerous to unaware consumers. The majority is split on what should be done after the guidebook comes out. Some think it should stand for itself as a piece of crap with Kennedy's name on it in bold letters. Others have requested that I match his book, correcting the beta and distribute it freely. (snip) Octogenarian Fred Beckey is couch-surfing here tonight, after a fun weekend at Tajo where we put up a new, moderate, friction route. As North America's most prolific first ascensionist and mountaineering author (including numerous guidebooks) he is disheartened at the prospect of a Tajo guide.
In reply to: Guide King Kinnedy also happens to be a plagiarist, which I can attest to as an aggrieved party. Much of the information he has used for his San Diego guides is taken directly from previously published material written by myself and others, without acknowledgement, thanks, or recognition of the work done by his predecessors that made his guides possible. He never called me, or anyone I know to ask if he could use material, ask for new information, corrections, updates, etc.
In reply to: bvb wrote: a beautiful, remote area that does not suffer the ill effects of a guide is a rare and precious thing. why ruin it? it's like that last buffalo hunt -- we're slowly killing off the undocumented "adventure" areas, one at at time. Roughster wrote Specifically you say a guidebook will ruin it in the 3rd point down. Therefore if you support it, you support "ruining" CT.
It is pretty obvious that he was saying that the publication of a guide would ruin the aspect of CT that is provided by the lack of a guidebook. That is a far cry from your claim that he is saying that a guide will ruin CT itself. It almost seems you were purposely misconstruing this.
As far a whether kennedy has talked to the “ejido”, one person says he hasn’t, one person says he has. Kennedy didn’t feel it worthy of mentioning one way or the other. Yet you seem to assume he has. Bias?
This debate/argument is not about guidebooks in general, nor is it about bvb or his characterization of kennedy despite your tactics to make it so.
Btw. From what I have read on this and other threads, bvb’s characterizations of kennedy seem to be fairly well founded.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 27, 2003, 12:29 AM
Post #111 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Some comments from John Smallwood, perhaps the most active climber at Canon Tajo.
In reply to: In refusing my personal offer of ten thousand dollars for a contract to not publish, Kennedy stated to me that he anticipates making in excess of fifty-thousand dollars on the guidebook over a few years.
It is very easy for someone to say something that the person didn't. Here let me show you:
In reply to: I love the idea of the guidebook and support Dave Kennedy 100%!
Is that now true?
In reply to: Guide King Kinnedy also happens to be a plagiarist, which I can attest to as an aggrieved party. Much of the information he has used for his San Diego guides is taken directly from previously published material written by myself and others, without acknowledgement, thanks, or recognition of the work done by his predecessors that made his guides possible. He never called me, or anyone I know to ask if he could use material, ask for new information, corrections, updates, etc.
In reply to: Specifically you say a guidebook will ruin it in the 3rd point down. Therefore if you support it, you support "ruining" CT.
In reply to: Out of all you’re tit for tat arguments this one bothered me the most and you have referred to it a number of times. It is pretty obvious that he was saying that the publication of a guide would ruin the aspect of CT that is provided by the lack of a guidebook. That is a far cry from your claim that he is saying that a guide will ruin CT itself. It almost seems you were purposely misconstruing this.
Actually detractors of the guide have been arguing both aspects:
1) A guide will ruin the "wilderness/pristine" feel
2) A guide will physically ruin CT because of the increase in traffic.
I have attempted to address both in my posts.
In reply to: As far a whether kennedy has talked to the “ejido”, one person says he hasn’t, one person says he has. Kennedy didn’t feel it worthy of mentioning one way or the other. Yet you seem to assume he has. Bias?
No I don't assume, I am simpley saying, if you don't personally know Kennedy, you DON'T know if he has or not. My point is the same as listed above: Theres a lot of crap being spewed forth about Kennedy that is purely speculation at best and really just character assasination and slander in reality.
In reply to: This debate/argument is not about guidebooks in general, nor is it about bvb or his characterization of kennedy despite your tactics to make it so.
If you read my posts and think that is the basis of my rebuttals, you have a pretty selective reading style. I address both issues being raised and focus primarily on the issue about the guidebook, not mearly bvb's hack job on Kennedy.
In reply to: Btw. From what I have read on this and other threads, bvb’s characterizations of kennedy seem to be fairly well founded.
Let me show you how easy it is: I heard your momma can suck a golf ball through a garden house. Does that mean its true? I don't know, but slander on the internet is something that shouldn't just be taken with a grain of salt, try a frickin salt lick with a soy sauce chaser.
Now coming from someone who suggests that sending people hate mail is an option (not a spoof):
In reply to: Well if anyone wants to send him hate mail I guess that is one avenue
and clearly is anti-guidebook by your posts, feel free to attempt to single in on what you perceive as my focus of focusing on bvb's slander, heheh.
Me thinks the antis are feeling soft right now since bvb's spectacular crash and burn from this morning.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 27, 2003, 1:16 AM
Post #112 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
and there you have it folks...in an effort to bring some balance and perspective to this issue, i post, in toto, what is widely regarded by students of climbing history as THE definative analysis of "the guidebook problem", a essay that has only grown in relevance and stature since it was first published in Ascent in 1973. (uhhh, gosh aaron, you ever heard of Ascent?)
aaron -- predicitably -- proceeded to rapidly pick through the article looking for out-of-context pullout quotes, ignoring the tapestry of intellect that makes the article whole. pretty pathetic, really. but EXACTLY what i knew aaron would sttop to when i posted the article.
let's have a show of hands, please -- does anyone out there truly beleive aaron actually to time to read the article, consider the points made, and devote thought to the issues in any other context other than prep work for preparing another of his, uh, "rebuttals?"
let me be clear on this point -- i posted that peice of writing for those of us who are actually trying to think this whole thing through -- aaron's response was a fait accompi -- (see his post above)
Doug Robinson. Lito Tejada-Flores. Chuck Wilts. Royal Robbins. Galen Rowell. Leigh Ortenburger. Bill Putnam. and, the piece de resistance, Chris Jones. This group comprises a sizable contingent of the preeminent climbing writer/philosopher/critical thinkers of the last 40 years.
And then we have the unintelligible contributions of....somehow who thinks that this whole thing is not about the huge issues surrounding climber experience and a dwindling spectrum of opportunities in a shrinking world...no, he think that's all about me, bob van belle.
and while i'm flattered by the attention he lavishes on me -- one does begin wonder if he gets any of this, any of this at all.
and, while i admire his youthfull gall and naivete in attempting to match words and intellect with the likes of lito tejada-flores (aaron thinks lito's article was biased?), i must say it serves as a barometer of aaron's mental landscape that he would try in the first to pick apart the collaborative thinking of lito, robbins, doug robinson, et al -- all of whom wrote the article together, and all of whom have differing opinions.
it's not about me, aaron. it's about canon tajo. now would you kindly just stfu, you airheaded half wit?
remember: this is NOT a debate about guidebooks -- i have written a few and contributed to many in my day. this is debate about the need for a guide to a specific area, and an inquisitive look at the rational for a guidebook written by kennedy, who has no history at the area, and no stake in the outcome -- other than financial and egotistical.
aaron -- answer this question truthfully -- have you contributed any information to this guide whatsoever? will dk be listing you in the credits? have you provided him with topos or information? because many people are starting to wonder about your jihad-type approach to this thread -- especially given your role as a moderator. not that mods should not be free to participate -- but are you helping dk with this guide??
|
|
|
|
|
climbbaja
Oct 27, 2003, 2:16 AM
Post #113 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 177
|
Until now, I've held back from posting on this forum/thread. Several folks, on both sides of the border, have requested that I make myself available to correct misinformation and answer questions. Not that words will deter Dave Kennedy from publishing...
During nearly 30 years of climbing at CT, I have kept detailed notes for historical/archival purposes (only). You could also call me the beta guy, as well as self-appointed janitor/custodian.
So, any questions out there?
-John Smallwood
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 27, 2003, 2:35 AM
Post #114 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: In reply to: Specifically you say a guidebook will ruin it in the 3rd point down. Therefore if you support it, you support "ruining" CT. In reply to: Out of all you’re tit for tat arguments this one bothered me the most and you have referred to it a number of times. It is pretty obvious that he was saying that the publication of a guide would ruin the aspect of CT that is provided by the lack of a guidebook. That is a far cry from your claim that he is saying that a guide will ruin CT itself. It almost seems you were purposely misconstruing this. Actually detractors of the guide have been arguing both aspects: 1) A guide will ruin the "wilderness/pristine" feel 2) A guide will physically ruin CT because of the increase in traffic. I have attempted to address both in my posts.
It is funny that you neglected the main point of the original comment and tried to generalize the debate. The best argument against a guidebook in my mind is that some places don’t need a guide and the climbing public in general is better off having places like that.
In reply to: No I don't assume, I am simpley saying, if you don't personally know Kennedy, you DON'T know if he has or not. My point is the same as listed above: Theres a lot of crap being spewed forth about Kennedy that is purely speculation at best and really just character assasination and slander in reality.
Lets see there was a big controversy over his san diego guide that led to him making up the names of routes that started with him alienating the original ascensionists. Then he propses a guidebook for CT and alienates the majority of the FA people involved in that area,
Do you read newspapers? Are you familiar with the concept of reading between the lines?
In reply to: If you read my posts and think that is the basis of my rebuttals, you have a pretty selective reading style. I address both issues being raised and focus primarily on the issue about the guidebook, not mearly bvb's hack job on Kennedy.
I have read a lot of your posts and you definitely have pattern of debating the debate as opposed to the issues
[quote="roughster"]
Now coming from someone who suggests that sending people hate mail is an option (not a spoof):
In reply to: Well if anyone wants to send him hate mail I guess that is one avenue
In reply to: and clearly is anti-guidebook by your posts, feel free to attempt to single in on what you perceive as my focus of focusing on bvb's slander, heheh.
In reply to: Me thinks the antis are feeling soft right now since bvb's spectacular crash and burn from this morning.
You think bvb’s posts crashed and burned on the basis of your rebuttal? LOL, that is pretty funny. The fact that mainstream society follows a certain path sure as hell doesn’t mean that path is superior.
As far as I can tell you are a noobie with no sense of history, and no concept of adventure. Pretty sad for someone who has apparently graduated from the gym.
So for the last time. Some areas are better off without a guidebook. I can only think of three destination locations in the states that still follow this precept. Priest Draw, Adventure Land in Hueco, and Canon Tajo. Just because you don’t see a value in this concept doesn’t give you the right to obliterate the last surviving holdouts.
ps. welcome to the site John
wish I could of posted this before your post, but it took me a while to finish it.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 27, 2003, 2:47 AM
Post #115 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
One fish at a time Dan. I got Bob in the frier at the moment so I am predisposed, but I promise a return to you in a bit ;)
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 27, 2003, 2:54 AM
Post #116 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
No worries, get back to me if you want or not.
Didn't mean to step in the middle, but you seem to be the voice of the opposition at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
scottcody
Oct 27, 2003, 3:04 AM
Post #117 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 577
|
Now that it has taken me about two days to get thru this thread, I have a couple of things to say
First... I'm buying at least 5 copies of the guide on principle. I can't tell you how sick and tired I am of "secret" areas. Rationalize it anyway you want, but I think it boils down to self interest; which roughster has pointed out repeatedly. I lived and climbed in San Diego for 5 yrs (94-99) and have experienced the elitist attitude first hand. Seeing the posts about "just ask me and I'll tell you" had me falling out of my chair LMAO! With RARE exception I never found this to be the truth. How am I qualified to make that claim... I was an employee and later a manager at Solid Rock between 94-97. My experience with the attitude...
Corta Mandera (sp?)
Rainbow
the "secret" area out by Jamul
and yes even Canon Tajo
Second... I think secret areas go against the spirit of mountaineering... but so does half the bickering on this site, so much for faith in humanity... I mean are comments like this really necessary?
In reply to: now would you kindly just stfu, you airheaded half wit?
I mean what do you think trip reports are really about.
Lastly, there is real simple solution to this. Publish a guide that has just a portion of "easy to get to" area's. Make it complete, make it accurate, and spell out why other area's have been left out and who to contact for more information.
All decency aside, I really think this all about one group of climbers who want to keep their own "private idaho" south of the border. I think it is just that simple.
ok let me have it... but remember
In reply to: it's not about me... it's about canon tajo.
sheesh!
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 27, 2003, 3:05 AM
Post #118 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: and there you have it folks...in an effort to bring some balance and perspective to this issue, i post, in toto, what is widely regarded by students of climbing history as THE definative analysis of "the guidebook problem", a essay that has only grown in relevance and stature since it was first published in Ascent in 1973. (uhhh, gosh aaron, you ever heard of Ascent?) aaron -- predicitably -- proceeded to rapidly pick through the article looking for out-of-context pullout quotes, ignoring the tapestry of intellect that makes the article whole. pretty pathetic, really. but EXACTLY what i knew aaron would sttop to when i posted the article.
If thats what you think bvb, you need to reread the article and then my post.
In reply to: let's have a show of hands, please -- does anyone out there truly beleive aaron actually to time to read the article, consider the points made, and devote thought to the issues in any other context other than prep work for preparing another of his, uh, "rebuttals?"
Sure why not vote on something you could only surmise at best with more speculation. You have done a wonderfull job of slandering others with it, surely it will work again eh? Oh and by the way, I actually read the article twice, on two different occassions, and a little hint, the 1st time wasn't even related to this CT issue :)
In reply to: let me be clear on this point -- i posted that peice of writing for those of us who are actually trying to think this whole thing through -- aaron's response was a fait accompi -- (see his post above)
You are correct it was inevitable when I read the garbage you were throwing out that I would respond. As Ed McMahon would say, "You are correct sir!"
In reply to: Doug Robinson. Lito Tejada-Flores. Chuck Wilts. Royal Robbins. Galen Rowell. Leigh Ortenburger. Bill Putnam. and, the piece de resistance, Chris Jones. This group comprises a sizable contingent of the preeminent climbing writer/philosopher/critical thinkers of the last 40 years.
LOL. Preeminent climbers, I'll buy that one, philosophers, nah, critical thinkers Immense mirth and laughter. I am sorry but the fact that they were born predating the modern era of climbing is nothing more than coincident. There is a strange beauty in looking at a dinosaur fossil/replica in a museum, but lets not forget they had brains the size of a pea :lol: I am sure that will get all you old timer fired up :lol: The fact of the matter is I personally have read a lot of climbing history both book and perspectives from said individuals and have not been impressed beyond the context of climbing by any. Anyways, back to the issue at hand. Perhaps you need to reread some of the comemnts. Many of them are not "against guides". What I see int he article is a posed question, with many answers and the authors recognition that they are many sides to the issue and no one is oing to call the shots for everyone.
In reply to: And then we have the unintelligible contributions of....somehow who thinks that this whole thing is not about the huge issues surrounding climber experience and a dwindling spectrum of opportunities in a shrinking world...no, he think that's all about me, bob van belle.
Bob I clearly do not think it is about you. If that was the case, I would have said, "This shit isn't worth even touching" cause literally thats what you have shown so far "shit". I pointed out your hypocrasy (which you strangely never addressed) and acharacter assasination of Dave. Thats it. The rest is about the guidebook issue.
In reply to: and while i'm flattered by the attention he lavishes on me -- one does begin wonder if he gets any of this, any of this at all.
LOL your ego must be all swollen right now, but to quote a song, "You're so vain, I bet you think this song is about you"
In reply to: and, while i admire his youthfull gall and naivete in attempting to match words and intellect with the likes of lito tejada-flores (aaron thinks lito's article was biased?)
Last time I checked I wasn't a spring chicken, but hey if you think so....you must be right for you are right in all things. But as for the matching intellects (see above) and then "thinking" of bias? No I would say I showed there was bias.
In reply to: i must say it serves as a barometer of aaron's mental landscape that he would try in the first to pick apart the collaborative thinking of lito, robbins, doug robinson, et al -- all of whom wrote the article together, and all of whom have differing opinions.
LOL.
In reply to: it's not about me, aaron. it's about canon tajo. now would you kindly just stfu, you airheaded half wit?
Bob your egos seriously out of control. Seek counseling! And then here comes the STFU you again. Thats pretty sad when four letters pretty much can sum up the basis of your argument effectively, eh?
In reply to: remember: this is NOT a debate about guidebooks -- i have written a few and contributed to many in my day. this is debate about the need for a guide to a specific area, and an inquisitive look at the rational for a guidebook written by kennedy, who has no history at the area, and no stake in the outcome -- other than financial and egotistical.
I seriously laughed at the inquisitve look comment. Bob, your line of questioning has been anything but inquisitive. Slanderous, deceiptfull, disrepectful, and egotistical yes, inquisitive, no.
In reply to: aaron -- answer this question truthfully -- have you contributed any information to this guide whatsoever? will dk be listing you in the credits? have you provided him with topos or information? because many people are starting to wonder about your jihad-type approach to this thread -- especially given your role as a moderator. not that mods should not be free to participate -- but are you helping dk with this guide??
LOL I'll leave it to your vivid imagination Bob. You have done wonders with the character assasination of Dave. Perhaps I can be the next target????
|
|
|
|
|
climbbaja
Oct 27, 2003, 3:32 AM
Post #119 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 177
|
I see lots of bickering in between some intelligent discussion. Most of the pro-guidebook comments are from people who have likely never climbed at CT. While there are some general arguments as to the pros and cons of guidebooks, CT has its unique and critical issues.
Among these issues are: private ownership, restriction of access, a fragile arid ecosystem, visiting USA climbers in a foreign country, traditional ethics, and the final (significant) uncharted wilderness climbing venue within reach of SoCal.
Please, can we keep this to issues above the elementary school level?
-John Smallwood
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 27, 2003, 3:39 AM
Post #120 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: It is funny that you neglected the main point of the original comment and tried to generalize the debate. The best argument against a guidebook in my mind is that some places don’t need a guide and the climbing public in general is better off having places like that.
Well until you inform us all of why its kind of hard to address. Even on premise alone, I disagree, but until you elaborate I'll leave the guessing to others motives to Bob.
In reply to: Lets see there was a big controversy over his san diego guide that led to him making up the names of routes that started with him alienating the original ascensionists.
Wrong. The alienation happened before the guidebook came out as far as I understand it and it is even addressed in his guide. The FAist refused to give him the info, which is their right. So Dave did the next best thing, he climbed them, gave them names and grades. Is that the approach I would take? Probably not, but it is not uncommon in the history of climbing.
In reply to: Then he propses a guidebook for CT and alienates the majority of the FA people involved in that area, Do you read newspapers? Are you familiar with the concept of reading between the lines?
I very well know how to read between the lines, however I also recognize that in doing so, you are making large assumptions as to peoples intent and honesty for that matter. Its a simple matter of I don't believe everything I read. It would sure make life a lot easier if I did though.
In reply to: I have read a lot of your posts and you definitely have pattern of debating the debate as opposed to the issues
Wouldn't agree. I would say I have a habit of addressing both. I do not like letting hypocritical pseudo intellectuals come across in manners which should be vigorously contested ;) But I do not skirt the content either. Thats half the problem, I would gladly type up War aand Peace is response but at some point I am afraid I will make a post large enough to crash the entire internet and send mankind spiraling back to the age of the dinosaur :lol: It simply becomes a matter of which points to address over what space before things turn ridiculous.
In reply to: Now your cutting things out of context, My original suggestion was to contact his publisher in hopes of dissuading him from pursuing a path that I think is contrary to the best interests of the community. I looked into it and he is his own publisher which eliminates that option of providing feedbaclk. E-mailing him directly is the only option left, and yes I hate a-holes when they threaten something that I consider precious.
Ok so you hate him and advise sending him hate mail. I don't see anything wrong with my summation of your stance on this issue :?:
In reply to: Lets see, I oppose a guidebook for canon tajo. That obviously means I am against all guidebooks. Talk about unfounded ASSumptions. I collect guidebooks and have been doing so for 20 years.
And you asked me if I knew what reading between the lines meant? LOL. I said you are anti-guidebook, with the CT Gyuidebook implied. Wow, didn't realize I had to put CT in everything for people to understand I am discussing this issue in reference to CT. Hell is CT even acceptable? Do you want Canon Tajo? or perhaps Canon Tajo?
In reply to: You think bvb’s posts crashed and burned on the basis of your rebuttal? LOL, that is pretty funny. The fact that mainstream society follows a certain path sure as hell doesn’t mean that path is superior.
No the "mainstream" way is not always the correct way, but that doesn't mean when someone's opions coincide with it, that they are inherently incorrect. Mainstream is what got us to where we are to today, and its where it is taking us in the future. I have said it over and over, but perhaps you disagree or just were too intent on reading between the lines to see it, but the future is coming, with or without you.
In reply to: As far as I can tell you are a noobie with no sense of history, and no concept of adventure. Pretty sad for someone who has apparently graduated from the gym.
Not very good at generalizations and character assesment then. I have been climbing over 10 years, I am self taught from Freedom of the Hills, I have established hundreds of routes both ground up and top down trad and sport. I have bouldered, sport climbed, and trad climbed across a good portion of the US, I have hiked 10+ miles to domes in the middle of the desert and climbed FA trad lines and never told a soul about them (despite my partners wishes ;) though I never said he couldn't). I have climbed at a gym less than the number of fingers I have on my own two hands. I have helped in rescues, I ahve a guidebook collection that rivals the largest out there (and anyone who has been to my house can attest to.) I have collected every climbing magazine every edition starting in the 90s, and have spent endless hours while on road trips at libraries, friends houses, etc.. reading anything climbing related I could get my hands on. I have been discussign climbing on the internet since the 90s, I have seen waves of people come and go. Sp perhaps before you want to spout off more ignorance as to "what i am about" you should do your homework. As of now, I'll just call you a fool for being stupid enough to not even bother trying to learn anything about me before making the above statement.
In reply to: So for the last time. Some areas are better off without a guidebook. I can only think of three destination locations in the states that still follow this precept. Priest Draw, Adventure Land in Hueco, and Canon Tajo. Just because you don’t see a value in this concept doesn’t give you the right to obliterate the last surviving holdouts.
...and until you give us some reasons I'll respect that as the opinion of one single individual and nothing more. And by the way, there are two guides in print that I know of already that cover Preist Draw. Perhaps we should scratch it off that list?
As for obliterating the concept, nope, but then again no one is bound to the concept either, much to the chagrin of of some I'm sure.
I'll reiterate one point again. We all have the same right to the areas as you, bvb, or anyone else for that matter. If one of us choses to release a guide, let the people who create the demand decide if it is worthy or not. Beyond that, it is nothing more than an issue of some people trying to exert influence over what others see/buy. If you personally don't like the idea of a guidebook, as suggested in the article even, don't buy the guide. It really is that simpe! The possible impacts of the guide are purely speculation at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 27, 2003, 4:33 AM
Post #121 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: In reply to: Doug Robinson. Lito Tejada-Flores. Chuck Wilts. Royal Robbins. Galen Rowell. Leigh Ortenburger. Bill Putnam. and, the piece de resistance, Chris Jones. This group comprises a sizable contingent of the preeminent climbing writer/philosopher/critical thinkers of the last 40 years. LOL. Preeminent climbers, I'll buy that one, philosophers, nah, critical thinkers Immense mirth and laughter.
wow. aaron, you're out there. characterizing that crew as part of american climbing's intellectual core -- that is to say, the best writers, the most incisive thinkers, the most influential characters -- is so absurd it just cracks you up? dude, you really know your stuff...
ummm, 'kay. bye now.....
oh...and don't forget to stfu! and do it with a smile! oh, sorry...can't smile with you mouth full, can you?
(sorry john, but adolescent humor is what i am. can't help myself.)
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 27, 2003, 4:50 AM
Post #122 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Roughster,
The noobie attitude comment was directed towards your stance on this issue only. I have and had a fair idea of your climbing history from previous threads. Can you even conceive of the possibility that a guide might not be necessary for any particular area?
I get irritated by newbie attitudes such as why can’t we bolt a crack and what is wrong with retrobolting runout routes, and why can’t you just skip the bolts if you want to lead trad? The whole newbie attitude that you have to have a guide to climb at an area is along these lines.
As far as kennedy, if you really believe that his motivation for writing a guide to CT is wanting to do a public service. Right. Has he spent any significant time there, apparently not. Producing a guidebook for a given area shouldn’t be a based on ulterior motives and most of the financially inspired guidebooks fall way short of being worthwhile.
As far as Priest Draw, I have spent a fair amount of time there, I have never once seen anybody walking around with a guide. The locals don’t use grades as a local policy. The last time I was there with a crew from Hueco and about thirty of the locals came out and gave us a tour and beta on any and every problem we wanted to get on. That was a sweet day and a guidebook would have been totally besides the point.
I like using guidebooks as a tick list, but I almost always get an in person locals tour for my first trip to an area. It is just way more fun that way. This is a tradition that I would like to see passed along instead of a over reliance on guidebooks.
There are a lot of tendencies that come along with the “modernization” degradation of climbing ethics and habits influenced by sport and gym climbing that are totally contrary to many of the ideals inherent in the origins of the thing we call climbing. Things like respect for your predecessors and respect for traditional concepts and ethics such as self reliance, adventure and not feeling the need to be spoonfed every bit of info out there.
As far as I am concerned fighting against a guidebook for Canon Tajo is the “good fight” for tangible and meaningful reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
scottcody
Oct 27, 2003, 4:57 AM
Post #123 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 577
|
In reply to: Among these issues are: private ownership, restriction of access, a fragile arid ecosystem, visiting USA climbers in a foreign country, traditional ethics, and the final (significant) uncharted wilderness climbing venue within reach of SoCal. Please, can we keep this to issues above the elementary school level? -John Smallwood
But...none of these issues are unique to this area, and I don't see how any of these issues are insurmountable to the publication of a guidebook.
Take the domelands or the needles for example, both of which are light years more accessible than any crag in mexico. And are they wrought with the "Gatorade bottle throwing" hooligans? I would argue not. And these areas are featured in the mags almost every issue.
Another example, the wind river range. Will you see some else? maybe. Will they be on your route? if you are there to do pingora, maybe.
and these places have a very limited climbing season.
I just think that the publication of a guide will not produce the feared hordes.
The bottom line.
If this guy Kennedy is going to "screw" everything up with his guide, then beat him to the punch and publish a better product with all of the above concerns in mind... shoot I'd buy 10 of those. It is obvious to me that the time for a guide has come, simply because it is on its way.
Good luck... FYI I have skills and would be willing to assist in any publishing effort.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 27, 2003, 4:59 AM
Post #124 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
alpnclmb1, why bother trying to reason with with this guy anymore? he's a codpiece. and i'm starting to think his whole thing is a troll. nobody is that stupid.
course, i've been wrong before....heh.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 27, 2003, 5:26 AM
Post #125 of 267
(17089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
bvb
I am not trying to convince him of anything. At most I am trying to offer something intangible to the other people that read this thread in hopes that some people will see the truth in it.
Old school isn't just an age thing, it is an attitude thing.
Thankfully, some people still get it and will carry on when we are gone. That is worth some time typing on a keyboard as far as I am concerned.
carry on
d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Canon Tajo Guidebook???
[
