In reply to Luca Signorelli:
> The majority of everything is seldom memorable, interesting or worthwhile. But this doesn't mean that one shouldn't encourage trying!
>
True. Just don't ask me to pay for their attempts
> Again, I believe that out of 10 climbing books out each year there's at least one worth reading.
We're obviously not seeing the same 10 books
> Also - I think that an activity where only those with enough money of their own are those who can afford to achieve their dreams, it's a dying activity. In climbing (as in many other fields), the great moment of creativity have historically almost always coincided with strong influxes of new "blood", mostly people with little money but big dreams
Fair enough, but one can do hard climbing in big mountains for relatively little money. Some people just don't want it bad enough. They'll pay 5000 for a car when they could have paid 3000 but the 3000 one wasn't cool enough, so they lose the 2000 that pays for first ascents in China, or they buy a car when the bus would do, or bought a bigger TV, or spent more time down the pub, or whatever. In the larger scheme of mainstream society, climbing trips (excluding Everest, 8000ers etc) are not a ot of money. Not in a world where people spend $10,000 on "home entertainment systems". Of course I'm not talking about Darfur-world, but UK/USA/Australia-world.
Probably worth noting that I realise that MEF grants are not 'public money' but dividends from the capital made from the sale of post-1953 Everest books etc. So climbing is paying for 'itself' in that sense, which is good. Better given as grants for climbing than paying for more committees and rule books.
I would also add, without wanting to be too critical, that the selection process for things like the MEF or AC attract or reward a certain type of person or approach, which may not bear much relevance to how deserving a person is in terms of climbing ability. Though Jonathan Pratt has more to say about that.
D