This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Economist posted an obituary of John Bacher here
http://www.economist.com/obituary/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14029915&fs...
I feel its a shame that such a respected publication would publish an obituary that seems to be written by a non climber.
Shoddy journalism??
http://www.economist.com/obituary/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14029915&fs...
I feel its a shame that such a respected publication would publish an obituary that seems to be written by a non climber.
Shoddy journalism??
In reply to Aliixx:
Well, 'inching across a layback' might sound a bit odd, but the article seems to capture some of the right spirit and at least they spelled his name right!
Well, 'inching across a layback' might sound a bit odd, but the article seems to capture some of the right spirit and at least they spelled his name right!
In reply to Aliixx:
Jeez, does it really matter!
Whether it was written by a climber or not it seems a reasonably researched, accurate obituary.
>
> I feel its a shame that such a respected publication would publish an obituary that seems to be written by a non climber.
>
> Shoddy journalism??
> I feel its a shame that such a respected publication would publish an obituary that seems to be written by a non climber.
>
> Shoddy journalism??
Jeez, does it really matter!
Whether it was written by a climber or not it seems a reasonably researched, accurate obituary.
In reply to Aliixx:
Better than it being written by a climber - if your writing is anything to go by: it's "Bachar" not "Bacher" and "its" not "it's" in your comment on the Economist's board. As you say, shoddy.
Better than it being written by a climber - if your writing is anything to go by: it's "Bachar" not "Bacher" and "its" not "it's" in your comment on the Economist's board. As you say, shoddy.
In reply to petestack:
Yep fair call on my own shoddy spelling
Yep fair call on my own shoddy spelling
In reply to Anonymous:
Fair enough, but I'm not writing for the Economist.
Fair enough, but I'm not writing for the Economist.
In reply to Aliixx:
I thought it was concise and revealing- probably the least 'shoddy' piece I have read on climbing in mainstream media.
I thought it was concise and revealing- probably the least 'shoddy' piece I have read on climbing in mainstream media.
In reply to Aliixx:
NYT obit here
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/sports/09bachar.html
Shows the measure of the man that there are many.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=jo...
NYT obit here
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/sports/09bachar.html
Shows the measure of the man that there are many.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=jo...
In reply to Aliixx:
It's an excellent piece, told me things I didn't know about Bachar, and bridges the gap for a non-climbing audience.
Beautifully written, the opposite of shoddy.
Journalism at its purest is not just writing about your own small world, it's bringing other worlds to a wide audience through careful research and elegant writing.
It's an excellent piece, told me things I didn't know about Bachar, and bridges the gap for a non-climbing audience.
Beautifully written, the opposite of shoddy.
Journalism at its purest is not just writing about your own small world, it's bringing other worlds to a wide audience through careful research and elegant writing.
In reply to Aliixx:
Surely it's written by a journalist - following your logic, would that mean a journalist can only write another journalists obituary?
Surely it's written by a journalist - following your logic, would that mean a journalist can only write another journalists obituary?
In reply to Martin76:
There appears to be the old flaw, prevalent among none climbers, of misusing terminology. All none climbers think 'free' climbing is climbing without ropes. Why don't the dumb bastards understand what 'solo' and 'free' mean?
There appears to be the old flaw, prevalent among none climbers, of misusing terminology. All none climbers think 'free' climbing is climbing without ropes. Why don't the dumb bastards understand what 'solo' and 'free' mean?
In reply to Aliixx:
The Guardian has one by Ed Douglas - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/10/john-bacher-rock-climber
Happy now?
The Guardian has one by Ed Douglas - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/10/john-bacher-rock-climber
Happy now?
In reply to Aliixx:
I'm not sure such a supposition follows. A fluid move during which a crucial hold breaks could just as well result in a fall.
> "He must have made some move that was ugly, clumsy or distracted. If he had kept the climb focused and beautiful, he could not possibly have died."
I'm not sure such a supposition follows. A fluid move during which a crucial hold breaks could just as well result in a fall.
In reply to The Purple Pimpernel: It's such a simple bit of terminology to get right and it's the only major flaw that I can see in the piece. Shame.
In reply to Fultonius: shame about some of the comments though, did 12 readers really recommend that homophobic post ?
In reply to Aliixx:
Not at all. Quite fine journalism, in fact. And it would seem that many of the readers of the Economist valued the obit as well. Don't be quite so blinkered.
> The Economist posted an obituary of John Bacher here
>
> http://www.economist.com/obituary/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14029915&fs...
>
> I feel its a shame that such a respected publication would publish an obituary that seems to be written by a non climber.
>
> Shoddy journalism??
>
> http://www.economist.com/obituary/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14029915&fs...
>
> I feel its a shame that such a respected publication would publish an obituary that seems to be written by a non climber.
>
> Shoddy journalism??
Not at all. Quite fine journalism, in fact. And it would seem that many of the readers of the Economist valued the obit as well. Don't be quite so blinkered.
In reply to Aliixx:
Oh dear. According to diamondjim I should have stopped climbing over 10 years ago - in fact, almost before I'd started.
Oh dear. According to diamondjim I should have stopped climbing over 10 years ago - in fact, almost before I'd started.
In reply to MeMeMe:
> The Guardian has one by Ed Douglas - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/10/john-bacher-rock-climber
What a great bit of writing. Is that because Ed Douglas is a fine journalist, or because he's also a climber?
How bizarre that the name is spelled wrong in the URL. (Only in the URL, Douglas, of course, gets it right in the obituary itself.)
What a great bit of writing. Is that because Ed Douglas is a fine journalist, or because he's also a climber?
How bizarre that the name is spelled wrong in the URL. (Only in the URL, Douglas, of course, gets it right in the obituary itself.)
In reply to deepsoup:
Both I suspect!
Would be interesting to read any non-climbing stuff he's written.
Never even noticed it was wrong in the URL!
>
> What a great bit of writing. Is that because Ed Douglas is a fine journalist, or because he's also a climber?
> What a great bit of writing. Is that because Ed Douglas is a fine journalist, or because he's also a climber?
Both I suspect!
Would be interesting to read any non-climbing stuff he's written.
> How bizarre that the name is spelled wrong in the URL. (Only in the URL, Douglas, of course, gets it right in the obituary itself.)
Never even noticed it was wrong in the URL!
In reply to MeMeMe:
I've read a few bits, but I can't remember where. He's very good - very thoughtful, intelligent and measured. Wish there were more like him.
> (In reply to deepsoup)
>
> [...]
>
> Both I suspect!
>
> Would be interesting to read any non-climbing stuff he's written.
>
> [...]
>
> Both I suspect!
>
> Would be interesting to read any non-climbing stuff he's written.
I've read a few bits, but I can't remember where. He's very good - very thoughtful, intelligent and measured. Wish there were more like him.
In reply to Aliixx:
I thought the article was pretty elegant, myself. I struggled with the sentiment behind the last couple of sentences, though - perhaps that was true, but it didn't make for comfortable reading.
I thought the article was pretty elegant, myself. I struggled with the sentiment behind the last couple of sentences, though - perhaps that was true, but it didn't make for comfortable reading.
In reply to Tall Clare:
My interpretation was that they reflected Bachar's own style - that beautiful, fluid movement was the key to success, and perhaps that no-one who had watched him climb at his peak could believe he could ever fall if he carried on climbing like that.
Don't think it was intended as a genuine analysis of the accident, although it's a hard one to pull off in an obituary, and I'm not sure it entirely succeeds.
> (In reply to Aliixx)
>
> I thought the article was pretty elegant, myself. I struggled with the sentiment behind the last couple of sentences, though - perhaps that was true, but it didn't make for comfortable reading.
>
> I thought the article was pretty elegant, myself. I struggled with the sentiment behind the last couple of sentences, though - perhaps that was true, but it didn't make for comfortable reading.
My interpretation was that they reflected Bachar's own style - that beautiful, fluid movement was the key to success, and perhaps that no-one who had watched him climb at his peak could believe he could ever fall if he carried on climbing like that.
Don't think it was intended as a genuine analysis of the accident, although it's a hard one to pull off in an obituary, and I'm not sure it entirely succeeds.
In reply to Martin76:
yeah - I didn't read it as an analysis, but I think you summed it up well.
> (In reply to Tall Clare)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
>
> Don't think it was intended as a genuine analysis of the accident, although it's a hard one to pull off in an obituary, and I'm not sure it entirely succeeds.
> Don't think it was intended as a genuine analysis of the accident, although it's a hard one to pull off in an obituary, and I'm not sure it entirely succeeds.
yeah - I didn't read it as an analysis, but I think you summed it up well.
In reply to alan edmonds:
Quite - it's very easy to die soloing - however contolled you are you can't eliminate chance - slips, breaks, weather etc
> (In reply to Aliixx)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure such a supposition follows. A fluid move during which a crucial hold breaks could just as well result in a fall.
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure such a supposition follows. A fluid move during which a crucial hold breaks could just as well result in a fall.
Quite - it's very easy to die soloing - however contolled you are you can't eliminate chance - slips, breaks, weather etc
In reply to Aliixx: Are you saying that only writers who share the profession/pastime of the deceased should be entitled to write their obituary?
In reply to Aliixx:
In reply to The Purple Pimpernel:
because they are American and use different terms perhaps fre-solo and roped-solo?
I thought it was a good piece - I don't understand the OP's complaint
at least they got his age 52 correct unlike many others quoting 51 (i guess from secondary sources)
In reply to The Purple Pimpernel:
> Why don't the dumb bastards understand what 'solo' and 'free' mean?
because they are American and use different terms perhaps fre-solo and roped-solo?
I thought it was a good piece - I don't understand the OP's complaint
at least they got his age 52 correct unlike many others quoting 51 (i guess from secondary sources)
In reply to The Purple Pimpernel:
Do you mind not calling those who don't climb, dumb.
I'm sure that you are not familiar with many terms from pursuits that you don't participate in.
Mick
> (In reply to Martin76)
>
> There appears to be the old flaw, prevalent among none climbers, of misusing terminology. All none climbers think 'free' climbing is climbing without ropes. Why don't the dumb bastards understand what 'solo' and 'free' mean?
>
> There appears to be the old flaw, prevalent among none climbers, of misusing terminology. All none climbers think 'free' climbing is climbing without ropes. Why don't the dumb bastards understand what 'solo' and 'free' mean?
Do you mind not calling those who don't climb, dumb.
I'm sure that you are not familiar with many terms from pursuits that you don't participate in.
Mick
In reply to The Purple Pimpernel:
We use different terminology on different sides of the Atlantic. Perhaps most non climbers get their limited knowledge from, mainly, American outlets?
> (In reply to Martin76)
>
> There appears to be the old flaw, prevalent among none climbers, of misusing terminology. All none climbers think 'free' climbing is climbing without ropes.
>
> There appears to be the old flaw, prevalent among none climbers, of misusing terminology. All none climbers think 'free' climbing is climbing without ropes.
We use different terminology on different sides of the Atlantic. Perhaps most non climbers get their limited knowledge from, mainly, American outlets?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I'll second that. Mr Pimp....bit of a tip......think about the negative impact some of your posts may have. Peace.
> (In reply to The Purple Pimpernel)
> [...]
>
> Do you mind not calling those who don't climb, dumb.
>
> I'm sure that you are not familiar with many terms from pursuits that you don't participate in.
>
> Mick
> [...]
>
> Do you mind not calling those who don't climb, dumb.
>
> I'm sure that you are not familiar with many terms from pursuits that you don't participate in.
>
> Mick
I'll second that. Mr Pimp....bit of a tip......think about the negative impact some of your posts may have. Peace.
In reply to Tall Clare:
He must have made some move that was ugly, clumsy or distracted. If he had kept the climb focused and beautiful, he could not possibly have died.
I think the author is just trying to say that Bachar was possessed of great self-belief; that the sureness of his style and precision of his analysis of the rock would keep him alive. Maybe one can also find irony (from the author) or a hint of spirituality (implied within Bachar's belief system) there. I am not sure. Anyway: I like it.
> I thought the article was pretty elegant, myself. I struggled with the sentiment behind the last couple of sentences, though - perhaps that was true, but it didn't make for comfortable reading.
He must have made some move that was ugly, clumsy or distracted. If he had kept the climb focused and beautiful, he could not possibly have died.
I think the author is just trying to say that Bachar was possessed of great self-belief; that the sureness of his style and precision of his analysis of the rock would keep him alive. Maybe one can also find irony (from the author) or a hint of spirituality (implied within Bachar's belief system) there. I am not sure. Anyway: I like it.
In reply to Aliixx:
In terms of the profile of its readership and the longevity of its influence, The Economist is by far the pre-eminent English language publication on the planet. It has one obituary per week. This week's was assigned to John Bachar. That is a great honour to his memory.
I agree the "solo" and "free" climbing confusion is irritating. But other than that it is very well written. Having tried to brief journalists myself about climbing on a number of occasions, I think it is absolutely as good as one could expect from a generalist. And, as to notion that every obit in the Economist should be written by a specialist in the deceased's field: a moment's pause for thought will tell you that that would be absurd.
> I feel its a shame that such a respected publication would publish an obituary that seems to be written by a non climber. Shoddy journalism??
In terms of the profile of its readership and the longevity of its influence, The Economist is by far the pre-eminent English language publication on the planet. It has one obituary per week. This week's was assigned to John Bachar. That is a great honour to his memory.
I agree the "solo" and "free" climbing confusion is irritating. But other than that it is very well written. Having tried to brief journalists myself about climbing on a number of occasions, I think it is absolutely as good as one could expect from a generalist. And, as to notion that every obit in the Economist should be written by a specialist in the deceased's field: a moment's pause for thought will tell you that that would be absurd.
In reply to Aliixx:
I've just read the Economist obit after some non-climbing guys at work pointed it out to me saying that it was a beautiful obituary.
Says it all really.
I've just read the Economist obit after some non-climbing guys at work pointed it out to me saying that it was a beautiful obituary.
Says it all really.
In reply to tobyfk:
I thought this was a beautiful piece of writing, and the last two sentences masterpieces of ironic poignancy. The whole obit has great shape and rhythm.
This obituary may actually have been written by a climber but with the terminology ("free" instead of "solo") tweaked slightly for the sake of the non-climbing readership. In fact, I think the author could be Largo.
I thought this was a beautiful piece of writing, and the last two sentences masterpieces of ironic poignancy. The whole obit has great shape and rhythm.
This obituary may actually have been written by a climber but with the terminology ("free" instead of "solo") tweaked slightly for the sake of the non-climbing readership. In fact, I think the author could be Largo.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...