UKC

all about Alex Honnlove, oh and more deconstruction of the Dawn Wall by the Bisharat....

http://eveningsends.com/climbing/dawn-wall-broke-internet/

Apparently climbing is about to get more popular (BBC website feature) and both mags in the USA have upped their print runs in hastily jigged Dawn Wall specials and are offering 'advertising' deals to the outdoor trade selling it on 'if you get in early with these potential new climbers they will love (buy) your brand/gear for life.'

M

In reply to Michael Ryan:

That is a really excellent piece of writing.

In reply to Robert Durran:
He's my favourite modern climbing journalist Robert - always worth a visit to his site.

In reply to Robert Durran:

and what a wonderful paragraph

'Climbing is a context in which personal meaning can be derived from the utterly meaningless—the sheer absurdity that is climbing rocks for fun. Really, that is the story of rock climbing today: it’s a passion-based framework for leading a pretty good life. No more, no less.'

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Excellent article.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

The piece is entitled, 'Why the Dawn Wall broke the Internet', yet not only was the internet never broken, whatever that might mean, but the word internet never appears within the piece. Bizarre.

There was unprecedented media interest in a rock climb, with daily updates in many national newspapers, daily television updates and even live TV screening of the final pitches, but the internet remained resolutely unbroken.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Denying meaning in life is such an lazy position to adopt. Far more difficult is to embrace a world that you know to be true, but that is so readily cristicised in our realism-worshiping society. Climbing becomes more homogonised. Expression becomes taboo. The unexplainable remains unexplained. Don't just tow the line of greatest popularity.

In reply to John2:

Maybe they mean break in the way that a news story breaks. Not in the way a twig breaks.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

And maybe 'they' don't.

In reply to John2:


No, funny and attention grabbing.


Boring.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

My objections are in two parts - firstly the ascent of Dawn Wall did not break the internet. It would have been equally accurate to entitle the piece 'Why the Dawn Wall brought about peace in the Middle East'.

Secondly, the title smacks of an adolescent sensationalism that can conceive of no greater tragedy than the internet, the medium through which Facebook, Twitter and all the other essentials of teenage life are conveyed, should be 'broken' (whatever that means). One is forced to question how worthwhile the author's other value judgements are.

In reply to John2:
You grumpy bugger John.


That's a fail John. Teenagers don't use Facebook, old people do.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Toe Franco. Sorry to be a pedant. It's origin is in sailors standing in line for roll call.

In reply to John2:


Yes. He does.

"All the attention given to the Dawn Wall gave this ascent a sense of importance, as if it were the very first moon landing, or something. Ironically, in 2015 a moon landing would barely generate a page-3 blurb. Yet the Dawn Wall struck a chord.

I wonder why?"

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

Thanks

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

I think you'll find Iain, you're actually confusing pedantry with splitting hairs.

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

It's pedantry to say it's "its" not "it's"

In reply to DancingOnRock:


With whom? A quick survey round the non-climbers here suggests that about 50% were aware of there being 'something' in the news about climbing, about 10% actually scanned an article and generally thought either "So what?" or "Why?" Yep, an unscientific survey and just one data point - make of it what you will.

If a chord has been struck beyond a few media sheep, it's pretty muted.

In reply to John2:


Accurate? Maybe. As funny? No. It's a joke, not the BBC.

The whole 'break the internet' concept as an over-the-top phrase has been around for a while to describe anything very popular online, such that it may crash the server of the website in question. For those who follow American pop-culture, or are involuntarily exposed to it (i.e. lots of people) they would know that the phrase was recently over-used to hype the semi-naked, oiled up Kim Kardashian photo that appeared on some site somewhere and some cover or something. The idea was that this photo of her butt was so amazing, people wanting to look at it would 'break the internet' trying. It didn't happen - why, is a whole other issue. Overexposure, tried-too-hard, annoying subject etc etc.

Conferring upon the Breaking Dawn Wall saga (see what I did there? No, oh, OK…) this title is a way of conveying not only that it was very popular, but a way of highlighting its underdog status as a niche climbing thing that actually DID get really popular in the mainstream, which is not what anyone would have expected. It was ANTI-hype, juxtaposed to the whole overexposed Kim Kardashian Asstastrophe episode.

So in that sense Bisharat is adding layers of humour and context to the title, not just informing the reader of content.


No, not really. But see? We can all be a little over the top sometimes

In reply to Damo:

Thanks, you just saved me from a lot of typing trying to explain 'break the internet' to this thread.

In reply to Valkyrie1968:


Mountain Spirit going climbing....now that would break the internet :p

In reply to Damo:

Ah, thank you. I did begin to wonder if this was a new Americanism that I hadn't been subjected to yet. As a matter of fact, I did once see a photograph of an object which purported to be Kim Kardashian's arse, but which I suspect was actually a couple of bags of not very well shaped silicone. I wonder how much one of those costs.

I did actually begin to read this article expecting to see something about internet responses in America being affected - hence my disappointment.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

It is its unless it's a shortening of it is. Easily remembered as it's its unless it's it is. There should probably be a comma in there.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

I know. Iain wrote, "It's origins ...", when it should be, "Its origins ...".

A pedant's schadenfreude.

In reply to John2:

I'm with you. No surprise really that Mick supports tricks to garner extra readers, and calls a critique of this boring (in an article that without irony follows the misleading title with bemoaning the state of journalism).

"Climbing is a context in which personal meaning can be derived from the utterly meaningless—the sheer absurdity that is climbing rocks for fun."

Is an odd view. How can something that adds so much value, to so many people's lives, be meaningless or absurd.... If he inserted 'seemingly' as appropriate, maybe I could agree?

Having said that, I think it's one of his better articles (I don't often share Mick's enthusiasm on his content but I do on his genuine effort to write interesting stuff.... much better that than agreable dullness)

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

joking

In reply to Offwidth:



I think he is trying to say that climbing somehow pulls itself up by its own bootstraps to become meaningful (at least to those who do it). The same could be said of many things, perhaps everything - in fact our lives might seem utterly pointless without this idea.

The fact that the article is provoking an interesting debate on here suggests that there is something good about it!

In reply to Michael Ryan:
Should probably have a NSFW tag for the picture half way down.

In reply to Offwidth:


Yes, I had the same philosophy when I created a climbing guidebook company and worked at UKC.

Anyway Steve....we have attached a probe to your internals and we will know if you click on this link...

THE KIM KARDASHIAN GUIDE TO CLIMBING HOLDS

http://cruxcrush.com/2014/11/24/the-kim-kardashian-guide-to-climbing-holds/

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Interesting stuff. The news channels repeatedly report that the climbers scaled the wall using only their hands and feet. I've spent years climbing routes using my nose and chin. I feel so stupid. Next time, I'm going to take a tip from the pros and use my hands and feet. This is going going to open up a whole new way of life for me. Next time I post on UKC, I'm not going to clench a pen in the cheeks of my arse and prod at the keyboard with it. No, sir - not me. I'm going to use my FINGERS.

What is it with media bods? I'm pretty sure there's things living in my garden that are more intelligent than that.

In reply to Tony Naylor:

Interesting stuff. The news channels repeatedly report that the climbers scaled the wall using only their hands and feet. I've spent years climbing routes using my nose and chin.

I took that to mean that they didn't physically climb up the ropes, but only used their hands and feet?

In reply to Tony Naylor:

I think this is to distinguish it from aid climbing.

I watched a CBBC program recently where Andy Kirkpatrick took his 13year old daughter to climb El Cap in 2012 to make her the youngest person to compete the climb.

However, I was surprised that she jumarred 3000m then only free climbed the last 50m.

Big Wall climbing is a completely different game.

In reply to John2:

I don't know if this applies in this specific case, but generally writers write articles and sub-editors write headlines to go above those articles. Writers usually hate the titles sub-editors write.

In reply to BarrySW19:


This is the climbing world we are talking about Barry. It's exceptional to even get edited never mind sub-edited.

In reply to Damo:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_Saga:_Breaking_Dawn_–_Part_1

In reply to DancingOnRock:



That sounds like a rather boring chore.

In reply to Marek:



Several non-climbers I know mentioned it to me because they were aware I climb. I don't think I've ever seen them express an interest in climbing otherwise.