UKC

Im still not convinced. Im still with his missus first description of it as teenage angst. OK Im only half way through but I took a glance back through Savage Arena.

Why dont I like Andy's book?

"How long would it take for a crumb to fall? I thought about the pitch, what I'd been told, what I could see. The first part was yet another expanding crack. If you mess that up you might get away with just a broken leg. The next section was a leftwards-trending seam, probably requiring tiny copperheads and birdbeaks. Got to be careful there. I considered the consequences of a fall. Maybe I would survive, but I would probably hit the ledge on my side. Maybe it would be better to die straight away. You don't want to lie smashed and semi-conscious, feeling sorry for yourself. At least close to the top I had some chance of a rescue. Only if someone sees you fall. The crux itself involved hooking a fragile flake. With no gear to hold a fall, any mistake would be terminal"

Andy Kirkpatrick (Psychovertical 2008)

"I was weakening fast. My calves ached unendurably. I cut a small step out of the ice with my axe and stood on it while I hammered in an ice peg. I passed the rope attached to my waist through a snap-link in the peg and moved on with a little more reassurance. The dreamlike state persisted. Dick became a vague silhouette eighty feet away through the mist and driving snow. I kept making the motions of driving in axe, hammer and crampon points, moving imperceptibly further, but my adhesion was only tenuous. Wearily and inevitably, but with surprise, I fell, banging down the ice to be stopped twenty feet below the ice peg, dangling from the end of the rope. I had stopped, and I had no thought for the danger of the situation. Four thousand feet of mountain stretched away beneath me, and one six-inch spike of metal had held in the ice, taking my weight on the rope which I had attached to it. My brain filtered out all but the essential."

Joe Tasker (Savage Arena 1982)

In reply to Fawksey:

Have to say that I was disappointed with Psychovertical.
I put it down to having either heard (lectures) or read (magazine/web articles) many parts of the book previously.

Don't get me wrong, I find Andy hugely entertaining, both in person and through his articles - but I really don't feel it is Boardman Tasker material.

I really must get round to getting a copy of Savage Arena - it's been on my list of books to read for far too long.

Si

In reply to SCC:

I'm currently reading Psychovertical, and really enjoying it. I like Andy's style of switching rapidly between different scenarios, and I would argue that several of his passages can match those of Joe Tasker. I also really like the level of humility that Mr K uses.

I certainly think that it is Boardman Tasker material (whatever that means) - surely the BT award goes to the best book published in a given year. Obviously some years will be better than others, and if two great books are published in the same year it is perfectly possible that a book that doesn't win is better than a book that does win in another year.

In reply to Monk: 2008 was a year with a strong field. Though I would put that down to hype.

In reply to Fawksey:

If just comparing the paragraphs above, there's no doubt that Andy's is more sensationalist. Some people might like that, I don't.

One of the most enjoyable climbing books I've read in recent years was Andy Cave's "Learning to Breathe". For me, it came across as simply a really good flowing story, where the tales of his mining days blended surprisingly well with his mountaineering experiences. It felt well-structured, nothing seemed contrived, and it wasn't trying to be clever. Just a well-written story.

In reply to SCC/Tom Knowles: Yes I liked Andy Caves book. I also felt he blended his growing up and the background of the times well so that you the reader could draw your own conclusions.

In reply to Fawksey:

Really? http://www.touchingthevoid.co.uk/forum/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=42&p=2780...

I guess, as with anything, people will never agree on what is 'good'. So much is down to your own personal experiences, tastes and viewpoints. I have to agree that of the two paragraphs you quoted I prefer the Joe Tasker one (and that is a truly great book), but I don't think that the extract from Psychovertical is representative of the whole book, and is certainly not one of the best bits.

In reply to Monk: I only said it was a strong field because the blurb said it was a strong field. I then said "I would put that down to hype" as my feeling was that it wasnt a strong field.

Yes the two quoted paragraphs dont really give an indication one way or another. It just happened to be those passages that were quoted on the internet.

I dont want to unduly slag someone off and maybe Im just coming into the book full of my own angst. Ive always liked the guy since I first heard him say if it hasnt got a hood its not soft shell its soft shite".

I will keep reading it.

In reply to Fawksey:


Yep, I enjoy books that allow me to drift off and picture the scene, or make me consider the "what if". The paragraph of Andy's above is an example of the opposite, where all sorts of conclusions and possibilities are being drawn for you.

In reply to Fawksey:

Imho, Psychovertical is the best book ever written about climbers' relationship with fear. Did it win the BT? I hope so. It was easily good enough.

I've not been to Andy's lectures and was tempted to dismiss him as a fat punter (sorry, Andy). I was lent the book by a stunningly courageous climber. Noting my expression, he just smiled and said, "Give it a go." I'm glad I did. My respect for Andy soared. OK, he may not be a stick insect but he ain't no punter.

It felt that the Reticent Wall was a mirror of his soul. All the way up, I was thinking, "What the f*ck is he going to do, on the 13th pitch, the 13th day?" It was as though every day of his life, every shit experience was leading up to this final test.

The 13th pitch will live in my mind forever. Psychovertical is a great book.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

That sums it up for me too. I found it to be very honest. I can appreciate Taskers writing but I think, sometimes, mountain writers can be guilty of being too flowery with their prose.

In reply to Toby S: True, and these paragraphs are Andy's thoughts at the time. Not descriptions of an event using language to communicate evocatively, but straightforward uncompromising words - just like it is.

In reply to Fawksey: I loved it, its one of the few books that has given me that fear feeling in my stomach when your pushing yourself past your known limits and your just not sure if you have it in you.

In reply to Fawksey:
In the past I tended not to read books mainly due to knowing a genre that interested me. Andy's book got me into buying reading books and discovering that mountain adventure is the genre for me.
Thanks Andy, Im by no means a literate expert, but I just loved the book.

mh

In reply to mikehike:

I quite enjoyed Psychovertical, but on reflection I think I enjoyed Andy Cave's more partly because of the writing style but also because mountaineering interests me more than rock climbing.

The one book I've read recently that I couldn't get past the first few pages of was Steve House Beyond the Mountain. Despite not earning any plaudits from me, it still won the BT prize in 2009, and Rheinhold Messner loves it, so what the hell do I know!

In reply to All: Ive just got in from work and I read some more in my break and still sat there thinking please stop telling me after every sentence that you might die. I have to say the book conveys very well how someone with a form of word blindness can sometimes struggle to come across.

In reply to Fawksey:

There is a paragraph near the end about soloing on El Cap where he talks of needing to treat yourself compassionately, 'like a lover' when your in sketchy circumstances which I thought was worth all the vertigo inducing attention deficit style of prose.

Regards

D

In reply to Fawksey:

as a climbing book i found it interestingly intimate - tho it was the chapters not directly about climbing that i liked most. no doubt about ak being an interesting human.

i did find tho that the reticent wall chapters and some of the chapters about big climbs got boring fast on style. the whole cycle of 'unprepared, scared to shit, risky placement, humbling joke, everythings ok afterall' became irritating.

it was aks good nature coming thru that made it readable - were he a self-promoting hardcore dude-type it would have been crap.

no, hes not a great writer - but maximum points for the battle with dyslexia and his motor-mouth quality is part of his charm. ive read it a second time just for this (skipping most of the reticent wall bits).

mind you, i dont think tasker is all that brilliant a writer either, but i know im missing the impact his stuff may have had 30 years ago.

In reply to ice.solo: I was coming from the angle of is it literature? The Boardman Tasker is an award for literature. Maybe the Boardman Tasker has changed and is now just a showcase to highlight books and sell them.

Im reading AK's book and I am enjoying it.

In reply to Fawksey:

Of course it's literature: it's a written work. How do you define literature?

Should the BT award be about highbrow erudition and complex syntax, or should it be about a written work reaching out, enthralling and encapturing a large proportion of the climbing population? To be honest, I think the latter. If I want to read particularly beautiful prose for the sake of beautiful prose, then climbing literature is unlikely to be the place I look for it.

Surely, simply by having a large number of climbers reading his book and loving it is the sign of a good writer/story-teller who has created a work that people relate to and reach out to. In my opinion, that is precisely the sort of work that deserves an award.

In reply to Monk: Like The Sun newspaper you mean?

In reply to Monk: Thats what it says on the tin.

The trust was established to promote literature by providing an annual award to authors of literary works, the central theme of which is concerned with mountains.

The prize of £3,000 commemorates the lives of Peter Boardman and Joe Tasker and is given to the author or co-authors of an original work which has made an outstanding contribution to mountain literature.

In reply to Monk: Maybe its one of those that I need a few months to have passed after Ive read it to be able to reflect objectively on it?

In reply to Monk:

Why does it need to be one or the other? What's wrong with something that's well-written without the complex syntax and highbrow erudition? I've just started rereading Thomas Hornbein's book about the 1963 Everest expedition, and it has a very nicely written Foreword by Will Siri, one of the other expedition members. It's a lovely piece of work - it's not complicated or difficult, but it's clearly the work of someone comfortable with words and capable of using them well.

Psychovertical isn't very well written, but that's not really surprising, given AK's struggles with dyslexia. It does tell the reader a lot about AK, so it 'works' in that respect. I don't really know whether it's a worthy winner of the Boardman-Tasker - it's not the best book to have won the prize, but it's certainly not the worst.

In reply to Fawksey:

Possibly, but possibly it just isn't your cup of tea. Not everyone likes the same things all the time. For example, everyone raves about Learning to Breathe, and while it is very good I don't think that it is one of the best books I have ever read on mountaineering.

To be honest, I only have very short slots of time to read at the moment so the short chapters and accessibility of Psychovertical suit me perfectly at the moment (and probably suit the sort of person that doesn't read very much, possibly explaining the large numbers of people who have read and enjoyed Psychovertical).

In reply to Fawksey:

Who cares if you are convinced? The book was written by someone struggling with dyslexia and yet inspired and entertained many including some with strong literary taste. By any measure that makes it a great climbing work. The best books in the world will have their detractors.

In reply to Offwidth: Me thats who. He wrote it for me to read afterall. Maybe I should take your lead. Who cares if he is struggling with dyslexia.

In reply to Fawksey:

I'll tell him that when I see him next as he'll be really pleased. He's been puzzling on who he wrote it for for a while now.

In reply to Offwidth: I was going to ask you if you were matey with him when I saw the tone of your reply.

It wont do him any favours if you keep blowing smoke up his arse.

In reply to Monk: I see your point. I read WH Murray in exactly the same way. Have done for years.

In reply to Fawksey:

aha, my error.

so i dunno then. i dont think its great literature, nor intended as literature, but i think as an example of a book where the writing itself is interesting and the subjects presented in a way the style enhances - then yes i suppose it is.

literature in the same way as salman rushdie? no.
literature as in crafted from words in a fairly original way. sure.
its not just anecdote and description if thats what you mean.

In reply to Fawksey:

I liked PsychoVertical.
Particularly, I liked the chapters relating his initial epics- especially the Frendo bit (boot falling off) and the failed attempt on the Petit Dru.
I find climbing writing more involving when there are references to the social side of things.
The relationships and traumas associated with the people factor is key to the experience of climbing.
I found the solo big wall stuff gripping in places but I couldn't relate as well to it.

In reply to Fawksey:
I rather liked his ruthless self-examination and tedious battles with his own motivations and self-doubt. Whether it was worth the shout. I had some of the same feelings on a dark, wet Hard Severe in the Lakes last year

In reply to Wee Davie: I found the "I might die" every other line a bit tedious. I meen hes in his thirties now and climbed shit loads and it still hasnt happend so pretty much shows hes over egging the pudding.

The shit tube episode I enjoyed. I also preffered the Alpine interludes. Maybe big wall climbing doesnt lend itself to a gripping read? "I climbed some blank wall and I might die" is pretty much the same blank wall I might die anytime anywhere.

In reply to Fawksey:

I also found that the "I might die" a bit repetitive at first but found the book got better as I got into, I really enjoyed the back and forth nature of the book and it gave a good insight to extreme aid climbing something I knew nothing about before.

Jason

In reply to Fawksey:


I disagree. I grew up with a generation of British climbers who pushed the envelope with soloing and super-alpinism. It was a meat-grinder. Loads of them died. A few - a very few - continue, but invariably they're unbelievably skilled at picking their battles. And, even then, part of me half-expects to come on here one morning and read that...

It was clear to me, from reading Psychovertical, that Andy has proved himself to himself - which, I think, was what was driving him. It would be wise to leave the arena. He can still enjoy cragging, safe(ish) Alpinism and safe(ish) big walls. And his wife and child. And all else that life has to offer.

Mick

In reply to jasonC abroad: I dont know if it was his own idea to do the back and forth nature of the book with its interspersed chapters but whoevers it was it was a bloody goody idea.

The endless monotony of the big wall would have been too much.

Thanks for all the feedback on Psychovertical - good and bad. It's all great grist for the mill for book number 2. I guess it's worth saying a little bit more about some of the points raised, as it might be helpful for anyone else writing their own books.

The moment you publish you see all the things you should have changed, and Psychovertical was a patchwork of old and new, and it does show. I'd hoped to avoid sixth form angst, or "I nearly died" but I guess there was angst, and I did feel like I was going to die, so there you go (when you ride a big flake off a wall in the dark that is just the thought that goes through your mind).

The book wasn't written in a conventional way, and was done in bits and fitted together, and not being a great or fast reader I never read it from start to finish (That was a BIG mistake). To be honest the task was so huge I could only do it in bites. Deep Play was a book I really enjoyed and that was almost all republished work. PV was about 60% new stuff.

You never know how hard it is to write a book until you've write one, and the same applies to how to do it right, and I'd congratulate any author for sticking it out! Hopefully having done one I might hit the mark with the second.

Climbing as a subject is bloody boring (well to anyone but the most hardcore of climbing book fans), and scaling it up from a 1000 word article to 100,000 word book really makes you aware of that. The best bits are always the non climbing bits (that's why Learning to Breath was so good).

In Cold wars I've tried something that avoids the same territory as Psychovertical, but although it's a more mature book I do suspect that some will complain there's not as much climbing in it, but you soon find out you can't please everybody.

Fundamentally both books are about climbers relationship with climbing, and the sooner the reader excepts it's not an ego trip the better.

If anyone's interested I'm talking about the book at Shaff on Friday, should be interesting to see what people make of it.