This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I was going to title this post "Thesaurus Wa##ers" but decided against it...
An open letter to guidebook authors:
Climbing guidebooks provide many functions; they inspire us, enrich our knowledge, provide an extra 1/2" of reach on awkward starts and most importantly help us find climbs. I love the random rambling historical sections, the accounts of first ascent dramas and a good bit of florid prose but for the love of (Insert suitable deity here) keep it out of the route descriptions!
I don't want to be half way up a climb when I suddenly realise I haven't got the foggiest idea what I am supposed to be doing because someone decided that now would be a good idea to demonstrate the importance of a classical education or to change languages for a laugh.
As an example telling me to "continue adroitly" is much less useful than telling me "the next bit is the crux" or even "just keep heading straight up". I don't want to be stood next to a ropey microwire wondering whether "adroit" means something involving going right or doing something right.
When I am giving people directions to the post office I don't break into German just because I can and I wouldn't use the works of Picasso to illustrate a medical textbook, so please can we have plain English route descriptions?
An open letter to guidebook authors:
Climbing guidebooks provide many functions; they inspire us, enrich our knowledge, provide an extra 1/2" of reach on awkward starts and most importantly help us find climbs. I love the random rambling historical sections, the accounts of first ascent dramas and a good bit of florid prose but for the love of (Insert suitable deity here) keep it out of the route descriptions!
I don't want to be half way up a climb when I suddenly realise I haven't got the foggiest idea what I am supposed to be doing because someone decided that now would be a good idea to demonstrate the importance of a classical education or to change languages for a laugh.
As an example telling me to "continue adroitly" is much less useful than telling me "the next bit is the crux" or even "just keep heading straight up". I don't want to be stood next to a ropey microwire wondering whether "adroit" means something involving going right or doing something right.
When I am giving people directions to the post office I don't break into German just because I can and I wouldn't use the works of Picasso to illustrate a medical textbook, so please can we have plain English route descriptions?
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Oooh! I don't agree with you. Surely the guide is there to tell you the whereabouts of the line; if it does that in a way which is entertaining & creative (however florid that might be) I think it adds to the experience - the adventure. Some of the 'best' guides on my shelves are those which have some wonderfully obscure 'advice' to the climber!
Oooh! I don't agree with you. Surely the guide is there to tell you the whereabouts of the line; if it does that in a way which is entertaining & creative (however florid that might be) I think it adds to the experience - the adventure. Some of the 'best' guides on my shelves are those which have some wonderfully obscure 'advice' to the climber!
Post edited at 10:30
In reply to Greenbanks:
I think the best guides are those that provide some written entertainment in addition to a clear and concise directions on where the climb actually goes.
I really don't mind being told "Cross the overhang by some unlikely looking moves" or "The awkward crack has removed a lot of skin" but I don't want to have to start restricting myself to climbing partners who have a good O-level in Classics because someone got given a thesaurus for Christmas.
I think the best guides are those that provide some written entertainment in addition to a clear and concise directions on where the climb actually goes.
I really don't mind being told "Cross the overhang by some unlikely looking moves" or "The awkward crack has removed a lot of skin" but I don't want to have to start restricting myself to climbing partners who have a good O-level in Classics because someone got given a thesaurus for Christmas.
In reply to tlm:
It certainly isn't in common usage, I doubt that until my OP I had used it in a sentence in my 30 years of native English speaking. During which time I got rather good grades in English at school, spent 4 years at university and have spent a lot of time writing very big long words for a series of employers.
It certainly isn't in common usage, I doubt that until my OP I had used it in a sentence in my 30 years of native English speaking. During which time I got rather good grades in English at school, spent 4 years at university and have spent a lot of time writing very big long words for a series of employers.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Maybe it's because the writers get bored of saying the same thing over and over and try to entertain themselves?
Maybe it's because the writers get bored of saying the same thing over and over and try to entertain themselves?
In reply to chrisa87:
No, it not only makes the guide more entertaining, but also much more interesting. It allows for nuances that do not exist in more basic forms of colloquial speech. But ... sadly, we live in an age now in which everything has to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, it seems. Anything challenging, or different is resisted. An age of ignorant, safety-obsessed babies who like to be spoon fed.
No, it not only makes the guide more entertaining, but also much more interesting. It allows for nuances that do not exist in more basic forms of colloquial speech. But ... sadly, we live in an age now in which everything has to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, it seems. Anything challenging, or different is resisted. An age of ignorant, safety-obsessed babies who like to be spoon fed.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I also disagree. Conforming to your literary requirements would make for dull guidebook fare, loss of individuality and thus lower-quality toilet time.
I also disagree. Conforming to your literary requirements would make for dull guidebook fare, loss of individuality and thus lower-quality toilet time.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I think you might be over-egging the pudding a bit there Gordon!
> sadly, we live in an age now in which everything has to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, it seems. Anything challenging, or different is resisted. An age of ignorant, safety-obsessed babies who like to be spoon fed.
I think you might be over-egging the pudding a bit there Gordon!
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Hmm. That'll be why people go climbing?
> Anything challenging, or different is resisted.
Hmm. That'll be why people go climbing?
In reply to tony:
Except ... we frequently get posts asking, in effect, for 'easiest ticks' at a grade, the obseesion with the official grade often being more important than the difficulty or challenge of the route. And, again, convenience climbing is preferred by many to routes that require long or difficult walk-ins etc.
> Hmm. That'll be why people go climbing?
Except ... we frequently get posts asking, in effect, for 'easiest ticks' at a grade, the obseesion with the official grade often being more important than the difficulty or challenge of the route. And, again, convenience climbing is preferred by many to routes that require long or difficult walk-ins etc.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Do us a favour and don't volunteer to write any guidebooks. "Go straight up, the next bit is the crux" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
Do us a favour and don't volunteer to write any guidebooks. "Go straight up, the next bit is the crux" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Wow, definitely grabbed the award for most over the top reaction there or possibly that broad vocabulary hasn't actually enabled you to communicate clearly.
Next time I'm writing a patient information leaflet I'll be sure to prioritise interesting over readable. Excessively florid language, jargon and doublespeak are a barrier to communication not an aid.
Wow, definitely grabbed the award for most over the top reaction there or possibly that broad vocabulary hasn't actually enabled you to communicate clearly.
Next time I'm writing a patient information leaflet I'll be sure to prioritise interesting over readable. Excessively florid language, jargon and doublespeak are a barrier to communication not an aid.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Every time I've done the "epic"(*) walk-in to Dovestones Tor, it's been swamped.
* all things being relative. "Epic" for Peak grit
> And, again, convenience climbing is preferred by many to routes that require long or difficult walk-ins etc.
Every time I've done the "epic"(*) walk-in to Dovestones Tor, it's been swamped.
* all things being relative. "Epic" for Peak grit
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Where did I advocate something that was not very readable? Good English must always be the first criterion.
Where did I advocate something that was not very readable? Good English must always be the first criterion.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Since "adroit" simply means "clever or skilful" - ref http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/adroit - it doesn't actually tell you much at all, does it? "Continue cleverly" or "continue skilfully" might as well be saying "keep going and don't fall off". Barely worthwhile advice in the spur of the moment from your belayer, let alone being committed to print in the guide book.
I'd say that in the instance you cite it's just a poor choice of words. It's tempting to ascribe the use of a somewhat uncommon word (although "adroit" is hardly something you'd expect to see coming up on Call My Bluff) to the author's desire to appear learned, but since that particular word actually adds little of any practical use to the route description, it could be interpreted as a case of willful smartarsery.
I agree that a bit of colour and character in a route description is entertaining and can even be helpful. In this case, though, I think it's crossed the line in to a stlyistic caprice with no attendant benefit.
> As an example telling me to "continue adroitly" is much less useful than telling me "the next bit is the crux" or even "just keep heading straight up". I don't want to be stood next to a ropey microwire wondering whether "adroit" means something involving going right or doing something right.
Since "adroit" simply means "clever or skilful" - ref http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/adroit - it doesn't actually tell you much at all, does it? "Continue cleverly" or "continue skilfully" might as well be saying "keep going and don't fall off". Barely worthwhile advice in the spur of the moment from your belayer, let alone being committed to print in the guide book.
I'd say that in the instance you cite it's just a poor choice of words. It's tempting to ascribe the use of a somewhat uncommon word (although "adroit" is hardly something you'd expect to see coming up on Call My Bluff) to the author's desire to appear learned, but since that particular word actually adds little of any practical use to the route description, it could be interpreted as a case of willful smartarsery.
I agree that a bit of colour and character in a route description is entertaining and can even be helpful. In this case, though, I think it's crossed the line in to a stlyistic caprice with no attendant benefit.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Your point is a valid one, but I disagree with you. A patient information leaflet is a different case - where clarity is all. But should route descriptions in climbing guides be merely a series of instructions? I don't think so. I prefer them to be a sort of celebration of the route. Yes, this may occasionally mean that you are a bit confused, but so what? Did you get on the route to have an experience of 100% confidence about what you were doing, or did you get on the route to experience uncertainty and try to overcome it? (Mind you, if I'd just failed on a route and could claim that the lack of clarity in the description was the proximate cause, I'd probably be grumpy too).
Your point is a valid one, but I disagree with you. A patient information leaflet is a different case - where clarity is all. But should route descriptions in climbing guides be merely a series of instructions? I don't think so. I prefer them to be a sort of celebration of the route. Yes, this may occasionally mean that you are a bit confused, but so what? Did you get on the route to have an experience of 100% confidence about what you were doing, or did you get on the route to experience uncertainty and try to overcome it? (Mind you, if I'd just failed on a route and could claim that the lack of clarity in the description was the proximate cause, I'd probably be grumpy too).
In reply to Martin W:
Adroitness to me suggests that a rather unusual degree of cleverness is required. 'Cunningly' perhaps?
Adroitness to me suggests that a rather unusual degree of cleverness is required. 'Cunningly' perhaps?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Use of uncommon language often leads to poor readability, especially in text such as route descriptions which are generally short. In long passages of text then unfamiliar language can be picked apart by the reader or worked around.
I don't want a blow by blow description of a pitch, I just feel that any instruction that is important enough to commit to paper is worth doing so in a clear and easy to understand manner.
In my particular case there are two reasons for this, the first is I've spent years writing instructions for carrying out dangerous tasks and secondly almost all of my climbing is done with comparative novices who are in absolutely no position to assist me if I screw up.
Use of uncommon language often leads to poor readability, especially in text such as route descriptions which are generally short. In long passages of text then unfamiliar language can be picked apart by the reader or worked around.
I don't want a blow by blow description of a pitch, I just feel that any instruction that is important enough to commit to paper is worth doing so in a clear and easy to understand manner.
In my particular case there are two reasons for this, the first is I've spent years writing instructions for carrying out dangerous tasks and secondly almost all of my climbing is done with comparative novices who are in absolutely no position to assist me if I screw up.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Mmm. I think yours is even more of an over-reaction to Gordon's reaction! I don't think that a 'patient information leaflet' is an appropriate comparison at all
Mmm. I think yours is even more of an over-reaction to Gordon's reaction! I don't think that a 'patient information leaflet' is an appropriate comparison at all
In reply to Greenbanks:
I don't know, it is a short passage of text that most people skim over and you only really read when you are confused and panicking
I don't know, it is a short passage of text that most people skim over and you only really read when you are confused and panicking
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Estimable perspicaciousness.
> No, it not only makes the guide more entertaining, but also much more interesting. It allows for nuances that do not exist in more basic forms of colloquial speech. But ... sadly, we live in an age now in which everything has to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, it seems. Anything challenging, or different is resisted. An age of ignorant, safety-obsessed babies who like to be spoon fed.
Estimable perspicaciousness.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Well I agree wholeheatedly with that. Despite my remarks above, I'm not sure I've ever seen such an odd phrase in a guidebook as 'continue adroitly'. Where did you get your example from? Is it genuine?
> Use of uncommon language often leads to poor readability, especially in text such as route descriptions which are generally short. In long passages of text then unfamiliar language can be picked apart by the reader or worked around.
Well I agree wholeheatedly with that. Despite my remarks above, I'm not sure I've ever seen such an odd phrase in a guidebook as 'continue adroitly'. Where did you get your example from? Is it genuine?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Yes it is a real example, from the 2004 CC Avon and Cheddar guide page 185:
DEXTER .....
2 20m. 4a. Ascend a scalloped groove over the bulge to a crack. Follow the crack until it disappears, and continue adroitly up the smoother slab past an overlap to easier ground and Lunchtime Ledge.
Yes it is a real example, from the 2004 CC Avon and Cheddar guide page 185:
DEXTER .....
2 20m. 4a. Ascend a scalloped groove over the bulge to a crack. Follow the crack until it disappears, and continue adroitly up the smoother slab past an overlap to easier ground and Lunchtime Ledge.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Oh, well, it's an amusing pun on Dexter! So entirely legit, as well as entertaining.
Oh, well, it's an amusing pun on Dexter! So entirely legit, as well as entertaining.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Can't see the problem here - entirely reasonable to follow, even with sunglasses!
Can't see the problem here - entirely reasonable to follow, even with sunglasses!
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I find it rather strange that you think "adroit" is uncommon language but "thesaurus regurgitator" isn't.
Also, the tradition of quirky route descriptions in British guidebooks is one of the main things that make them more interesting than the anodyne utilitarian (oops) topos that are the norm everywhere else.
I find it rather strange that you think "adroit" is uncommon language but "thesaurus regurgitator" isn't.
Also, the tradition of quirky route descriptions in British guidebooks is one of the main things that make them more interesting than the anodyne utilitarian (oops) topos that are the norm everywhere else.
In reply to AlanLittle:
In this Dexter example I actually think it's a good /amusing piece guidebook writing, that adds to the levity of the guidebook.
In this Dexter example I actually think it's a good /amusing piece guidebook writing, that adds to the levity of the guidebook.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
PS. This Dexter example seems vaguely familiar. I used to climb at Avon years ago (c. 40!), and it's possible that this is a piece of old guidebook writing that's been retained in 2004 edition because it was a nice bit of fun. There's quite a tradition of doing this. E.g Moulam retained many of Edwards' quirky sentences in his Tryfan and Idwal guides.
PS. This Dexter example seems vaguely familiar. I used to climb at Avon years ago (c. 40!), and it's possible that this is a piece of old guidebook writing that's been retained in 2004 edition because it was a nice bit of fun. There's quite a tradition of doing this. E.g Moulam retained many of Edwards' quirky sentences in his Tryfan and Idwal guides.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I'm internally divided on this.
On my right shoulder: there's a place for entertaining waffle in guidebooks, but it isn't in the route description. A well-written route description should be the bare minimum of text needed to locate the line of the route. I don't want my experience of a route to be flavoured by someone else's, which is often fairly inaccurate anyway.
On my left shoulder: colourful, idiosyncratic descriptions are much more entertaining and inspiring, and add to the character of the climb.
On both shoulders: overcomplicated descriptions of routes where the line is perfectly obvious are a waste of paper.
I'm internally divided on this.
On my right shoulder: there's a place for entertaining waffle in guidebooks, but it isn't in the route description. A well-written route description should be the bare minimum of text needed to locate the line of the route. I don't want my experience of a route to be flavoured by someone else's, which is often fairly inaccurate anyway.
On my left shoulder: colourful, idiosyncratic descriptions are much more entertaining and inspiring, and add to the character of the climb.
On both shoulders: overcomplicated descriptions of routes where the line is perfectly obvious are a waste of paper.
In reply to AlanLittle:
Very true - it's not very adroit to consider adroit as over-adroit.
> I find it rather strange that you think "adroit" is uncommon language but "thesaurus regurgitator" isn't.
Very true - it's not very adroit to consider adroit as over-adroit.
In reply to AlanLittle:
You think that is strange, I used to type the word "Extrudate" about a dozen times a day, I suppose it depends on the environment you are exposed to. Alternatively I could have been employing florid language for effect, I can't remember which.
You think that is strange, I used to type the word "Extrudate" about a dozen times a day, I suppose it depends on the environment you are exposed to. Alternatively I could have been employing florid language for effect, I can't remember which.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I think sometimes, they want to hint at things ahead, without spoiling the surprise for you. It might be hinting that the next bit requires good technique, or something a bit unusual... But if they just spell it all out, your delight at discovery is taken away from you.
> I don't want a blow by blow description of a pitch, I just feel that any instruction that is important enough to commit to paper is worth doing so in a clear and easy to understand manner.
I think sometimes, they want to hint at things ahead, without spoiling the surprise for you. It might be hinting that the next bit requires good technique, or something a bit unusual... But if they just spell it all out, your delight at discovery is taken away from you.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I know it's bad form to admit any ignorance whatsoever on UKC, but while I have a sense of what "adroitly" means, I don't really know. I'm sure Sean Kenny will be along soon to tell me that I did know it.
I know it's bad form to admit any ignorance whatsoever on UKC, but while I have a sense of what "adroitly" means, I don't really know. I'm sure Sean Kenny will be along soon to tell me that I did know it.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
You will need to explain this to me Gordon. Does it need some prior knowledge of the route, area or first ascenionist? Or is it just funny for people who can solve murders through crossword clues and some oblique references to Greek mythology?
> In this Dexter example I actually think it's a good /amusing piece guidebook writing, that adds to the levity of the guidebook.
You will need to explain this to me Gordon. Does it need some prior knowledge of the route, area or first ascenionist? Or is it just funny for people who can solve murders through crossword clues and some oblique references to Greek mythology?
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I'm all for florid. A good guidebook should be an entertaining read rather than just a technical manual.
I'm all for florid. A good guidebook should be an entertaining read rather than just a technical manual.
In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:
The latter.
Dexter refers to the right, as in dexterous which is a synonym for adroit.
The latter.
Dexter refers to the right, as in dexterous which is a synonym for adroit.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
For me a guide should be just that, nothing more - a 'guide'.
Being slightly obscure or poetic with descriptions of moves adds a little something to the imagination.
For me a guide should be just that, nothing more - a 'guide'.
Being slightly obscure or poetic with descriptions of moves adds a little something to the imagination.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I find it slightly suprising that a 30-year old with a university education doesn't know the meaning of 'adroitly' but that is hardly the OP's fault, more that of his teachers. However whilst it is not a word you might expect to come across every day, it is hardly obscure.
However I think he has chosen a bad example. Not understanding the word does not prevent you from understanding the guide. In this case, if you ignore the word 'adroitly' it simply tells you to "continue up the ... smoother slab" - what's the problem?
For those who understand the pun (which I suspect includes the OP if he thinks it means to go right) it is an entertaining addition. For those who don't it shouldn't interfere with their ability to find the route.
Guidebooks have traditionally been more than simply a list of directions. If they were written entirely in plain English they would not only be a lot less enjoyable but they would have to exclude a lot of words which have a technical meaning for climbers - why assume assume that the reader knows the meaning of "overlap", for example? Where do you stop?
I find it slightly suprising that a 30-year old with a university education doesn't know the meaning of 'adroitly' but that is hardly the OP's fault, more that of his teachers. However whilst it is not a word you might expect to come across every day, it is hardly obscure.
However I think he has chosen a bad example. Not understanding the word does not prevent you from understanding the guide. In this case, if you ignore the word 'adroitly' it simply tells you to "continue up the ... smoother slab" - what's the problem?
For those who understand the pun (which I suspect includes the OP if he thinks it means to go right) it is an entertaining addition. For those who don't it shouldn't interfere with their ability to find the route.
Guidebooks have traditionally been more than simply a list of directions. If they were written entirely in plain English they would not only be a lot less enjoyable but they would have to exclude a lot of words which have a technical meaning for climbers - why assume assume that the reader knows the meaning of "overlap", for example? Where do you stop?
Guidebook writers: carry on. Loving your work, especially the sneaky bits where you need to read between the lines.
In reply to Howard J:
I would imagine that you know lots of things that I don't, and vice versa. It doesn't mean either of us has the right to be smug or superior about the things we know and the other doesn't.
> I find it slightly suprising that a 30-year old with a university education doesn't know the meaning of 'adroitly' but that is hardly the OP's fault, more that of his teachers. However whilst it is not a word you might expect to come across every day, it is hardly obscure.
I would imagine that you know lots of things that I don't, and vice versa. It doesn't mean either of us has the right to be smug or superior about the things we know and the other doesn't.
In reply to Howard J:
As a 40-odd year old, with a Grammar School and Oxbridge education, I don't find it too odd - because, guess what, I had to check the meaning. I obviously concentrated on the sciences too early....
Anyhow, surely it's not a problem these days - can't you just ask your Google glasses whilst hanging on by your finger tips or something?
Oh, and I don't mind it all, I quite like it (and other writing that challenges my vocabulary). Although I do accept I might change my mind whilst halfway up a hard pitch.
> I find it slightly suprising that a 30-year old with a university education doesn't know the meaning of 'adroitly' but that is hardly the OP's fault, more that of his teachers. However whilst it is not a word you might expect to come across every day, it is hardly obscure.
As a 40-odd year old, with a Grammar School and Oxbridge education, I don't find it too odd - because, guess what, I had to check the meaning. I obviously concentrated on the sciences too early....
Anyhow, surely it's not a problem these days - can't you just ask your Google glasses whilst hanging on by your finger tips or something?
Oh, and I don't mind it all, I quite like it (and other writing that challenges my vocabulary). Although I do accept I might change my mind whilst halfway up a hard pitch.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Guidebooks to me have two main purposes: to portray jnformation without removing the adventure and to inspire. In both cases your request is wrong headed. If you wish to climb routes when your partners can't get you out of trouble climb easier routes or go to popular crags. I do not see why the UK tradition of guidebooks needs to change to suit your rather odd needs.
Guidebooks to me have two main purposes: to portray jnformation without removing the adventure and to inspire. In both cases your request is wrong headed. If you wish to climb routes when your partners can't get you out of trouble climb easier routes or go to popular crags. I do not see why the UK tradition of guidebooks needs to change to suit your rather odd needs.
Post edited at 13:32
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Perhaps rather than complaining, you should embrace the fact that others, at least, are trying to introduce a little difference into your life. Things don't always have to be simple, you know.
Perhaps rather than complaining, you should embrace the fact that others, at least, are trying to introduce a little difference into your life. Things don't always have to be simple, you know.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
It's also typical of Martin Crocker's style of route description, which can be amusing. I've climbed the route, read the description, and can't see what all the fuss is about. Personally, if I don't know the meaning of a word then I feel that's my responsibility and look it up at the first opportunity.
> PS. This Dexter example seems vaguely familiar. I used to climb at Avon years ago (c. 40!), and it's possible that this is a piece of old guidebook writing that's been retained in 2004 edition because it was a nice bit of fun. There's quite a tradition of doing this. E.g Moulam retained many of Edwards' quirky sentences in his Tryfan and Idwal guides.
It's also typical of Martin Crocker's style of route description, which can be amusing. I've climbed the route, read the description, and can't see what all the fuss is about. Personally, if I don't know the meaning of a word then I feel that's my responsibility and look it up at the first opportunity.
In reply to Howard J:
I'm quite surprised that you find that surprising, I'm also surprised that a 56 year old chartered surveyor isn't using a browser with spell check. Apologies, I couldn't resist that. I'm a chemist (well that is what the degree certificate says).
Dexter is a word that you'd encounter as a chemist (D-L being used to denote certain types of isomerism). In this case the confusion was more around "adroit", "a droite" and a rather confused belayer with the guidebook.
I'm sure we could collectively bore each other with things were were and weren't taught at school, lots of very well educated people have gaps in their knowledge; my mother was rather surprised to learn Quantity Surveying was a real job as she'd thought it was only done by Aardvarks till she worked for the RICS, despite being properly educated and a Mensa member
I'm quite surprised that you find that surprising, I'm also surprised that a 56 year old chartered surveyor isn't using a browser with spell check. Apologies, I couldn't resist that. I'm a chemist (well that is what the degree certificate says).
Dexter is a word that you'd encounter as a chemist (D-L being used to denote certain types of isomerism). In this case the confusion was more around "adroit", "a droite" and a rather confused belayer with the guidebook.
I'm sure we could collectively bore each other with things were were and weren't taught at school, lots of very well educated people have gaps in their knowledge; my mother was rather surprised to learn Quantity Surveying was a real job as she'd thought it was only done by Aardvarks till she worked for the RICS, despite being properly educated and a Mensa member
In reply to Offwidth:
I think you've rather missed my point, which given the BMC guides are an excellent demonstration of what I think a guide should look like is surprising; the route descriptions are concise and readable without feeling like a Haynes manual for climbing.
I think you've rather missed my point, which given the BMC guides are an excellent demonstration of what I think a guide should look like is surprising; the route descriptions are concise and readable without feeling like a Haynes manual for climbing.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I would say that I've a decent grasp of English, certainly not to scholarly level though, and in over 30 years of climbing have only come across one word in a (English) guidebook that I didn't know the meaning of and had to look up. The word - acicular, which means "needle like" apparently.
As others have indicated your example is about the pun and I suppose came from a time when it was expected that the reader would get it. These days it probably needs "air quotes".
I would say that I've a decent grasp of English, certainly not to scholarly level though, and in over 30 years of climbing have only come across one word in a (English) guidebook that I didn't know the meaning of and had to look up. The word - acicular, which means "needle like" apparently.
As others have indicated your example is about the pun and I suppose came from a time when it was expected that the reader would get it. These days it probably needs "air quotes".
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:
I wouldn't go near pitch 3 of Sinister with your 2004 CC guide...
While that is definitely not going to win the MKean award for "concise and efficient descriptions" I think that is fine, it accurately describes the activity (maybe you could prune "ignominious" but that is probably overly picky): You are in no uncertainty about the direction of travel and I think even a non-climber would be able to guess what it would look like.
I wouldn't go near pitch 3 of Sinister with your 2004 CC guide...
While that is definitely not going to win the MKean award for "concise and efficient descriptions" I think that is fine, it accurately describes the activity (maybe you could prune "ignominious" but that is probably overly picky): You are in no uncertainty about the direction of travel and I think even a non-climber would be able to guess what it would look like.
In reply to Bob:
The word - acicular, which means "needle like" apparently.
Interesting, a new one on me: I suppose mineralogy references are understandable, but I'd never have worked it out. Where was it?
The word - acicular, which means "needle like" apparently.
Interesting, a new one on me: I suppose mineralogy references are understandable, but I'd never have worked it out. Where was it?
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I had not intended to appear snobbish, although with hindsight I see that's how it might appear. No offence intended.
My point is whether your understanding or not of a particular word is material to your interpretation of the guide. In this case, the word is simply an embellishment - amusing if you get the pun, irrelevant if you don't. It doesn't affect the meat of the route description, which is to climb the slab.
Had the guidebook writer actually meant "go right" and used it as a clever pun to indicate that, then I would entirely agree with you. In that case not being able to work out a crossword-puzzle clue would materially interfere with your ability to interpret the guide. That would be poor writing.
The answer is not to dumb-down guidebook-writing but to use language carefully. And when guidebook-reading, to pick out the bits of the text that matter.
If you are going to complain about words in guidebooks, my biggest bugbear is "obvious", when all too often it isn't (as in "climb to the obvious tree" when faced with a small forest, or when the tree has long been cut down).
I had not intended to appear snobbish, although with hindsight I see that's how it might appear. No offence intended.
My point is whether your understanding or not of a particular word is material to your interpretation of the guide. In this case, the word is simply an embellishment - amusing if you get the pun, irrelevant if you don't. It doesn't affect the meat of the route description, which is to climb the slab.
Had the guidebook writer actually meant "go right" and used it as a clever pun to indicate that, then I would entirely agree with you. In that case not being able to work out a crossword-puzzle clue would materially interfere with your ability to interpret the guide. That would be poor writing.
The answer is not to dumb-down guidebook-writing but to use language carefully. And when guidebook-reading, to pick out the bits of the text that matter.
If you are going to complain about words in guidebooks, my biggest bugbear is "obvious", when all too often it isn't (as in "climb to the obvious tree" when faced with a small forest, or when the tree has long been cut down).
In reply to Reach>Talent:
It was in one of the old (dark blue hardback cover) Alpine Club guides to Mt Blanc. I think it was describing the Gervasutti Pillar on Mt Blanc du Tacul or something in that area. I don't think it was part of the route description per se. It's a botanical term rather than one from mineralogy, think pine needles.
It was in one of the old (dark blue hardback cover) Alpine Club guides to Mt Blanc. I think it was describing the Gervasutti Pillar on Mt Blanc du Tacul or something in that area. I don't think it was part of the route description per se. It's a botanical term rather than one from mineralogy, think pine needles.
In reply to Howard J:
When I started climbing I headed up to Kern Knotts one day, guidebook in hand. I simply couldn't work out the descriptions of the routes to the right of Kern Knotts and Inominate Cracks: "Climb the obvious layback", etc. No layback anywhere to be seen.
A few months before an earth tremor had dislodged the huge block that had formed the layback and it was now lying on the scree beneath the crag. The guidebook was correct but also it couldn't predict the future.
When I started climbing I headed up to Kern Knotts one day, guidebook in hand. I simply couldn't work out the descriptions of the routes to the right of Kern Knotts and Inominate Cracks: "Climb the obvious layback", etc. No layback anywhere to be seen.
A few months before an earth tremor had dislodged the huge block that had formed the layback and it was now lying on the scree beneath the crag. The guidebook was correct but also it couldn't predict the future.
In reply to Howard J:
"obvious"
I would add that to the list "climb the obvious open book corner" is a favourite, so which of the 2 open book corners do you think is more obvious?
"obvious"
I would add that to the list "climb the obvious open book corner" is a favourite, so which of the 2 open book corners do you think is more obvious?
In reply to Reach>Talent:
You haven't been trying. Maladroit is even better.
> (In reply to tlm)
>
> It certainly isn't in common usage, I doubt that until my OP I had used it in a sentence in my 30 years of native English speaking.
>
> It certainly isn't in common usage, I doubt that until my OP I had used it in a sentence in my 30 years of native English speaking.
You haven't been trying. Maladroit is even better.
In reply to Howard J:
It should follow that those of us who are not literate, have a high level of appropriate cultural capital, and who able to appreciate gentle humour should be restricted to top-roping or bouldering
> I find it slightly suprising that a 30-year old with a university education doesn't know the meaning of 'adroitly'<
It should follow that those of us who are not literate, have a high level of appropriate cultural capital, and who able to appreciate gentle humour should be restricted to top-roping or bouldering
In reply to Reach>Talent:
But I must say that you have started a thread that is at once stimulating, thought-provoking, motivating, exciting, fascinating, attention-grabbing, out of the ordinary, remarkable, worthy of note, curious, attractive, noteworthy.
Some excellent contributions. Well done!
But I must say that you have started a thread that is at once stimulating, thought-provoking, motivating, exciting, fascinating, attention-grabbing, out of the ordinary, remarkable, worthy of note, curious, attractive, noteworthy.
Some excellent contributions. Well done!
In reply to Greenbanks:
Thanks!
I have just had a ponder and a vague flick through guide books* and wondered whether the "slightly florid" description was more common on lower graded routes: Are harder routes more likely to have precise and somewhat utilitarian descriptions? If so is this a product of the time of first ascent/description or because harder routes tend to leave less wiggle room**?
*This does not represent a statistically valid sampling technique and all conclusions should be taken with a large portion of caution and a side serving of don't bite my head off if I'm wrong.
**Although hard off-widths always seem to have a lot of wiggle, squirm and swear.
Thanks!
I have just had a ponder and a vague flick through guide books* and wondered whether the "slightly florid" description was more common on lower graded routes: Are harder routes more likely to have precise and somewhat utilitarian descriptions? If so is this a product of the time of first ascent/description or because harder routes tend to leave less wiggle room**?
*This does not represent a statistically valid sampling technique and all conclusions should be taken with a large portion of caution and a side serving of don't bite my head off if I'm wrong.
**Although hard off-widths always seem to have a lot of wiggle, squirm and swear.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Well spotted - I'd have missed that. Good writing.
I have noticed Sinister Grooves are opposite(ish) Dexter wall in Buttermere though.
Well spotted - I'd have missed that. Good writing.
I have noticed Sinister Grooves are opposite(ish) Dexter wall in Buttermere though.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I love that description! Surely the more accurate "Stare at next section of holdless, gearless slab and wonder how it ever gets a 4a Severe grade" would take all the fun out of it? At the top, once you have stopped shaking, you can reread the description and laugh blackly - of course though the joke does rely on you knowing what adroit means (no criticism intended - I didn't think it was *that* uncommon).
For reference West Country Climbs: "Take the smooth runnell onto the open smooth slab. Move up a thin fading crack to its end and then up a bold slab to an easing...", gives you a better idea of what is coming true but so much more pedestrian!
I love that description! Surely the more accurate "Stare at next section of holdless, gearless slab and wonder how it ever gets a 4a Severe grade" would take all the fun out of it? At the top, once you have stopped shaking, you can reread the description and laugh blackly - of course though the joke does rely on you knowing what adroit means (no criticism intended - I didn't think it was *that* uncommon).
For reference West Country Climbs: "Take the smooth runnell onto the open smooth slab. Move up a thin fading crack to its end and then up a bold slab to an easing...", gives you a better idea of what is coming true but so much more pedestrian!
Post edited at 15:03
In reply to Bobling:
I like the description of the top pitch of The Quarryman: "Your mate's big lead"
I like the description of the top pitch of The Quarryman: "Your mate's big lead"
In reply to Reach>Talent:
OK in that case I really dont know what you are talking about as we used many words not dissimilar in terms of commonality of usage to 'adroit' and if you know the guides well in some (rarer) cases route descriptions could be be quite deliberately cryptic (for good reasons and linked to warnings that they were for those climbers with rare tastes).
OK in that case I really dont know what you are talking about as we used many words not dissimilar in terms of commonality of usage to 'adroit' and if you know the guides well in some (rarer) cases route descriptions could be be quite deliberately cryptic (for good reasons and linked to warnings that they were for those climbers with rare tastes).
In reply to MG:
And, er, Sinister at the Gorge is immediately left of Dexter ...
> Well spotted - I'd have missed that. Good writing.
> I have noticed Sinister Grooves are opposite(ish) Dexter wall in Buttermere though.
And, er, Sinister at the Gorge is immediately left of Dexter ...
In reply to Reach>Talent:
"Deftly" is fairly common in route descriptions. and could perhaps be substituted for "adroitly". Would you object to that? How about another common one: "neatly"?
"Deftly" is fairly common in route descriptions. and could perhaps be substituted for "adroitly". Would you object to that? How about another common one: "neatly"?
In reply to Howard J:
Agreed. I wouldn't ban the word completely, but it should be used sparingly, and only when the feature is large, highly distinctive, and with no similar features anywhere nearby.
> If you are going to complain about words in guidebooks, my biggest bugbear is "obvious", when all too often it isn't (as in "climb to the obvious tree" when faced with a small forest, or when the tree has long been cut down).
Agreed. I wouldn't ban the word completely, but it should be used sparingly, and only when the feature is large, highly distinctive, and with no similar features anywhere nearby.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Mmm maladroit now if we wanted to herald a new route that went up the sinister side of a rock sheild.....
On that subject modern guidebooks may not always be original enough that when you open up and make an inspection that they constiture a 21st century poem, but when crisply written and used well they certainly help release the pressure and make the heart melt (bonus points available for the missing phases !
Mmm maladroit now if we wanted to herald a new route that went up the sinister side of a rock sheild.....
On that subject modern guidebooks may not always be original enough that when you open up and make an inspection that they constiture a 21st century poem, but when crisply written and used well they certainly help release the pressure and make the heart melt (bonus points available for the missing phases !
Post edited at 15:23
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I disagree entirely - quirky, clever and amusing descriptions in guidebooks seem to be somewhat of a tradition in this country, and we're much better off for it. It also occasionally gives you a great opportunity to poke fun at your partner, who's stuck at the (well-protected) crux and beginning to panic...
I disagree entirely - quirky, clever and amusing descriptions in guidebooks seem to be somewhat of a tradition in this country, and we're much better off for it. It also occasionally gives you a great opportunity to poke fun at your partner, who's stuck at the (well-protected) crux and beginning to panic...
Post edited at 15:36
In reply to bpmclimb:
Neither have the connotations of nonchalance/elan/cool-headedness that I find come with adroitly though - just don't convey the same depth of meaning.
Neither have the connotations of nonchalance/elan/cool-headedness that I find come with adroitly though - just don't convey the same depth of meaning.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I think the quirky notes in British rock climbing guides are a joy. I met a couple of Spanish trad climbers recently who thought so too and certainly weren’t put off by the vocabulary.
English is such a rich language and it is great that the guide book writers still try to use a broad vocabulary.
Regarding the implication that the BMC guides don’t employ colour I opened the BMC Stanage guide randomly (page 57 as it happens) and see I am invited to “finish with a flourish”, to “saunter delicately leftwards”, before “confidence ebbs away”. Adroit is a word I come across often enough (and the pun is super) and seems to me to be no more obscure than ebbs, flourish, or saunter all of which are really nice usages (even if “saunter delicately” feels like an oxymoron).
In the end it is a guide not an instruction manual and its functions in my view include inspiring and entertaining. TLM captures my feelings perfectly.
I think the quirky notes in British rock climbing guides are a joy. I met a couple of Spanish trad climbers recently who thought so too and certainly weren’t put off by the vocabulary.
English is such a rich language and it is great that the guide book writers still try to use a broad vocabulary.
Regarding the implication that the BMC guides don’t employ colour I opened the BMC Stanage guide randomly (page 57 as it happens) and see I am invited to “finish with a flourish”, to “saunter delicately leftwards”, before “confidence ebbs away”. Adroit is a word I come across often enough (and the pun is super) and seems to me to be no more obscure than ebbs, flourish, or saunter all of which are really nice usages (even if “saunter delicately” feels like an oxymoron).
In the end it is a guide not an instruction manual and its functions in my view include inspiring and entertaining. TLM captures my feelings perfectly.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
There has been a massive upgrade in the level of quailty in guide book in recent years. Mostly due to technology like digital cameras, and photoshop. I find the need for long descriptions about routes only nessacery for long mountain routes. On shorter single pitch routes I find detail descriptions just take away from the onsight. All I really need to know is if I need any special piece of gear e.g Large Cam, loose rock or if I can deck out from any particular section. A good photo with a line drawn is enough to in what direction to climb in.
There has been a massive upgrade in the level of quailty in guide book in recent years. Mostly due to technology like digital cameras, and photoshop. I find the need for long descriptions about routes only nessacery for long mountain routes. On shorter single pitch routes I find detail descriptions just take away from the onsight. All I really need to know is if I need any special piece of gear e.g Large Cam, loose rock or if I can deck out from any particular section. A good photo with a line drawn is enough to in what direction to climb in.
Post edited at 15:57
In reply to Matt Taylor:
Cheers, I'll try and remember "dont climb like an oxymoron" for the next book I help out with.
Cheers, I'll try and remember "dont climb like an oxymoron" for the next book I help out with.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Is that how you use the book? I read the description at the bottom - keeps my hands free for climbing whilst I'm actually on the route.
> I don't want to be stood next to a ropey microwire wondering whether "adroit" means something involving going right or doing something right.
Is that how you use the book? I read the description at the bottom - keeps my hands free for climbing whilst I'm actually on the route.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Ah! A CC guidebook. Well, there you have it. The chap (by this I mean guidebook author) obviously had a private tutor or went to prep school before Oxbridge. We don't let any Tom, Dick or Harry into the CC. And consequently all applications for membership are adroitly vetted. Guidebook editors even moe so. I should perhaps add that should the author of this post submit such an application for future membership to the CC, then there is a possible risk of being black-balled. We have out standards to maintain.
Ah Frobisher, another Benedictine with ice!
Ah! A CC guidebook. Well, there you have it. The chap (by this I mean guidebook author) obviously had a private tutor or went to prep school before Oxbridge. We don't let any Tom, Dick or Harry into the CC. And consequently all applications for membership are adroitly vetted. Guidebook editors even moe so. I should perhaps add that should the author of this post submit such an application for future membership to the CC, then there is a possible risk of being black-balled. We have out standards to maintain.
Ah Frobisher, another Benedictine with ice!
In reply to JJL:
Given that it's a fun joke on the name of the route, it shouldn't be taken too seriously. It does actually mean adroit here in both senses - the route line shows clearly that Dexter goes rightwards to start with on last pitch (well, in my old guide it did). I trust everyone knows what 'dexterous' means? (One never quite knows on UKC in 2014.)
Given that it's a fun joke on the name of the route, it shouldn't be taken too seriously. It does actually mean adroit here in both senses - the route line shows clearly that Dexter goes rightwards to start with on last pitch (well, in my old guide it did). I trust everyone knows what 'dexterous' means? (One never quite knows on UKC in 2014.)
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Better to be a droite than a numby!
> PS. My french is absolutely atrocious but even I know what à droite means.
Better to be a droite than a numby!
In reply to Offwidth:
The BMC Stanage guide is a really good read. It does its job as a guide perfectly and it is full of entertainment and inspiration. If you were involved in writing it – thank you.
The BMC Stanage guide is a really good read. It does its job as a guide perfectly and it is full of entertainment and inspiration. If you were involved in writing it – thank you.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Except the English word "adroit" is derived from the French "adroit", not "à droite"...
> PS. My french is absolutely atrocious but even I know what à droite means.
Except the English word "adroit" is derived from the French "adroit", not "à droite"...
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Pondering some particularly florid prose from the guidebook description whilst simultaneously shitting your pants is all part of the fun.
Pondering some particularly florid prose from the guidebook description whilst simultaneously shitting your pants is all part of the fun.
In reply to James FR:
Which in turn was derived from à droit, droite and droit having a common root ...
adroit (adj.)
1650s, "dexterous," originally "rightly," from French adroit, from phrase à droit "according to right," from Old French à "to" (see ad-) + droit "right," from Late Latin directum "right, justice," accusative of Latin directus "straight" (see direct (v.)).
The main point about the Dexter route description was that it was a quite clever pun using a straight synonym for dexterous.
> Except the English word "adroit" is derived from the French "adroit", not "à droite"...
Which in turn was derived from à droit, droite and droit having a common root ...
adroit (adj.)
1650s, "dexterous," originally "rightly," from French adroit, from phrase à droit "according to right," from Old French à "to" (see ad-) + droit "right," from Late Latin directum "right, justice," accusative of Latin directus "straight" (see direct (v.)).
The main point about the Dexter route description was that it was a quite clever pun using a straight synonym for dexterous.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Bravo sir!!!
> No, it not only makes the guide more entertaining, but also much more interesting. It allows for nuances that do not exist in more basic forms of colloquial speech. But ... sadly, we live in an age now in which everything has to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, it seems. Anything challenging, or different is resisted. An age of ignorant, safety-obsessed babies who like to be spoon fed.
Bravo sir!!!
In reply to Reach>Talent:
We should stick to guides with big pictures, routes marked with coloured lines, and "4c" or "5b" marked at the exact spot on them.
We should stick to guides with big pictures, routes marked with coloured lines, and "4c" or "5b" marked at the exact spot on them.
In reply to stroppygob:
I'd prefer more of an indoor climbing wall approach to the crags.
Saves on guidebooks and helps put an end to this thinking for ones self mentality.
I'd prefer more of an indoor climbing wall approach to the crags.
Saves on guidebooks and helps put an end to this thinking for ones self mentality.
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:
Agreed! I learnt a ton of new words from reading Martin Crocker's book. Had to look them all up, which was fun. It never occurred that I should take offence because the guide book writer was more literate than I was........
Agreed! I learnt a ton of new words from reading Martin Crocker's book. Had to look them all up, which was fun. It never occurred that I should take offence because the guide book writer was more literate than I was........
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Ah, but how do you pronounce it?
> You don't know what adroitly means?? Seriously?
> jcm
Ah, but how do you pronounce it?
In reply to jon:
If you think it's adwahlee, you've been living in France too long!
>
> Ah, but how do you pronounce it?
If you think it's adwahlee, you've been living in France too long!
In reply to MG:
Ha, maybe, but I've heard people argue about this and other words taken from French. I think it's an interesting question. I remember Jimmy Jewell swaggering into Eric's café and announcing that he'd just climbed The Toit (on Pant Ifan). He pronounced it in a very Brummie way which sounded comical. But if he'd pronounced it in the French way it would have sounded plain daft. Another example is 'trait'. I used to work with a woman who insisted on pronouncing it 'tray'.
Ha, maybe, but I've heard people argue about this and other words taken from French. I think it's an interesting question. I remember Jimmy Jewell swaggering into Eric's café and announcing that he'd just climbed The Toit (on Pant Ifan). He pronounced it in a very Brummie way which sounded comical. But if he'd pronounced it in the French way it would have sounded plain daft. Another example is 'trait'. I used to work with a woman who insisted on pronouncing it 'tray'.
Post edited at 10:15
In reply to jon:
I think the way people pronounce trait is about 50/50 tray/traight. I think I still say tray (can't remember) e.g. 'character tray'
I think the way people pronounce trait is about 50/50 tray/traight. I think I still say tray (can't remember) e.g. 'character tray'
In reply to MG:
Sorry Martin, it wasn't the T that I was referring to, it was the R but also the pronunciation of the OI syllable. Adroit pronounced like this youtube.com/watch?v=cn0wk5y3sEI& sounds right, but maladroit like this youtube.com/watch?v=Y6mXQ9CHL5I& doesn't really.
Sorry Martin, it wasn't the T that I was referring to, it was the R but also the pronunciation of the OI syllable. Adroit pronounced like this youtube.com/watch?v=cn0wk5y3sEI& sounds right, but maladroit like this youtube.com/watch?v=Y6mXQ9CHL5I& doesn't really.
In reply to graham F:
Yes: Lexicopteros viridilimbus. There are some excellent specimens of this almost extinct species in the Alpine Club library. Pace Greenbank!!
> Does anyone know another word for "thesaurus"?
Yes: Lexicopteros viridilimbus. There are some excellent specimens of this almost extinct species in the Alpine Club library. Pace Greenbank!!
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I can't be bothered to read all the replies but I am sure they make the point that a laconic bit of humor is a tradition of British guide book writing
I can't be bothered to read all the replies but I am sure they make the point that a laconic bit of humor is a tradition of British guide book writing
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
It's not in Blob's guide and certainly not in Steve Monks' very sparsely worded guide.
> PS. This Dexter example seems vaguely familiar. I used to climb at Avon years ago (c. 40!), and it's possible that this is a piece of old guidebook writing that's been retained in 2004 edition because it was a nice bit of fun. There's quite a tradition of doing this. E.g Moulam retained many of Edwards' quirky sentences in his Tryfan and Idwal guides.
It's not in Blob's guide and certainly not in Steve Monks' very sparsely worded guide.
In reply to Greenbanks:
Who could forget Paul William's long paragraph for a route, in the Llanberis Slate, that, I think, was called Johnverybiglongwords(?)
> (In reply to mkean) Oooh! I don't agree with you. Surely the guide is there to tell you the whereabouts of the line; if it does that in a way which is entertaining & creative (however florid that might be) I think it adds to the experience - the adventure. Some of the 'best' guides on my shelves are those which have some wonderfully obscure 'advice' to the climber!
Who could forget Paul William's long paragraph for a route, in the Llanberis Slate, that, I think, was called Johnverybiglongwords(?)
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
and the description of the Indian Face
"It has been said that up the face to the right of A Midsummer Night's Dream, a pitch of such appalling difficulty as to be almost beyond the realms of human comprehension has been ascended without mechanical machinations or other insidious practices normally associated with a route of this calibre" etc
and the description of the Indian Face
"It has been said that up the face to the right of A Midsummer Night's Dream, a pitch of such appalling difficulty as to be almost beyond the realms of human comprehension has been ascended without mechanical machinations or other insidious practices normally associated with a route of this calibre" etc
In reply to Reach>Talent:
I'd never heard of 'adroitly' before. Certainly in less common usage than thesaurus or regurgitate (not sure regurgitator is actually a word).
I'd never heard of 'adroitly' before. Certainly in less common usage than thesaurus or regurgitate (not sure regurgitator is actually a word).
In reply to Gus:
on the other hand if you do, I'll be the first to buy one. What I want is a book that says where the line goes, says something about the character of the route and gives critical information. If I want an amusing article about climbing I will go and buy a climbing mag instead.
> Do us a favour and don't volunteer to write any guidebooks. "Go straight up, the next bit is the crux" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
on the other hand if you do, I'll be the first to buy one. What I want is a book that says where the line goes, says something about the character of the route and gives critical information. If I want an amusing article about climbing I will go and buy a climbing mag instead.
In reply to stroppygob:
I think you'll find that is why rockfax have become so popular. while the witty guides with long rambling and amusing descriptions but no photos or crag diagrams to show you where the bloody route actually is are gathering dust on the hut bookshelves
> We should stick to guides with big pictures, routes marked with coloured lines, and "4c" or "5b" marked at the exact spot on them.
I think you'll find that is why rockfax have become so popular. while the witty guides with long rambling and amusing descriptions but no photos or crag diagrams to show you where the bloody route actually is are gathering dust on the hut bookshelves
In reply to pebbles:
All the modern guides have phototopos for the majority of routes and Rocdkfax has some wit as well. Are you Rip van Winkle?
All the modern guides have phototopos for the majority of routes and Rocdkfax has some wit as well. Are you Rip van Winkle?
In reply to Offwidth:
mostly because Rockfax made them up their game! Funny comments are fine, I like the grade "E by gum" in the old Yorkshire Grit, but I know exactly what mkean is on about, theres been loads of times I'v looked at a guidebook and cursed people who cant just spit out what they mean. I'd like to save the 'thinking for myself' for the actual climbing, not trying to decode an obscure comment in a guidebook.
mostly because Rockfax made them up their game! Funny comments are fine, I like the grade "E by gum" in the old Yorkshire Grit, but I know exactly what mkean is on about, theres been loads of times I'v looked at a guidebook and cursed people who cant just spit out what they mean. I'd like to save the 'thinking for myself' for the actual climbing, not trying to decode an obscure comment in a guidebook.
Post edited at 12:45
In reply to pebbles:
Although the example given in this case doesn't seem to be one of them.
Although the example given in this case doesn't seem to be one of them.
Post edited at 13:56
In reply to pebbles:
Like I said unless you can give some concrete examples you are playing Rip Van Winkle... The OP didn't come up with much and even for the example cited most posters here seemed to understand (and appreciate the pun of) adroitly.
Rockfax made the guidebooks up their game early this century and its 2014 now. If you want to talk routes, my wide experience is Rockfax is likely to have as much if not more confusing info these days as the definitives (both cases being quite a small percentage of the routes covered).
Like I said unless you can give some concrete examples you are playing Rip Van Winkle... The OP didn't come up with much and even for the example cited most posters here seemed to understand (and appreciate the pun of) adroitly.
Rockfax made the guidebooks up their game early this century and its 2014 now. If you want to talk routes, my wide experience is Rockfax is likely to have as much if not more confusing info these days as the definitives (both cases being quite a small percentage of the routes covered).
Post edited at 14:58
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...