Calum Muskett and Dave MacLeod have made the second and third ascents of Greg Boswell's Cairngorm route, Banana Wall.
In the report it isn't clear, (to me anyway) whether Calum climbed the second ascent placing all gear on lead, or if it had been left in from the day before, or even from previous attempts and lowers.
Also, after Calum's ascent, did he lower down/abseil and clean the pitch before Dave led it, or did Dave climb it with the gear in place?
It's quite an important fact to omit from the report, because placing the gear on lead makes a massive difference to the difficulty of a route of this steepness- hanging in to place it, and also, carrying it.
It's also a very significant route, so it's good to know and report exactly the style it was climbed.
I agree that it would be interesting to know.
In fact, I'd much prefer all reports of FAs or significant repeats to explain the style, including for trad, sport, bouldering and Scottish winter.
Ideally that'd include when people are posting to Instagram, but especially so when ascents are being reported by climbing media or added to guidebooks.
Otherwise it feels like half the story.
You're right that it wasn't 100% clear, we reached out to Calum for clarification and he got back to us with this:
Both of us had the gear in from our previous attempts, so it was more like an M10 for the actual ascent. We went ground up on the route initially, but due to icy conditions, ended up dogging up the pitch on our second visit so we could actually get peckers/terriers in for pro as the cracks were too icy for anything else, with Dave doing the hard shift of going first.
The route still hasn't had a clean lead placing all the kit on lead, although it sounded like Greg got fairly close when he did the FA falling near the top, then led it next go with the kit in place. Greg did abseil inspect the upper part of the route before making the FA, placing gear to hold him in on the abseil down, so I guess our ascent is a slight progression from that style (obvs easier for 2nd ascent though!), and the next logical step would be a cleaner ground up style.
I think in drier rimed conditions (when you can place cams) I could place gear on lead on my next attempt, but obviously a lot different knowing where the hooks and kit are, and to be honest, it would just feel like doing it for an improvement in style for a news report rather than being personally more rewarding or challenging.
I'll edit the original article to include this quote too.
That's really helpful clarification. From the photo of Callum lowering off into the void after his ascent, I'd assumed that he'd placed the gear on lead given that it looked like he had leftover gear hanging from his harness.
If we care about at all about grades, we should care equally about style of ascent.
So it raises the the question, who has led XII ground-up placing gear rather than as M-style (R)? I think Dani Arnold was the first with his repeat of Anubis. In his UKC interview, he speaks of stripping the gear after a fall on an unsuccessful attempt (I think his 3rd redpoint go, before succeeding on his fourth try). I'm fairly sure Greg did too when he repeated Anubis (based solely on the huge rack on his harness in Hamish Frost's photo, labelled 3rd ascent). [From the photos, I also think Dave had the gear pre-placed from his ground-breaking FA way back in 2010.]
In Dani's same interview he mentions very nearly on-sighting The Hurting (XI). I don't think anyone has claimed that accolade yet.
> [From the photos, I also think Dave had the gear pre-placed from his ground-breaking FA way back in 2010.]
There may well be secret earlier examples, but pre-placing gear and redpointing the FA goes back a lot further than 2010. From memory Garthwaite climbed Logical Progression (X 10), 1999 I think, in that style and then Gresham did The Tempest (Original) (M9) also sports style a year or two later.
Just to clarify, I was making the contrast that I didn't think Dave MacLeod placed the gear on his FA of Anubis (unlike the repeat ascensionists), rather than saying anything about the practice of pre-placing gear on hard Scottish winter ascents. The "ground breaking" in my post was referring to the new level of difficulty of the route, and not the style of ascent. That latter subject has been well covered recently in Nick Bullock's blog, and is a thought provoking discussion.
> . From memory Garthwaite climbed Logical Progression (X 10), 1999 I think, in that style and then Gresham did The Tempest (Original) (M9) also sports style a year or two later.
A lot can be (and was) said about the style those routes were first climbed in. But, notably, to be fair to the FAs they were 100% open about the tactics they used up front. Nobody needed to wrestle the facts out of Garth or Gresh. I think that's laudable. Even in this age of Social Media such stuff would only take 1/2 a sentence to post at the outset....
Hi there. For the record, both Greg and I tried to rap down this line, on the same day. We couldn't really get anywhere near it, coz it's very steep and we ended up away off to the side, more in the line of Bavarinthia. I went down second and probably got a better look than Greg as he tightened the rope in from the bottom to pull me in. Neither of us placed any gear to keep ourselves in - not sure where that factoid came from - but we could see there were enough cracks to make an attempt safe. I didn't bother going back to try it as I knew it would take multiple attempts and that's not my (our) bag. Greg went back I think a year later, and did it ground up, second go, in a day, placing the gear on lead. No offence, but I don't see how Callum's ascent can be seen as a 'progression' of that style, by anyone's standards. Greg has also said elsewhere that the grading at X and above is basically guesswork until more people get on and repeat the routes concerned. I think that's a pretty sensible view, as to my knowledge grade X is still the high watermark in terms of on sighting in winter in Scotland, and grades are meant to be for on sight ascents. Even at grade X it's all highly uncertain, as very few (if any?) of the routes have been repeated. I suspect Greg may be the only climber top have on-sighted that grade. Cheers, Guy R
> Hi Nick,
> You're right that it wasn't 100% clear, we reached out to Calum for clarification
Plus ten points for the clarification.
However, minus one hundred points for the use of 'reached out'...
> No offence, but I don't see how Callum's ascent can be seen as a 'progression' of that style, by anyone's standards.
That was my first thought. Surely what was basically a ground-up ascent after a very limited ab inspection has to be better style than dogging to the top then coming back for the redpoint with the gear in place.
> Scottish winter style is going through a mid-life crisis recently...?>
At grade XII, even a full on redpoint seems fair enough to me given the difficulty. As said above, I just wish folk were a bit clearer when reporting.
I was just taking the mick, I find all ascents at that grade very valiant efforts, whether pre-placed gear or abseil inspection. I found inspiring that Callum rocked up on one weekend and got it done, which is a massive difference to being a local. I think all this recent developments are all very exciting. On style I can’t comment as I only ever tried to onsight up to grade IX and that was desperate enough! God only knows what it would be like onsighting grade XII…
Ha! Perhaps. I don’t really care what style people climb in as long as they are open and honest about it. Looking at Dave’s and Callum’s Instagram posts, they are clear that it was an effort over several days but they don’t specify that on their successful ascents the gear was already in from the day before. That’s a rather crucial detail to omit, for whatever reason. You can guess this from the videos they posted where they have just quickdraws on their harnesses but it’s easy to miss that.
For top end ascents, I think people should be absolutely forensic about the style of ascent because this stuff matters. Not least because when someone else comes along, they get an opportunity to improve on the style.
Let me get this straight Danny, are you saying that on the world's most trafficked climbing website it is not sufficient for 'News' articles to reproduce word-for-word what the protagonists have written on Instagram, along with brief introductory and closing paragraphs stating the basic facts of who climbed what, where it is, and whatever hardest/fastest/first top trump accolades may apply?
Indeed ground-up (pulling the ropes each try) always trumps over dogged and did it with pre-placed gear.
Now, if the ropes are clipped to the highest gear on ground-up ascent, things are getting more iffy.
Abseil inspection for a non climbed line, whilst not the cleanest approach imho does not affect things much. For a hard FA, I would say that some sort of scouting is even smart. Because for an unclimbed line, it is truly unknown. For repeats, that is no longer the case... you know it is possible and to an extent also know that who ever did the FA placed enough gear to accept the risks. But fiddling in gear whilst on abseil and properly checking the holds and trying to moves... Then again, you're only trying a bad job at pink-pointing the line...
N.b. I am a complete outsider to this, so perhaps looking at it from a different perspective. And my only experience of Scottish Winter Climbing seemed to have been 9 years ago, courtesy of BMC winter meet, which AFAIK had non standard conditions with the amount of snow or routes... Thanks FB for reminding me about it in the morning...
> Neither of us placed any gear to keep ourselves in - not sure where that factoid came from
The factoid in question came directly from Greg and was included within the original news report back when the first ascent was made:
"The second you have left the belay you are in space and free hanging and despite placing a few pieces of marginal gear to keep me in a bit, it was obvious that I was going to get nowhere near my climbing high-point to see if there would be any protection to aim for."
I'd love UKC and others to ask the question as a default, but style also should be proactively stated on Insta and other write-ups by climbers ourselves.
Parking any ethical debates.... not reporting the style:
- Makes it harder for others to repeat routes & undermines the grading system
- Fosters doubt within an activity/community based on honest reporting
- But for me, most importantly we just lose some of the soul of the stories behind routes. 'Rule'-bending is a big part of the history and character of the game. So regardless of whether routes needed a multi-day siege with falls on to in-situ peckers, complex abseil inspections, or headpointing of crux pitches, let's know about it.
Style details shouldn't need teased out after the event.
"Greg went back I think a year later, and did it ground up, second go, in a day, placing the gear on lead."
Just out of curiosity, how did Greg strip the gear for his clean ascent after his fall (he's way out in space in the picture)? Surely he left some gear in place?
The rap point is located 10-15m or so above the end of the hard climbing (maybe more?) and the gear Greg is talking about is at the end of the difficulties. So my point remains - i.e. he was a long way off 'inspecting' the line and was on the ground after a couple of minutes. I hope that clarifies.
The reason I'm throwing my tuppence worth in here is because I think Callum's inference that climbing the route ground-up, second go (very nearly first), placing gear, in a day, is a 'lesser' achievement than climbing the route over several visits with the gear in-situ, is IMHO a tad disrespectful to Greg and misleading to your readers.
It doesn't really matter, of course, but it always leaves a bit of a bitter taste when people omit details from their ascents at or near the cutting edge, then try to suggest they're moving the sport on in some way; honesty and mutual respect are generally more constructive.
> I'd love UKC and others to ask the question as a default, but style also should be proactively stated on Insta and other write-ups by climbers ourselves.
> Parking any ethical debates.... not reporting the style:
> - Makes it harder for others to repeat routes & undermines the grading system
> - Fosters doubt within an activity/community based on honest reporting
> - But for me, most importantly we just lose some of the soul of the stories behind routes. 'Rule'-bending is a big part of the history and character of the game. So regardless of whether routes needed a multi-day siege with falls on to in-situ peckers, complex abseil inspections, or headpointing of crux pitches, let's know about it.
> Style details shouldn't need teased out after the event.
I've just come across this news story on UKC and thread and this comment I find a shame in particular. To be fair, UKC have always in the past contacted me before publishing a news story and this is the first time I can remember them not doing this (it would be good to go back to doing that every time). Despite this, I feel this comment is unfair to suggest, even vaguely, that the style of our ascent was not clear in the write up of the climb, especially since it's right there on my website to read.
A couple of clicks of a mouse is all that is needed to check before publishing a comment suggesting I'm fostering doubt or withholding any details. The Scottish winter climbing discipline seems uniquely prone to this judgemental approach. I remember it in this forum 20 years ago and sad to see its still like this. It was one of the things I wanted to get away from when I started climbing mountains; being told I should do this or that in sport. It's also just ironic to me since I do actually spend huge amounts of my time explaining every detail of how I go about preparing for and executing climbs. It does take time. I got home from Banana Wall on Friday evening and had to travel for a family event over the weekend. I had time to post a picture on Instagram while sitting in a car park for a few minutes. Then when I got home took time away from work to post video and write a 2000 word blog post with a lot of detail on how we did Banana Wall. I just don't see anything wrong with that.
My request for the climbing community is to give others a bit of time and space to report ascents. Producing online content takes time and effort and can't always be done instantly. If people are piling on a forum, it may be safer to assume that most or all of them have not been arsed to check details before posting. A quick search for missing information or just asking the climber in question may paint a different picture. Finally, an environment of constant judgement and preaching is off-putting to some. One can justify it on the basis of upholding values, but it may also have costs if we go overboard.
Apologies, as I'd not known you'd published a (very good) website article yesterday. I guess like most people I'd only seen the earlier UKC report and your Instagram feeds.
I hope that rather than a pile-on, this thread and the previous one regarding Stone Bastion suggest that the modern era of reports-via-social can cause confusion if the style isn't mentioned.
The views of a social post will obviously dwarf those on here or a blog. I 100% appreciate the time pressures but as social media is sadly how most people get our information, I still believe that it'd be ideal if initial social posts (and definitely UKC stories) can proactively mention style.
> Just out of curiosity, how did Greg strip the gear for his clean ascent after his fall (he's way out in space in the picture)? Surely he left some gear in place?
Details are on the write up of the FA by Masa https://www.saferclimbing.org/en/record/uk/masas-perspective-of-banana-wall
"After lowered down, he decided to give it one more go, pulling the ropes down. And so did he, after some rest. One of his axes was left high up on a turf on the route, where his security leash was snapped in his fall. So he took my axes instead — it was his luck he was used to use the particular model. This time, snow in the cracks and on footholds has been already cleared out. Moreover, he knew all the placements and moves. Equally importantly, all the runners except for the top few metres are left in-situ."
I think Guy is saying that Greg did it ground up and placing the gear on lead above the high point on each attempt. Not stripping the gear each time. I don’t think stripping the gear is strictly necessary for GU, though clearly it’s a better style to strip it. I suspect most ascents described as GU are with leaving the gear in but not the ropes.
Think Masa was belaying, can check with him or indeed with Greg. Edit - hadn’t read Dave’s post above.
Leaving the ropes in is yo yo. Don’t think it’s been the done thing since the 80s (eg Ron on Strawberries). The exception is if you downclimb for a rest.
I think he left it in place - he'd have had some difficulty stripping the lower wall given steepness, lack of daylight, and the fact that thanks to Masas excellent dynamic baying he wasn't far from the ground after falling off!
So similar to Callum's ascent, he has some gear in. But Callum's didn't abseil the line. I can see their point that arguably it is a better style
> So similar to Callum's ascent, he has some gear in.
On ground-up it's not unusual to leave the gear in from your previous attempt. But crucially, you had to get it in on your first go. Greg did that.
From Dave MacLeod's blog:
"The next week I came back with Calum, yet again finding totally verglassed cracks. With peckers in place and the nut to aim for, I climbed past my previous highpoint but again found the icy cracks made it feel too dangerous (for me at least) to justify running it out while pumped. The cam placements before the two crux sections would be totally reliable runners and without them ended up resting on my ice tool and wondering what to do. Beyond the in-situ nut, the headwall above was vertical but looked thin. I got back on and gingerly climbed to the belay, again only finding a couple of pecker/terrier runners where in better conditions there would be decent cams. Calum also went up the pitch on my gear with some rests."
Calum's ascent was not ground-up, even if initial attempts were. As with Dave, both were redpoints as both had previously climbed the pitch with rests. How can that possibly be better style?
In fairness, I don't think anyone was expecting a write-up since for some years your website has just been videos. Does this mark a return to the pen? It was a great blog when it was going.
> In fairness, I don't think anyone was expecting a write-up since for some years your website has just been videos. Does this mark a return to the pen? It was a great blog when it was going.
Fairness (or respectfulness) would have been to check anyway, if you are about to publish commentary about a person, suggesting their reporting "fosters doubt within an activity/community based on honest reporting". If video was expected, fairness would be two seconds of thought to realise that videos take a long time to edit and would be uploaded for many days if not weeks after the climb. Although I have made more videos in recent years, it is not correct that my website has just been videos. The last UKC article about me before this one (Lexicon from last spring) quotes directly from an account of the climb on my blog. Have you actually looked or are you just assuming that before you post?
I do have some limited video of the climb I can put in a YouTube video, but there's no way I can turn that into a film before news of an ascent goes about.
Even if I wondered if a climber was leaving out details of an ascent, I would personally not dream of publishing this in a public forum without both checking I was correct and giving time for the climber to prepare written/video pieces. Fairness would be holding yourself to the same standard of thoroughness in just checking facts before you publish, if you are going to complain about others not doing the same.
I think the line you quote was aimed at the reporting of significant ascents in general, rather than yours and Callum’s specifically. At least, that was how I read it!
Although I can see why it might feel more pointed, coming from specific discussion about this route, Danny’s earlier post talks about reporting of all different styles of route: winter, trad, sport, etc.
That line was was 100% not aimed at you. The conversation had broadened, hence me talking about ‘routes’ plural and ‘head pointing of crux pitches’ eg Stone Bastion & other routes by other climbers.
As others here had already said in this thread, I was saying that posting the style of ascents alongside early Insta posts and UKC news articles is a good idea, as we’re a community that relies on accurate self-reporting and social posts have most reach these days, so that’s what most people will see & remember.
That should have been clearer and my language was probably clumsy. A separate thread just discussing that narrow issue may have avoided confusion. But anyway, I am genuinely sorry and apologise to you as it’s clearly led to upset, which wasn’t meant and is certainly not deserved.
To be honest I wish I’d never waded into this conversation. It’s certainly making me ponder whether there’s any value in trying to chat about issues like this on here as I didn’t mean to prompt such a backlash or cause offence.
I wish you all the best for winter season.
> Have you actually looked or are you just assuming that before you post?
I have looked, over many years, but should have checked again. Sorry.
> Even if I wondered if a climber was leaving out details of an ascent, I would personally not dream of publishing this in a public forum without both checking I was correct and giving time for the climber to prepare written/video pieces.
Fair point. But I think it's still fair to ask questions on a forum in response to a news piece. And useful too, since Calum answered them.
No, completely different Ramon; unlike Calkum, Greg didn't have a clue how the climbing would pan out, didn't know where any of the gear, hooks or rests were before starting up, and had none of thr gear in situ. Dave's ascent is actually closer in style to Greg's, albeit he took a couple more visits. Cheers, Guy
Thank you. I don't think there is any issue with discussions about climbs and reporting of climbs on this forum. My concern is over care when publishing comment about other people. If you are going to publish, it takes seconds to run an internet search to check. But that's fine if your comments were general. I'm not sure it's realistic to expect a lot of detail on Instagram. It is not really how it is used or designed to be used. In fact, when I've used to to publish detailed text based info in the past I got a lot of criticism for doing so on Instagram and told I should be publishing this on my blog, or on YouTube.
Thank you. Yes I agree its fine to ask questions on this forum. There were more than questions though. It was the premature conclusions I was objecting to. You'd said "I just wish folk were a bit clearer when reporting" when there was a 2000 word blog with all the details published on my website. I don't mean to single you out though, it's more of a broader point that people on forums tend to assume that someone else will have checked out the details. I think it is evidently safer to assume that they haven't. The answer may well be right on the end of a google search.
I think the issue here is UKC running a news story based on an Instagram post without chasing up any further details first. If you care about how it is reported it might be worth writing the blog post before breaking the news on social media?
To be honest...
Who is the "journalist" here... UKC, so as Dave pointed out UKC when writing the report should contact the persons. Problem obviously here is, that in order to get the clicks and scoops... you need to have something available as soon as it becomes available. Atheletes can and do post stuff as soon as they can these days (or not., like in some other cases). So the media needs to pick up on these, which they...
But the questions is, do you favor quick bits (often missing information, like is the case here), or proper journalistic reporting...
Now, perhaps I'm the minority... but I prefer the latter. After all, if you're interested in these things, you have already heard/read about it from the grapewine or from social media.
> But the questions is, do you favor quick bits (often missing information, like is the case here), or proper journalistic reporting...
Its possibly not a lack of care/effort but, in this case, a lack of knowledge. For most climbing nerds questions about the style would be the first thing we’d ask but if trad/winter climbing is not your main area of interest then you might be oblivious to the myriad differences in style there can be, nor how much difference they can make. No criticism of Xa intended, just an observation on how nuanced trad climbing can be even to reasonably seasoned observers.
That was my point. If you put something out there on social media it's inevitably going to be picked up and disseminated, and if there are gaps in the information then people are going to speculate. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what happens. Hence, if you care about how it's reported, it might be worth writing a full explanation first before making the ascent public.
When did people start saying "reached out to" when they mean "asked"?
> After all, if you're interested in these things, you have already heard/read about it from the grapewine or from social media.
Well, if climbers don't put things on instagram etc, then hardly anyone is going to know straight away, are they? Seems like a simple solution to me.
The grapevine is actually more useful in encouraging UKC to contact folk. If news come via someone saying on the forums "Was up in Lochain at the weekend. MacLeod got Banana Wall done" then at least UKC are going to chase up more info.
> When did people start saying "reached out to" when they mean "asked"?
There are entire threads dedicated to this seemingly fashionable new in-joke. Can we try to contain it to them?
(I’m expecting the Four Tops follow up joke to have been posted in the time it took me to write this.)
You missed it (18:13 Tue)
Feel free to reach out for assistance with reading UKC threads in future.
I promise I'm not part of an in joke. Sorry I missed those threads, I just find it an intensely irritating phrase. Don't know why.
Perhaps because it makes the process of sending an email sound like The Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel, perhaps because it reminds us of our cultural servitude to American podcasts. Who can say.
> There are entire threads dedicated to this seemingly fashionable new in-joke. Can we try to contain it to them?
Stop! In the name of love!
> Perhaps because it makes the process of sending an email sound like The Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel, perhaps because it reminds us of our cultural servitude to American podcasts. Who can say.
I think you're homing in on the source of its offensiveness here. Michelangelo is definitely the image I have. I've always felt the American touchy-feeliness is behind my revulsion. But then it has the same meaning as "get in touch with". So maybe it is the act of reaching rather than the actual contact (is "contact" an exact equivalent?) which is the issue. Something needy about it perhaps? It is really quite hard to put a finger on it. Anyway, I hate it at a cellular level (to borrow a masterly turn of phrase).
Edit: Did somebody mention something about winter climbing?
>"Did somebody mention something about winter climbing?"
It was nothing important, just a discussion developing new rules for developing and making early repeats of hard new winter routes.
Here's an executive summary for you Bob...
1. Abseil inspection of a potential new hard route is tolerable so long as the climber gains no useful knowledge what-so-ever about the climb.
2. If a fall occurs during the onsight attempt (or subsequent attempt) it is desirable that the climber's man servant cleans any gear from the crag before any subsequent attempt.
3. Should extenuating circumstances require a piece of gear be left in-situ (e.g. perhaps the man servant’s arms weren’t long enough to reach it), a live Facebook broadcast should be made from the crag explaining, in detail, the decisions behind this deplorable action.
4. It almost goes without saying, repeat ascensionists must not abseil inspect a line. In fact it is desirable that early repeaters don’t actually know where the line goes at all.
5. Hard winter routes done “sport style” is no style at all but reports of such despicable behaviour should be comprehensively investigated the climbing media (aka UKC) so the protagonists can be roundly condemned on these forum pages.
There is an actual human being, contributing to this thread in good faith, whose interactions you are describing as revolting, needy, and hated at a cellular level (really? You think a misogynistic column comparing Meghan Markel to a serial killer is a masterful bit of writing you want to be associated with?)
There’s a point where this stops being an entertaining moan about changing language and just becomes unkind.
> There is an actual human being, contributing to this thread in good faith, whose interactions you are describing as revolting, needy, and hated at a cellular level.
No, I'm simply referring to the phrase itself, not passing judgement on those who use it (these things seem to catch on whether we like it or not - I have actually, to my horror, caught myself using it myself).
> You think a misogynistic column comparing Meghan Markel to a serial killer is a masterful bit of writing you want to be associated with?
No, I only said I think the phrase is masterful. I didn't say anything about the context or the whole piece.
You do you, I just know how I’d feel if a group of people, knowing I was present, were talking about how the way I interact with people revolts them.
> No, I only said I think the phrase is masterful. I didn't say anything about the context or the whole piece.
Nevertheless the association is there and it’s hard not to read into the fact that you wanted to specifically highlight it. But that’s another matter.
Sorry Guy, apologies. What I meant was that in the actual ascent he had a lot of the gear pre-placed, or so Masa says in his blog: "all the runners except for the top few metres are left in-situ."
Sorry if it's come across like that. It is certainly nothing personal. Just a bit of a rant about a phrase which seems to trigger a strong reaction in so many people. I think it is genuinely interesting why this is the case when it is so hard to put a finger on why.
> ... a phrase which seems to trigger a strong reaction in so many people. I think it is genuinely interesting why this is the case when it is so hard to put a finger on why.
Because it is a stupid lazy cliché - which is currently fashionable.
These things come and go of course - but professional writers should know a lot better. Style, baby.
> What I meant was that in the actual ascent he had a lot of the gear pre-placed, or so Masa says in his blog: "all the runners except for the top few metres are left in-situ."
The final lead may have been similar, but a 'ground-up ascent' refers to the whole process, not just the successful attempt. The gear was hardly 'pre-placed'. I'm not sure you're getting the distinction...
> Because it is a stupid lazy cliché - which is currently fashionable.
I don't think it is a cliche and I think it is here to stay; it already seems endemic in the US. We'll just have to get used to it, just like the athlete thing.
> ... I think it is here to stay ...
It won't be. It's a temporary stylistic fashion, which any good writer will steer clear of - and it will lose currency in time.
Similar fads come and go all the time.