An unpopular take on The Alpinist

I don't know why so many are engaging with this guy.   

He has shown repeatedly that his way of deciding how to live his life (and how he tells others to live) is based on cherry picked web research, gut feeling, text written 2000 yrs ago, and circular logic informed by dogmatism. Basically "it makes sense to me so it cannot be false". Light on critical thinking, evidence based conclusions and generally devoid of factual evidence.  He shares these opinions as though (and believes them to be) fact, bypasses democratic respect of differing opinions and when people call him out on it, ask him to provide facts, cite sources- he gets aggressive in the name of defending those views instead of presenting factual evidence or god forbid- doing anything resembling self reflection.  And then claims to be a victim when his anger and deliberate, self admitted trolling is met with his content being flagged so he can continue to feel like a victim to justify his heel digging.  

And repeat.

Little does he know that many of the people calling him out, including myself, also believe in the Gospel, rather than hate it. We just recognize it's a faith, without concrete evidence and not a fact that benefits from force feeding... so we maintain a tiny shred of humility and step back from the dogmatism rampant religion and keep our non-fact-based (aka irrational) beliefs to ourselves unless asked.

It's an all too common playbook in use today.  A fine powder of full spectrum logical fallacy cut with digital gas lighting.  I recommend simply ignoring so he has one less reason to claim victimhood.

ETA- there's a good chance this person has no real idea they're doing this.  It's so normal and ingrained, that no other way of thinking/acting is imaginable, let alone logical.  Remembering this might help maintain empathy in the rest of us.

On topic- I was re-listening to the Enormocast interview with Lincoln Stoller on the long drive back from City of Rocks and it touches on a lot of what's on topic in this thread.  I eventually gave up on it, but if you're curious it's very pertinant to this conversation- Ep 268 from Aug 7 2023.  I found Lincoln's dismissive views of why climbers choose to continue taking risk... bordering on cowardly and close minded. It's like he believes that either it's normal and realistic (and the only responsible choice) for individuals to give up on a passion they feel brings them the fullest depth of life because it involves mortal danger or that we climbers can somehow magically remove all objective risk and anyone who dies climbing was irresponsible and in his view, selfishly ignored objective hazards.  I finally turned it off when he repeated his line about how anyone who dies while climbing/skiing etc. also harms/kills their potential unconceived, unborn progeny.  Like anyone who's life was taken in the backcountry is responsible for countless deaths of lost ancestors.  One step removed from mass-murderers. Wild.  I was surprised Kalous didn't push back more on some of this given his lived experience with risk taking, grief and love.  Explained perhaps by how Chris did a good job of remaining a neutral interviewer instead of making it any more about him than Lincoln was already trying to make it.

Also relistened to Ep 142 with John Middendorf in light of his recent passing and goodness that's a good one.  Such stoke for adventure and for expanding the sport and just general curiousity about the world.  What a legend.

NateCwrote:

I think you just need to learn more about climbing. You keep making statements about statistics and things but you also say so many things that show your very poor understanding. 

Ice and snow in the alpine are soloed far more often than rock. A tremendous amount of mountaineering is done with an axe and crampons as the only belay. It's also fairly common for ice climbers to solo ice. 

The majority of alpine deaths are NOT from unseen and uncontrolled hazards. The vast majority come from pushing on and trying to sneak past a weather window that is obviously closing, avalanche conditions that give obvious signs of instability, etc. They are not unseen or unpredictable. They were choices made that went against better evidence. Perhaps in the 1800-2000's in the alps things were unseen and uncontrollable, but since about 2010 we have had communication and weather forecasting technology available to give us updates in real time if desired. 

Your posts are so frustrating because of the ignorance they display toward alpine climbing. You act as though Marc Andre is the only soloist alpine climber and ignore the number who have been incredibly successful. You also have failed to mention or acknowledge that he didn't die soloing and didn't really have close calls while doing it. You make these statements while ingoring the fact that the most prolific rock free soloists have all died, and a good number of the most prolific alpine soloists have lived beyond their time climbing or are still at it after many many years. Many of them doing climbs that are argubly or perhaps objectively bigger and more difficult than Marc Andre. A climber of Marc Andre's caliber knew about how to put these things together to optimize conditions and minimize the objective hazards. He had YEARS of online posts in forums where he discussed these things, shared his thought process, asked questions of others to learn. 

This is why I feel that your discussion is disrespectful. You state that want to talk about risk, but you are discussing it with ignorance to the fuller picture. You're intentionally ignoring more because you want to criticize this one individual, not actually discuss risk. The guy is dead, it's really easy to criticize him post mortem and that's why you're doing it. Why don't you start a thread actually talking about risk and involve the broader picture? You don't because you can't use Marc Andre as your only example and your argument falls apart. 

Thank you. The climbing info you are sharing was the type of feedback and discussion I was looking for.

It took me posting 10 times over 5 days for someone to finally dig into the subject I keep scratching away at, but I did say I came here for answers.

As for the rest you're imagining a lot. I am not interested in discussing my motivations. 

Read my posts again. 

Starting from my reply to Hillybilly High Jinx on page 8 or 9. You can see clearly where I am trying to get to.

I said it over and over again: can we talk about what was the risk level of MAL climbing.  I am trying to have my own informed, private, discussions with friends and family and kids. 

Does he rank as a reckless climber or a highly skilled climber who go unlucky?

Is your answer: highly skilled who got unlucky?

Is it ok if we dig into this a bit?

Ywan Cwrote:

I said it over and over again: can we talk about what was the risk level of MAL climbing.  I am trying to have my own informed, private, discussions with friends and family and kids. 

How nice that we can be fodder for your private discussions with friends and family and kids. Maybe that is why you have to keep asking over and over?

Bill Lawrywrote:

How nice that we can be fodder for your private discussions with friends and family and kids. Maybe that is why you have to keep asking over and over?

I live in Southeast Asia. Miles away from any climbing community.  I don't exactly have any resources here and this happens to be a forum discussing the very subject I'm trying to get informed on.  

NateC's answer is chock full of nuggets. Fantastic answer, apart from the defensiveness. People seem to be quite sensistive about the subject.  If I am wrong about the film and about the risks, tell me why I am wrong. Don't tell me "I'm being judgemental".  NateC explained why he thinks I am wrong. Thats great.

"We are fodder"? No... I make challenging statements, then I get challenged back on my statements. With reasoned information preferably.  Isn't that how discussions work?  Isn't that how this whole thread started?

ps. I don't believe in God, but I do believe in sharing knowledge.  I actually don't see what good it does for people to hold back what could be very very important and useful knowledge for the climbing community. Like I said: my best friends 13 year old wants to start mountain climbing because of The Alpinist.  We (me and my friend) argued over the risks shown in the film. Was it skill and control? Was it suicidal daredevil?  By the answers in the forum the nuanced picture is getting clearer!

My opinion is MAL was a highly skilled climber who got unlucky. We can look at other incredible alpinists, and soloists, who all died such as Hansjörg Auer, David Lama, and Ueli Steck. They got unlucky AND/OR made bad decisions. What doesn't get addressed in this thread (maybe it did, but there is so much shit to wade through I can't find it) is that MAL died roped up with a partner, same with HA, and DL. So, did MAL really just get unlucky, or did he and his partner also make a bad decision? If they made a bad decision, then it was the same bad decision that killed Hansjörg and David (choosing to climb in unfavorable conditions.) I think Ueli probably just got unlucky (he got hit by rockfall? foot slipped?.) The thing is that all aforementioned climbers (I'm extrapolating here) were used to making bad decisions and either getting lucky, and/or having the skills to get themselves out of said bad decisions. They were also all incredibly good decision makers (you can be really good at making decisions but still make a bad one, in alpine climbing it often only takes one bad one to end your life.) I'm casting no judgment here, I'm just trying to state an (I hope) unbiased opinion. 

Decision making is the only thing that matters in life, it is the only thing you have full control of, be it the choosing to believe in a higher power, or climbing an objective on a certain day/conditions. If you really want to talk to your friends kid about choosing to climb mountains you should strongly emphasize how just like in life, the decisions they make will have a direct impact on if they summit or no, or live or die AND that just like in life, chance always plays a role, big or small, and there is no 100% certainty about anything. The documentary (and his blog posts) showed MAL was at times reckless, and at times very calculated. His life was full of contradictions, as is everyones life, we all contain multitudes. 

Questioning if his death was a waste of a life is not a very good topic of discussion because it will never be answered and he cannot argue for himself. Talking about risk and inherent risks in life is much more profound of a topic and will have a higher impact on more people. The levels of risk MAL and others mentioned were willing to take are astronomically high compared to the average humans, anyone who attempts to disagree has no idea of the full picture of climbing mountains (yes in this case I am right, and you are wrong, no discussion.) I'm talking about average humans, not BASE jumpers or alpinists average level of acceptable risk, c'mon, anyone reading this thread has an above average level of risk tolerance. I'm rambling now and have no idea how to stop typing anymore.

Edit: I would also like to add that MAL seemed to be a wonderful person and has/had a net positive impact on his family and community. I am sad that he is no longer living and it pains me to think of the pain his family felt, and still feels about his passing. Remember the speech his mother gave at his funeral, and her talking about his love of sun rises, it was so beautiful and sad. David Lama's father gave a similar speech. One thing I believe should not be debated is their love of life and the beauty of the world they experienced. 

Mal died because he went to a place where everyone gets avalanched... When the pro skiers and riders go there they have support teams ready zoom in on snow mobiles and helicopters to start digging. They still loose people. When climbers go there in small teams they just disappear..

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Mal died because he went to a place where everyone gets avalanched... When the pro skiers and riders go there they have support teams ready zoom in on snow mobiles and helicopters to start digging. They still loose people. When climbers go there in small teams they just disappear..

So he and his partner made a bad decision. Was it also a reckless decision, or was it just bad? Is there a difference? He surely must have known those risks.

Ywan Cwrote:

Like I said: my best friends 13 year old wants to start mountain climbing because of The Alpinist.  We (me and my friend) argued over the risks shown in the film. Was it skill and control? Was it suicidal daredevil?  By the answers in the forum the nuanced picture is getting clearer!

Thank you fort explaining what is behind your posts. I had made a different assumption about your perspective.  Seeking knowledge to help with that is good.

Reminds me of some deliberations I had as my kids grew up and now my grandkids. Honestly, over time, my enthusiasm for my relatives to climb has declined and has been at a level of neutrality for years now.

Cultures differ about these things. For me, regarding children and climbing, it is about insuring they get the knowledge to support decisions they will make. For non-climbing parents and influential adults, it can also be helpful if you can connect them with a climber who’s values are otherwise similar to yours. But maybe this is more about my extended family. Or maybe I’m just stating the obvious

Luca Keushguerianwrote:

My opinion is MAL was a highly skilled climber who got unlucky. We can look at other incredible alpinists, and soloists, who all died such as Hansjörg Auer, David Lama, and Ueli Steck. They got unlucky AND/OR made bad decisions. What doesn't get addressed in this thread (maybe it did, but there is so much shit to wade through I can't find it) is that MAL died roped up with a partner, same with HA, and DL. So, did MAL really just get unlucky, or did he and his partner also make a bad decision? If they made a bad decision, then it was the same bad decision that killed Hansjörg and David (choosing to climb in unfavorable conditions.) I think Ueli probably just got unlucky (he got hit by rockfall? foot slipped?.) The thing is that all aforementioned climbers (I'm extrapolating here) were used to making bad decisions and either getting lucky, and/or having the skills to get themselves out of said bad decisions. They were also all incredibly good decision makers (you can be really good at making decisions but still make a bad one, in alpine climbing it often only takes one bad one to end your life.) I'm casting no judgment here, I'm just trying to state an (I hope) unbiased opinion. 

Decision making is the only thing that matters in life, it is the only thing you have full control of, be it the choosing to believe in a higher power, or climbing an objective on a certain day/conditions. If you really want to talk to your friends kid about choosing to climb mountains you should strongly emphasize how just like in life, the decisions they make will have a direct impact on if they summit or no, or live or die AND that just like in life, chance always plays a role, big or small, and there is no 100% certainty about anything. The documentary (and his blog posts) showed MAL was at times reckless, and at times very calculated. His life was full of contradictions, as is everyones life, we all contain multitudes. 

Fantastic post. Thanks for the tip about emphasising decision making on the climb.   

Thats actually quite a profound and useful tip to pass on to a beginner. Developing skills and decision making to match.

There's an art and science in there which must be incredibly satisfying to develop while climbing especially when it works and you start climbing more challenging routes that you previously couldn't dream of doing..

Edit:  In the film The Alpinist someone mentions its like a chess game or solving puzzle? 

Ywan Cwrote:

Edit:  In the film The Alpinist someone mentions its like a chess game or solving puzzle? 

Yes - at a simplistic early (?) period in my opinion.

But at a more adventurous and team-oriented level, climbing is fully a microcosm of life in general. Meaning, life in general can inform your adventures plus the adventures can inform your life in general.

It would be interesting to hear a serious soloist weigh in about the chess / puzzle analogy. I suspect the analogy doesn’t quite cover it. Edit: Maybe a solitary monk on a vision quest or at least deep peace of mind (in a “best light” meaning).

I was convinced things couldn't get worse. Steep, loose snow, a long way out above the deck, limited protection, and now sloughs coming down the pitch, threatening to send my feet out from under me. The storm was unrelenting, with blowing snow falling at an incredible rate. I was desperate for a rest and a decent anchor. Above and to the right, through the heavy snow and darkness of night, I could see the chimney that would offer some decent pro, and a reprieve from my current dire situation. With nerves frayed, I carefully booted my way right, one nerve-wracking step at a time. After what seemed like hours, I reached the safety of the chimney, and eagerly tied myself off. I called out to my partner down below, but my words were swallowed by the raging storm. Tugging on the haul line, I reeled it in. Carefully, I untied the cap, and secured it in place. Looping the rope around the chimney, I quickly rapped down the roof pitch, to my awaiting partner on the deck. "How did it go?", she asked. "No worries, babe....", I responded...."let's light a fire."

Perspective. As climbers, we read my previous paragraph and it conjures images that are unique to our fraternity. The perspective of the non-climber would be somewhat different, as they simply cannot relate to our world.

Risk is that way....we all perceive it differently. Fifty years ago, when I announced to my parents that I wanted to be a rock climber, they flat out refused to let me even entertain the thought. We had just moved to California, and our neighbor's son had recently lost his life in a climbing accident in Yosemite. He and his partners were putting up a new route on the Glacier Point Apron. A few pitches up, while the team was at their high point, their anchor failed. Years later, another team finished the route, naming it 'Anchors Away'.

Because of that event, my parents deemed that climbing was simply too risky....especially for a child with a history of hurting himself. 

All of us carry a threshold of what is acceptable risk to us personally. What non-climbers see as risk, we see as a perfectly good time. I didn't know Marc Andre.....in many ways I sure wish I had. But I have to believe that he walked to a very different, unique take on what truly constituted risk in his life. That his level of risk simply doesn't work for me, doesn't make it wrong. Thankfully, we are all unique creatures who have the free will to march to the beat of our choosing.

I did. When my parents refused to let me climb, I did what I needed to do. I took a climbing class behind their back at 13 years old. Then, throughout four years of high school, I laid down a smokescreen of fibs and outright lies, covering my tracks while I climbed to my heart's content. Upon graduating high school, I let the cat out of the bag, when I moved to Camp 4 to pursue my level of risk.

Do I wish Marc Andre were still here, enjoying all the other wonders of life in this world such as friends, family, children, careers, etc.? Absolutely one hundred percent. But not to the point of wanting him to alter HIS life, for what makes me comfortable in mine. We all live, and die, by our choices. 

Marc Andre made his. I don't believe the rest of us should hold that in contempt.

Rest in peace, alpinist.

Ywan Cwrote:

I said it over and over again: can we talk about what was the risk level of MAL climbing.  I am trying to have my own informed, private, discussions with friends and family and kids. 

Does he rank as a reckless climber or a highly skilled climber who go unlucky?

Is your answer: highly skilled who got unlucky?

Is it ok if we dig into this a bit?

I'm no expert on MAL but I might be able to add some insight into your inquiry.

I can directly trace my love for climbing back to the Everest IMAX film.  I was 9 or 10 years old, in elementary school and went on a class trip to see the film in full IMAX.  I absolutely fell in love with grand mountain landscapes and the idea of spending my life exploring them.  I still get a warm fuzzy feeling every time I head Here Comes the Sun, the outro song the plays as the credits roll.  Spoiler alert, the film isn't super appropriate for a 9 yr old.  It's filmed during the Into Thin Air, 1996 Everest season which took the lives of 8 climbers attempting to summit Everest.  It's not a great comparison to MAL or The Alpinist.  But it is an example of a young, impressionable kid being inspired to spend, at this point, the next 25 years exploring the mountains.

I've climbed 9 glaciated peaks in WA and OR, big routes in the Bugaboos, adventurous link ups and ridge scrambles all over Washington, California, BC and the Alps.  Maybe 1000 or 1500 pitches of trad.  I've kicked up huge snow gullies.  Spent maybe 120 days backcountry touring on a splitboard.  But my risk tolerance remains low.  I still prepare and operate with a beginner's mindset. I have backed off countless objectives because I didn't like what the clouds were doing, what the recent freeze/thaw cycles had done or what the snow conditions were.  I've turned around because I didn't think my climbing team was ready for that route, that day.  I got involved with SAR at an early stage in my climbing career, first with one of the first collegiate SAR teams at Western State in Gunnison and now just shy of a decade with Olympic Mountain Rescue in western WA.  I've been directly involved in 7 body recoveries and indirectly involved in many more.  

But my to-do list is only ever getting longer.

All of this is to say that being inspired by a movie at an early age, even one that features great loss, wasn't the start of some slow walk towards a passive death wish.  It was a walk towards trying to master my skills in the backcountry.  Everest IMAX does a good job of showing how devastating loss is to those left behind.  I don't want that for my loved ones.  I want to be able to enjoy this activity that brings me the fullest value of life, one of the only things I can point to that I can say is truly a passion.  There is something irreplaceable to me about being self sufficient in these wild places above the treeline, on difficult terrain, having confidence in my margin for error and ability to objectively evaluate risk.  Sometimes the mountains decide that a climbers witts and skills aren't going to keep them safe that day and that's a risk I have to accept.  But I have no plans on giving up my alpine pursuits.  I know from the many many months of sitting on the couch dealing which chronic injuries (largely non-climbing related, hard to say exactly with overuse injuries for someone in the trades) that never going back into the alpine would destroy a meaninful part of me.  Above the trees, on granite, showing love by keeping my partners and myself safe is when I feel most alive.  Like there is nothing more I need, these are the fullest value moments in my life.

Ywan Cwrote:

I live in Southeast Asia. Miles away from any climbing community.  I don't exactly have any resources here and this happens to be a forum discussing the very subject I'm trying to get informed on.  

NateC's answer is chock full of nuggets. Fantastic answer, apart from the defensiveness. People seem to be quite sensistive about the subject.  If I am wrong about the film and about the risks, tell me why I am wrong. Don't tell me "I'm being judgemental".  NateC explained why he thinks I am wrong. Thats great.

"We are fodder"? No... I make challenging statements, then I get challenged back on my statements. With reasoned information preferably.  Isn't that how discussions work?  Isn't that how this whole thread started?

ps. I don't believe in God, but I do believe in sharing knowledge.  I actually don't see what good it does for people to hold back what could be very very important and useful knowledge for the climbing community. Like I said: my best friends 13 year old wants to start mountain climbing because of The Alpinist.  We (me and my friend) argued over the risks shown in the film. Was it skill and control? Was it suicidal daredevil?  By the answers in the forum the nuanced picture is getting clearer!

It seems you so focused on the alpinist as the foundation of this talk with your friends 13 year old.

Why not use other examples of climbing safely in the alpine environment? You're using the information at the ends of the bellcurve and doesn't really paint a fair picture of what alpinism is, or even climbing. Most climbing is a pretty safe endeavor.
Or maybe of tales of tragedy of people not taking much risk at all other than being on a mountain? This would drive home that mountains dont care how skilled you are, and that sometimes, it has nothing to do with pushing the limit.
Maybe compare the risks of driving to climbing....or any of the things that people do all the time that is likely more risky.

It just seems you want the extra drama for whatever reason rather then shift focus to what an average climber is doing... hang dogging gym routes. Or in south east aisa, hang dogging sport climbs on limestone where shitty bolts, tourists, and tat nests are probably the most dangerous thing you'll encounter.

Some fantastic posts here by Nick, Luca, Bill, Dean and Andy. Thank you for sharing your insights.

I have read every single post from the start of the thread and those are amongst the wisest.

I thought this was great:  "Connecting with climbers who share similar values". Great advice, thanks for sharing Bill. I will pass it on.

I've dropped the idea that MAL was furthest out on the risk curve. NateC says there's much riskier climbing going on? Ok, fair enough.

Also, I've been reading a bunch of stuff on the net, and watched some videos and I will continue for a while on this topic but not on this thread.

One thing that stood out has prompted some final thoughts before I sign off this thread:

I just watched this video. Its an interview with Adam Ondra. youtu.be/b5F34hWMbwc?si=Csr…

In this interview of Adam Ondra the interviewer brings up the topic of "are you going to solo" and you can see that there is some pressure on Adam Ondra as he has to justify why he is NOT soloing.

Is there a new generation of audiences who want to know "why is that man using a rope?"  

Ywan Cwrote:

I've dropped the idea that MAL was furthest out on the risk curve. NateC says there's much riskier climbing going on? Ok, fair enough.

Imagine you are the perfect climbing machine - let's just assume you can physically never fail.
The only risk, then, is external factors -rock breaking, rocks falling on you, sudden storms, avalanches, etc.
Let's assume that probability of this fatal adverse event is 1%

Probability of surviving one adventure is 99%
Probability of surviving 10 adventures is 90%
Probability of surviving 100 adventures is 37%

Basically, the longer one keeps going on higher risk adventures, the lower is probability of surviving. 

And, no discussion of excellence in high risk environments is complete without refresher on survivorship bias - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias 

amariuswrote:

Imagine you are the perfect climbing machine - let's just assume you can physically never fail.
The only risk, then, is external factors -rock breaking, rocks falling on you, sudden storms, avalanches, etc.
Let's assume that probability of this fatal adverse event is 1%

Probability of surviving one adventure is 99%
Probability of surviving 10 adventures is 90%
Probability of surviving 100 adventures is 37%

Basically, the longer one keeps going of higher risk adventures, the lower is probability of surviving. 

And, no discussion of excellence in high risk environments is complete without refresher on survivorship bias - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias 

This, theoretically, would only apply if the constant is the adventure. In other words, each route changes therefore each route would need to be the 99% probability each time.

The risk is not accumulative. Its unique to each individual climb. It doesn't matter if one repeats the same line 10-times. Each time up that route remains 1%.,

 The 10th time on the route, still 1%. Its like the lottery. Doesn't matter how many times you play, the odds remain the same for each play.

The odds for any individual climb would still be one percent, but the likelihood of hitting that fatal one percent over 1000 climbs is much higher than over one climb.

Think about flipping a coin ten times in a row. Every flip is 50/50, but the likelihood of flipping ten heads in a row is less than 50/50

Each time you toss the coin, the outcome is 50/50. Doesn't matter if its the millionth flip, still 50/50 every time.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Each time you toss the coin, the outcome is 50/50. Doesn't matter if its the millionth flip, still 50/50 every time.

Missing the point here Cherokee, amarius was expressing the probability of seeing *at least one* event over the course of N trials/reptitions. Given probability of an event p, the probability of seeing at least one event in N trials is 1 - (1-p)^N. You are correct that any given trial has a p probability of occurring, but that's not what amarius was talking about.