Article in New York Times Magazine from Jon Krakauer

[PTGrizzly]

Lol. I remember when people we're excited he was coming to write about the Griz. "He's my favorite author!" "Read all his books and love them!"

Shows what a little bias will do to a persons opinion. I never liked the guy anyways, couldn't stand his books. Tried the Pat Tillman one and thought it was dreck.

 

[UMGriz75]

Lol. I remember when people we're excited he was coming to write about the Griz. "He's my favorite author!" "Read all his books and love them!"

Shows what a little bias will do to a persons opinion.

I don't remember that at all. I recall the "buzz" while he was here for the JJ trial, as he was looking for a "social justice" angle and campus rape and was bitterly disappointed at the trial outcome. Then, when the Rolling Stone hoax hit the headlines, how he resurrected the project -- trying to preserve the Rolling Stone "narrative" -- to "show" that it was a serious campus problem, although as I noted at the time, UM's "problems" were statistically among the lowest in the nation on college campuses, and exactly the opposite of what he tried to portray, compounded by the fact that the one "problem" he tried to illuminate about the "handling" of rape claims involved an off-campus situation, a quick guilty plea, and an unusually long sentence; which Krakauer awkwardly tried to fit into his narrative because he didn't have much otherwise to talk about.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Lol. I remember when people we're excited he was coming to write about the Griz. "He's my favorite author!" "Read all his books and love them!"

Shows what a little bias will do to a persons opinion.

I don't remember that at all. I recall the "buzz" while he was hear for the JJ trial, as he was looking for a "social justice" angle and campus rape and was bitterly disappointed at the trial outcome. Then, when the Rolling Stone hoax hit the headlines, how he resurrected the project -- trying to preserve the Rolling Stone "narrative" -- to "show" that it was a serious campus problem, although as I noted at the time, UM's "problems" were statistically among the lowest in the nation on college campuses, and exactly the opposite of what he tried to portray, compounded by the fact that the one "problem" he tried to illuminate about the "handling" of rape claims involved an off-campus situation, a quick guilty plea, and an unusually long sentence; which Krakauer awkwardly tried to fit into his narrative because he didn't have much otherwise to talk about.

Agreed 100%. His schtick had already been exposed in the aftermath of poorly written books like Into Thin Air, Under the Banner of Heaven, etc., which were widely panned by folks who were THERE as being fast and loose with facts. When I heard he was interested in the case, I was fearful that exactly what happened would happen.

 

[AZGrizFan]

After Granny mentioned him and the new Everest movie in her post... I watched the movie and he was pretty much called out as a coward. Relatives of the dead climbers are not in his fan club

Lol... Watched Everest a few nights ago. He is NOT painted in a flattering light in that movie. And appropriately so.

 

[UMGriz75]

After Granny mentioned him and the new Everest movie in her post... I watched the movie and he was pretty much called out as a coward. Relatives of the dead climbers are not in his fan club

Lol... Watched Everest a few nights ago. He is NOT painted in a flattering light in that movie. And appropriately so.

I followed that controversy reasonably closely, and some of the extended commentary and reviews by some of the other participants. One had, correctly I think, argued that it would have more accurate at the outset had Krakauer simply titled his book "Out of Thin Air."

 

[CDAGRIZ]

After Granny mentioned him and the new Everest movie in her post... I watched the movie and he was pretty much called out as a coward. Relatives of the dead climbers are not in his fan club

Lol... Watched Everest a few nights ago. He is NOT painted in a flattering light in that movie. And appropriately so.

I followed that controversy reasonably closely, and some of the extended commentary and reviews by some of the other participants. One had, correctly I think, argued that it would have more accurate at the outset had Krakauer simply titled his book "Out of Thin Air."

Seems about right. I read his Missoula book on a flight last year. I wasn't very impressed. Even if I was detached from the University, it just wasn't that good a read. I wish I could get more excited about mistruths and liberties taken in the book, but I can't. It's just not a very good book. I actually threw it away waiting for a cab at LAX.

 

[EverettGriz]

Make no mistake: JK is an extremely talented writer. Into Thin Air is widely considered one of the best books of its era, and one of the few books I've enjoyed enough to read twice. But I'm loosely connected with some of the climbing community in Seattle (whose organizations figure prominently in the book) and there are definite errors in it. And most are aware of the ridiculous conclusions made in Into the Wild.

Bur CDA is right; Missoula is a terrible read. It essentially makes its argument in the first fifty pages, then simply reports it over and over. Even if I had no connection to UM, I would have wanted my 17 bucks back after that thing.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Make no mistake: JK is an extremely talented writer. Into Thin Air is widely considered one of the best books of its era, and one of the few books I've enjoyed enough to read twice. But I'm loosely connected with some of the climbing community in Seattle (whose organizations figure prominently in the book) and there are definite errors in it. And most are aware of the ridiculous conclusions made in Into the Wild.

Bur CDA is right; Missoula is a terrible read. It essentially makes its argument in the first fifty pages, then simply reports it over and over. Even if I had no connection to UM, I would have wanted my 17 bucks back after that thing.

There's not just "errors" in the Everest book, EG, there are large portions of his version of events that have been vociferously contradicted by the other climbers and guides that were there. It became plainly obvious with that book that he was an "agenda" driven writer who had a preconceived idea of how the story "should" end, and wrote to that, regardless of whether the actual facts backed up his assumptions.

 

[EverettGriz]

Make no mistake: JK is an extremely talented writer. Into Thin Air is widely considered one of the best books of its era, and one of the few books I've enjoyed enough to read twice. But I'm loosely connected with some of the climbing community in Seattle (whose organizations figure prominently in the book) and there are definite errors in it. And most are aware of the ridiculous conclusions made in Into the Wild.

Bur CDA is right; Missoula is a terrible read. It essentially makes its argument in the first fifty pages, then simply reports it over and over. Even if I had no connection to UM, I would have wanted my 17 bucks back after that thing.

There's not just "errors" in the Everest book, EG, there are large portions of his version of events that have been vociferously contradicted by the other climbers and guides that were there. It became plainly obvious with that book that he was an "agenda" driven writer who had a preconceived idea of how the story "should" end, and wrote to that, regardless of whether the actual facts backed up his assumptions.

AZ, as noted I've spoken to some of the climbers and people in both Hall's and Fischers's companies.

I don't think even they say there are large portions of the book are incorrect. They largely take exception to JK's depiction of Boukreev in the book (rightly so, and even admitted by JK in later versions). But in general the account is accurate, but some take exception with the conclusions of the book. I think that's a significant point to make.

 

[tnt]

Make no mistake: JK is an extremely talented writer. Into Thin Air is widely considered one of the best books of its era, and one of the few books I've enjoyed enough to read twice. But I'm loosely connected with some of the climbing community in Seattle (whose organizations figure prominently in the book) and there are definite errors in it. And most are aware of the ridiculous conclusions made in Into the Wild.

Bur CDA is right; Missoula is a terrible read. It essentially makes its argument in the first fifty pages, then simply reports it over and over. Even if I had no connection to UM, I would have wanted my 17 bucks back after that thing.

There's not just "errors" in the Everest book, EG, there are large portions of his version of events that have been vociferously contradicted by the other climbers and guides that were there. It became plainly obvious with that book that he was an "agenda" driven writer who had a preconceived idea of how the story "should" end, and wrote to that, regardless of whether the actual facts backed up his assumptions.

AZ, as noted I've spoken to some of the climbers and people in both Hall's and Fischers's companies.

I don't think even they say there are large portions of the book are incorrect. They largely take exception to JK's depiction of Boukreev in the book (rightly so, and even admitted by JK in later versions). But in general the account is accurate, but some take exception with the conclusions of the book. I think that's a significant point to make.

In the case of "Missoula" his "facts" are also correct. It happened just the way he said. Even his conclusion as to the "Justice system" being convoluted is correct. The problem is he misses the obvious fact that Everyone involved "accused" and "victim" had their rights severlry stomped on and far more made public thatn ever should have forcing a trial that should never have happened. he's an idiot.

 

[PlayerRep]

Make no mistake: JK is an extremely talented writer. Into Thin Air is widely considered one of the best books of its era, and one of the few books I've enjoyed enough to read twice. But I'm loosely connected with some of the climbing community in Seattle (whose organizations figure prominently in the book) and there are definite errors in it. And most are aware of the ridiculous conclusions made in Into the Wild.

Bur CDA is right; Missoula is a terrible read. It essentially makes its argument in the first fifty pages, then simply reports it over and over. Even if I had no connection to UM, I would have wanted my 17 bucks back after that thing.

There's not just "errors" in the Everest book, EG, there are large portions of his version of events that have been vociferously contradicted by the other climbers and guides that were there. It became plainly obvious with that book that he was an "agenda" driven writer who had a preconceived idea of how the story "should" end, and wrote to that, regardless of whether the actual facts backed up his assumptions.

AZ, as noted I've spoken to some of the climbers and people in both Hall's and Fischers's companies.

I don't think even they say there are large portions of the book are incorrect. They largely take exception to JK's depiction of Boukreev in the book (rightly so, and even admitted by JK in later versions). But in general the account is accurate, but some take exception with the conclusions of the book. I think that's a significant point to make.

In the case of "Missoula" his "facts" are also correct. It happened just the way he said. Even his conclusion as to the "Justice system" being convoluted is correct. The problem is he misses the obvious fact that Everyone involved "accused" and "victim" had their rights severlry stomped on and far more made public thatn ever should have forcing a trial that should never have happened. he's an idiot.

Are saying Krakauer has his "facts" correct? If so, please explain what you mean or what facts you're talking about.

 

[grizcountry420]

There's not just "errors" in the Everest book, EG, there are large portions of his version of events that have been vociferously contradicted by the other climbers and guides that were there. It became plainly obvious with that book that he was an "agenda" driven writer who had a preconceived idea of how the story "should" end, and wrote to that, regardless of whether the actual facts backed up his assumptions.

AZ, as noted I've spoken to some of the climbers and people in both Hall's and Fischers's companies.

I don't think even they say there are large portions of the book are incorrect. They largely take exception to JK's depiction of Boukreev in the book (rightly so, and even admitted by JK in later versions). But in general the account is accurate, but some take exception with the conclusions of the book. I think that's a significant point to make.

In the case of "Missoula" his "facts" are also correct. It happened just the way he said. Even his conclusion as to the "Justice system" being convoluted is correct. The problem is he misses the obvious fact that Everyone involved "accused" and "victim" had their rights severlry stomped on and far more made public thatn ever should have forcing a trial that should never have happened. he's an idiot.

Are saying Krakauer has his "facts" correct? If so, please explain what you mean or what facts you're talking about.

 

[EverettGriz]

AZ, as noted I've spoken to some of the climbers and people in both Hall's and Fischers's companies.

I don't think even they say there are large portions of the book are incorrect. They largely take exception to JK's depiction of Boukreev in the book (rightly so, and even admitted by JK in later versions). But in general the account is accurate, but some take exception with the conclusions of the book. I think that's a significant point to make.

In the case of "Missoula" his "facts" are also correct. It happened just the way he said. Even his conclusion as to the "Justice system" being convoluted is correct. The problem is he misses the obvious fact that Everyone involved "accused" and "victim" had their rights severlry stomped on and far more made public thatn ever should have forcing a trial that should never have happened. he's an idiot.

Are saying Krakauer has his "facts" correct? If so, please explain what you mean or what facts you're talking about.

:lol:

 

[tnt]

The School handling of things and time table appears to have happened in the way it was said. Paoli's petition to the federal court etc.

IF by some stretch of the imagination, this had followed the school discipline procedure and had progressed through the entire system from Couture to the BOR and been done confidentially as required and Christiansen made his decision based on how the evidence was used (clear and convincing or preponderance) in the same way EVERYONE would have been better served. 75 was dead on and dead on with the ramifications. Between the Missoulian and our "Local Krakauers" it turned into a genuine "Cluster F***"

Krakauer's interpretation of the "facts" and the meaning he applied is where he went seriously wrong. As I said he was an idiot.

 

[EverettGriz]

I agree completely, TNT.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Make no mistake: JK is an extremely talented writer. Into Thin Air is widely considered one of the best books of its era, and one of the few books I've enjoyed enough to read twice. But I'm loosely connected with some of the climbing community in Seattle (whose organizations figure prominently in the book) and there are definite errors in it. And most are aware of the ridiculous conclusions made in Into the Wild.

Bur CDA is right; Missoula is a terrible read. It essentially makes its argument in the first fifty pages, then simply reports it over and over. Even if I had no connection to UM, I would have wanted my 17 bucks back after that thing.

There's not just "errors" in the Everest book, EG, there are large portions of his version of events that have been vociferously contradicted by the other climbers and guides that were there. It became plainly obvious with that book that he was an "agenda" driven writer who had a preconceived idea of how the story "should" end, and wrote to that, regardless of whether the actual facts backed up his assumptions.

AZ, as noted I've spoken to some of the climbers and people in both Hall's and Fischers's companies.

I don't think even they say there are large portions of the book are incorrect. They largely take exception to JK's depiction of Boukreev in the book (rightly so, and even admitted by JK in later versions). But in general the account is accurate, but some take exception with the conclusions of the book. I think that's a significant point to make.

Semantics. He plays fast and loose with facts, then presents his "conclusions" as fact. He's an idiot, plain and simple, and I'll never give him another dollar.

 

[UMGriz75]

He can "write" very well, and his columns and most of his books are very well written. That's what makes his "Missoula" book so odd. It's not.