• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Krakaeur's book "Missoula" to be released April 21

PlayerRep said:
getgrizzy said:
PlayerRep said:
I used to like Krakauer's books, but over time I realized that some of what he writes is not accurate and is biased. Considerable controversy seems to follow his books. I think it starts with a story line or theory, and then just tries to support it with some research and some facts.

It is just not true that he tries to get to the truth. Jeez, look at UM book. Wouldn't getting to the truth seem to involve talking to UM officials? I assume he didn't talk to people on the other side of the various accusers he appears to have talked to. "Getting to the truth." Real funny?

Once I realized that his books seemed to be just supporting his pre-conceived story line, I lost interest in his books.
Click to expand...
of course controversy follows him. he's exposing or questioning people for being frauds or not doing their jobs in most of his books. every author that does this has his detractors.
Click to expand...

Who was he exposing to be a fraud in Into Thin Air, the Alaska book, and the Pat Tillman book? The climbers who didn't come to the rescue with air tanks, the kid who died, Pat Tillman? Why does Tillman's brother have such a low opinion. Maybe someone should check to see if Krakauer is defrauding his readers.
Click to expand...
i said exposing AND QUESTIONING. not just for being frauds but not doing their jobs. he was questioning the decision to not turn around at the cutoff time. he was questioning one of the guides, boukreev, not using supplemental oxygen. shall i continue to embarrass you counselor or is that enough?
tillmans brother hasn't stated why he dislikes him. some have guessed it's because he worked with pat's wife on the book and she let him use pat's journal. he hasn't specified anything and after reading the book i see nothing for him to object about.
 
getgrizzy said:
of course controversy follows him. he's exposing or questioning people for being frauds or not doing their jobs in most of his books. every author that does this has his detractors.
Click to expand...
The problem with Krakauer is that he all too obviously starts with a preconceived conclusion -- one guaranteed to suggest the most appealing headline -- and then marshalls the argument for it, leaving out any doubt as to arguments or facts against it. The real world is often much more mundane and pedantic than the one inhabited by Krakauer.

It sells books. They become novels -- and he is a very good writer, in whose hands a real-world event becomes encased in a matrix of selected facts, selective interpretation, and superimposed innuendo and suggestion. Like a movie script, he should honor a simple notion of integrity by stating in his forwards, "based on a true story."

He writes lawyer's briefs, not judge's decisions.
 
UMGriz75 said:
getgrizzy said:
of course controversy follows him. he's exposing or questioning people for being frauds or not doing their jobs in most of his books. every author that does this has his detractors.
Click to expand...
The problem with Krakauer is that he all too obviously starts with a preconceived conclusion -- one guaranteed to suggest the most appealing headline -- and then marshalls the argument for it, leaving out any doubt as to arguments or facts against it. The real world is often much more mundane and pedantic than the one inhabited by Krakauer.

It sells books. They become novels -- and he is a very good writer, in whose hands a real-world event becomes encased in a matrix of selected facts, selective interpretation, and superimposed innuendo and suggestion. Like a movie script, he should honor a simple notion of integrity by stating in his forwards, "based on a true story."

He writes lawyer's briefs, not judge's decisions.
Click to expand...
well kinda. you need to have some notion or idea about what you're going to write about. this isn't an assignment from a boss or teacher. so you have a notion, then you do some research and then decide if this is something you want to proceed with. it's not like whatever facts you run into that don't go along with a that notion are cast aside. they're either explained away or acknowledged. unless someone wants to jeopardize their career and sully their own name.

what do you know of that krakauer has been dishonest about? i always remain open to new facts that may change my opinion.
 
getgrizzy said:
well kinda. you need to have some notion or idea about what you're going to write about. this isn't an assignment from a boss or teacher. so you have a notion, then you do some research and then decide if this is something you want to proceed with. it's not like whatever facts you run into that don't go along with a that notion are cast aside. they're either explained away or acknowledged. unless someone wants to jeopardize their career and sully their own name.
Click to expand...
I agree. The problem isn't with the writer, it is with the generic reader that believes 100% of what he reads without realizing that it is an advocacy piece for a point of view. I think most readers of the recent "Rolling Stone" piece likely believed that the horror story was true. After all, it was in The Rolling Stone, a piece of mainstream media ... with layers of fact-checkers!

A solo author's book of course, is whatever he makes it to be. They are neither fact-checked nor peer-reviewed, and it is easy, particularly so with a compelling writer like Krakauer, to take it all as gospel.
 
Into The Wild is pretty illustrative of Krakauer's, less than objective ways. In that case he had a great affinity for McCandles and was dead set on defending him. Krakauer went to great lengths to "prove" McCandles died of poisonous seeds. He had to contact multiple experts until he finally got one to support his position. Then, of course, he ignores the evidence contrary to his position. Objective he is not. Agenda driven, yes.
 
ranco said:
Into The Wild is pretty illustrative of Krakauer's, less than objective ways. In that case he had a great affinity for McCandles and was dead set on defending him. Krakauer went to great lengths to "prove" McCandles died of poisonous seeds. He had to contact multiple experts until he finally got one to support his position. Then, of course, he ignores the evidence contrary to his position. Objective he is not. Agenda driven, yes.
Click to expand...
Krakauer fell in love with the kid, a dead kid, and that whole idea of individualist, idealism-driven environmentalist, daring, defiant, rebel counter-culture that took root in the 1970s, and with which Krakauer obviously identifies. That they could be "one" with nature through idealism, without actually knowing anything about "nature." Krakauer wanted to vindicate that view and that it could be defeated only by a malevolent twist of fate, an otherwise minor detail, some bad seeds, not by the obvious glaring failure of the underlying ideology, the viewpoint and the narrative.

Krakauer can't be wrong, and McCandless, as his alter-ego, therefore can't be wrong either. Together, they will "show the world" of experts and "red necks."

The book, ultimately, wasn't about McCandless, it was about Krakauer.

I now suspect that Krakauer will bring this view to his Missoula book; after all, Missoula is a microcosm of a Krakauer's own counter-culture views, standing up to "good old boys," the "red necks" -- white, Christian, privileged athletes -- all the things that Krakauer disdains. He will declare a war, declare a victory, and vindicate Krakauer. Missoula will join McCandless as another hapless instrument of Krakauer's vindication.
 
The main thing I am taking away after reading this thread is that I would not like to be on the opposite side of a discussion with '75, and if I was I don't think I would engage him lest I come out looking silly. There are thinkers and there are people who just have opinions, which they are entitled to. '75 seems to be a thinker.
 
Engstrom said he was never interviewed for this 'book,' as Gomer Pyle would say, Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Investigative journalism.............NO! Of course, with the Journalism's faculty now in place, maybe it is considered so.
 
JBS said:
The main thing I am taking away after reading this thread is that I would not like to be on the opposite side of a discussion with '75, and if I was I don't think I would engage him lest I come out looking silly. There are thinkers and there are people who just have opinions, which they are entitled to. '75 seems to be a thinker.
Click to expand...

I fully concur. Not only on this thread, but on most threads regarding the Johnson trial and events that followed. His analysis has been impressive.
 
Will Krakauer's book include facts like these?

1. The federal judge's statement about the unfairness of the university process.

2. The fact that the university applied the lower preponderance standard to JJ, even though the university did not adopt the lower standard until after the university proceeding of the incident had begun (like 6 weeks or so after it had begun)--nor did UM properly provide the policy to JJ initially. I suspect that this was a large factor in the MT Higher Education people holding off on tossing JJ out of school (i.e. the threat of likely liability to the school for such a blatant violation of due process).

3. The apparent fact that none of the players involved in the group BJ incident who obtained lawyers and fought the university proceeding were "convicted" or throw out of school (or not allowed to graduate).

4. The fact that the JJ jury, after an almost 3 week trial, took less than 3 hours to come back with a not guilty verdict.

5. The various exculpatory texts involving the JJ accuser, and the extent to which Paoli/Pabst undercut the prosecution's experts and evidence.

6. The fact that the DOJ's long conclusionary statement for the media about it's investigation of the County Attorneys Office was not based on review of the requested files (because they weren't given to the DOJ, to my knowledge), nor based on significant interviews with the lawyers at the County Attorneys office--and obviously not based on any particular actual file/case (as opposed to one-side views from accusers and their supporters).

7. The apparent fact that UM's independent investigator (Barz) found no evidence of the use of date rape drugs, at least as it related to any UM athletes.

8. The fact that virtually nothing ever came of the stuff discussed by Florio in her articles. (Much of what was her stories seemed to turn out not to be supported by evidence/stuff that came out later.)

9. The apparent fact that Donaldson's sentence was longer than virtually any other comparable/similar case.

10. The apparent fact that UM's sexual assault stats were not even as high as many other comparable/similar campuses, including apparently MSU.

11. The fact that he didn't talk to any UM official.
 
gg, I don't agree with this statement of yours at all. I don't believe Krakauer will do this. See my above post.

"it's not like whatever facts you run into that don't go along with a that notion are cast aside. they're either explained away or acknowledged."
 
PlayerRep said:
gg, I don't agree with this statement of yours at all. I don't believe Krakauer will do this. See my above post.

"it's not like whatever facts you run into that don't go along with a that notion are cast aside. they're either explained away or acknowledged."
Click to expand...
we'll need to see what the book entails to find out what from your 11 items is relevant and included or not. he could have some sort of self-destructive disorder stemming from all the criticism he's taken on all his other books and is using this book to completely obliterate himself. he may have lost his mind. we'll just have to wait until apr. 21
 
i tend to base my predictions of the future in large part on past events. in this case i know of no egregious errors on his part that lend me to believe this book is going to be a hatchet job.

if a team has won its last six home games against .500 teams, i tend to believe they'll win the next all things being constant.
 
PlayerRep said:
gg, I don't agree with this statement of yours at all. I don't believe Krakauer will do this. See my above post.

"it's not like whatever facts you run into that don't go along with a that notion are cast aside. they're either explained away or acknowledged."
Click to expand...
The real book should be written about the lynch mob mentality that gripped the "feminist" community, the travesty of injustice that gripped the UM Administration, the widespread impact of the "DOJ Settlement" that Engstrom signed that has now embroiled over 57 Universities in Title IX discrimination suits by male students for the lack of due process and the overt "disparate impact" of the imposition of the guidelines.

The Missoulian's awful coverage that was the equivalent of egging on the lynch mob with manufactured "expert opinion" quotes by friends of the reporter's to enable the stories -- friends who were not experts. The agreement impairing student rights everywhere that Engstrom later, astonishingly, admitted to a Kaimin reporter that he had not actually read when he signed it.

The fact that the President of the University did not rise to defend his institution because it would have been politically incorrect to do so and who was proven to be more than willing to sacrifice his staff and students to protect himself.
 
UMGriz75 said:
PlayerRep said:
gg, I don't agree with this statement of yours at all. I don't believe Krakauer will do this. See my above post.

"it's not like whatever facts you run into that don't go along with a that notion are cast aside. they're either explained away or acknowledged."
Click to expand...
The real book should be written about the lynch mob mentality that gripped the "feminist" community, the travesty of injustice that gripped the UM Administration, the widespread impact of the "DOJ Settlement" that Engstrom signed that has now embroiled over 57 Universities in Title IX discrimination suits by male students for the lack of due process and the overt "disparate impact" of the imposition of the guidelines.

The Missoulian's awful coverage that was the equivalent of egging on the lynch mob with manufactured "expert opinion" quotes by friends of the reporter's to enable the stories -- friends who were not experts. The agreement impairing student rights everywhere that Engstrom later, astonishingly, admitted to a Kaimin reporter that he had not actually read when he signed it.

The fact that the President of the University did not rise to defend his institution because it would have been politically incorrect to do so and who was proven to be more than willing to sacrifice his staff and students to protect himself.
Click to expand...
i'd buy that book if someone writes it in a well documented fasion. it sounds good.
 
Sure, we all would have liked to see Engstrom tell the DOJ and DOE to take a hike. No student should be expelled based on mere allegations of criminal conduct. Even the most odious criminals in society are afforded due process before they're deprived of life, liberty or property.

But I'm not sure any of us could honestly say that, if we were in Engstrom's shoes at that particular time in Missoula's history, we would have done things any differently. It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top