Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
nopantsben
climber
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 04:04am PT
|
The New Yorker costs 10€ is Austria.
Alpinist costs 18€ in Austria.
(by this I mean that here, Alpinist is not that expensive in terms of how many pages it has and the quality of the paper etc. the quality of the writing is the crux.)
If I want to read one article that is well written, I can buy both. But in the long run, I find that Alpinist has the problem that all the articles (reports, mountain profiles, etc.) written by climbers (contributing editors, generally) are Ives-ified to the point where they all sound the same. Don't get me wrong, Katie Ives is the best writer that specialises in alpinism that I have read, by quite the margin. Her writing is lucid, intelligent, well researched and honest. I find that the problem is that the author's own voice does not shine through strongly enough in a lot of Alpinist's pieces.
I love reading her own writing, but it is a tremendous bummer that virtually everything someone authors goes through her (very manipulative, very erudite) hands.
The New Yorker is my favourite magazine, and I couldn't imagine spending that money on a climbing porn mag like R&I or Climbing or Klettern. If anything it'd be Alpinist, if the content were more interesting again. I loved most of the first 20 issues, and a lot of the ones till 30, but recently, not so much. Haven't looked at the last two though....
(As a sidenote, I have personal experience with Alpinist's editing and am not just guessing)
|
|
chill
climber
between the flat part and the blue wobbly thing
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 08:08am PT
|
That issue of Mountain 1 cost "three shillings and ninepence". Sounds like something out of Mary Poppins. Do Brits even use shillings anymore?
|
|
Brian in SLC
Social climber
Salt Lake City, UT
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 08:10am PT
|
I'm guessing most climbers' writing is nearly unreadable...and benefits greatly from an "erudite" editor. Climbers mostly just don't write that good (ha ha).
Its an interesting slant, though. My guess is that a good editor can make a magazine much, much better.
Interesting to ponder. The current slice of editing staff at both of the major climbing rags, Climbing and Rock and Ice, is loaded with familiar names many of which are fairly well published and whose own writing has been well received. I still find worth in both rags. But, the magazine I read immediately upon receipt, cover to cover, is Alpinist.
Hmmm. Worth some reflection to think about...
|
|
nopantsben
climber
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 09:43am PT
|
I don't think I said what I wanted to say very clearly, so I'll try again I guess.
The opposite of what you say is the case, Tami : I am not serving up a bowl full of sour grapes. Quite on the contrary. I merely tried to explain why I think that even Alpinist could be better than it is. And that is not because I think the writing is not good. (!!) In a way, the writing is too good.
It is also not because Ives is not a good editor, for clarity's sake.
Ives is a good editor. And if you factor in the texts she starts out with, you can't help but be at awe at what she manages.
Still, again: I feel like her style is too recognisable in pieces that she doesn't author. I think that is because like every great writer's work, her writing has a sort of personal identity. You can tell what is by her and what is not within a few paragraphs. It's not an in-your-face sort of idiosyncratic way of writing, but rather a hard-to-pin-down personal signature that her texts have.
Yes she won't please all the people all the time but if you are a writer nopantsben with any commitment at all to your craft, you'll go back to Ives' notes & edits to you & realize she was helping you to be a stronger writer.
Well, yes, that is true. The problem is: A lot of advice she gives that would ultimately lead to the climbers finding their voice falls on deaf ears, and she ends up suggesting stuff that is put into the text. Mostly because the climbers are not genuinely interested in writing well.
This is not her fault.
While she makes the text better, she is too good a writer to make me feel that it was really a 25-year-old foreign climber that wrote a certain piece, as an example.
Anyway, my point is this one: If there were more different editors working with the climbers (even if they were slightly less good than Ives) , the result would be more interesting to me.
If everything works out perfectly a piece like the K6 one of Slawinski is created. I was blown away. That was a really touching, well-thought-out and beautifully written piece of work.
(I feel like I am repeating myself. Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying Tami.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 09:51am PT
|
no one has mentioned Ascent, which had generated a lot of "mountain literature" that has endured.
talk about editorial intervention... there are the legendary rewrites by Roper and Steck fueled by red wine consumption... I don't think they were "coaches," I doubt that the authors had much feedback, and there wasn't an option for getting an article published that sidestepped their editorial brush, but the collaboration of author and editor produced some very good literature.
and I find the "surprise" that an editor would ask an author to contribute for the minimum compensation (for free) in a business enterprise which cannot possibly be even self sustaining, let alone profitable, somewhat disingenuous, or if not that, horribly self-centered...
climbers, who after all are the main audience for the magazines, are a notoriously resource poor lot... at least as we remember our own youth.
it also isn't so surprising that the climbing magazines that actually make it today are vehicles for advertisers of climbing stuff, and sell mostly to climbers who have the resources to both buy the magazine and buy the stuff advertised in the rag... and with the number of photogs available, it is also no surprise that those ads are difficult to distinguish from the images appearing in the articles... the photogs don't get that much more compensation for doing either
climbing has changed tremendously in the era of the climbing magazine, and the risks that climbers are willing to take along with the consequences of those risks isn't really a part of the discussion anymore. better to put in articles telling you how to train so you can crush that 80' sport clip up, what helmet to wear, and how to recover from the strain of training than have heart felt memorials to close colleagues and friends who were swept off of mountains while they were part of a reinvention of big mountain climbs bringing self-sufficient, super-alpinist methods to 8000m peaks. a whole generation of the British climbing community was lost to this idea.
one wonders how an idea can kill... and one can see that this wouldn't be a part of the current climbing "aesthetic"
an aside on editing...
in everything I have ever written for public consumption I have always benefited from a good editor. if nothing else, someone who can read, can construct the intent of the article, see what is necessary and what is not to get the essential point across (because they could see what the essential point was!) and to communicate those criticisms in a constructive manner, could be seen as an essential help if one aspires to actually communicate in writing.
Writers eventually come across a sentiment usually attributed to Dorothy Parker, perhaps because it helps them do something very hard, "killing your darlings," a murder of those parts of your writing that you hold dear, in some conceit that they would be seen equally dear to the reader...
an editor is a necessary accomplice in conducting such murder... failure often leaves the article's author's voice intact, but to no good effect but to that author's sentimental feelings for that bit of writing. and sentimental feelings don't usually make good literature.
good literature isn't accidental, writing isn't a gift... it's all hard work to produce something of value, and though romanticised beyond recognition, the product of writing is generally fleeting, no matter how good it is... like almost all art, it's direct value is ephemeral, the ideas may have a lasting value, often detached from the item itself... becoming a part of the consciousness of all times.
Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell the story
of that man skilled in all ways of contending,
the wanderer, harried for years on end...
maybe he got fed a good meal in the telling...
and his encore performance (and those meals) depending on editing out the boring stuff and keeping the interesting stuff.
Here's to all the editors out there! I sing thy praise.
and offer you thanks for all that you allowed me to accomplish.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 09:59am PT
|
Interesting contrast in views between Tami & nopantsben.
Tami's...from the standpoint of being a contributor to any of these magazines, and having directly observed & experienced the editing process on her work (and others)....
...and ben's...from the standpoint of reader (I'm assuming), who has an objective experience of being a reader with no 'horse in the race'.
Both very valid views, and I appreciate the respectful way they are described.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 10:07am PT
|
http://www.supertopo.com/tr/Climbing-the-Dent-du-G-ant-unabridged-version-to-one-of-Chams-most-scenic-peaks/t12495n.html
In a prior existence I was on the east ridge of something in the Tetons hopping between the biggest rocks I could find in hopes all would stay put. Alpinism was clearly something enjoyed by those who survived noobdom and had successfully learned about mountains and the weather. Sort of a Russian roulette but one in which learning is possible. But, and a big but, you can get it wrong only once.
When Messner was asked if it all was worth losing his brother over, he did not really have an answer. I guess because we don't get to live another life as a control group. For the rest of us we can only wish that Charlie Porter had consumed fewer sticky buns, Charlie Fowler and Christine had stayed off those steep snow slopes, and JB had just said to himself, "You know. I really am getting older."
Writing in which this comes across is first rate stuff.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 10:35am PT
|
Interesting posts here, esp. between Tami & nopantsben. I find myself more in sympathy with Tami, but there is a whiff of truth for me in what nopants says. There is a bit of homogeneity to the writing style of many of the pieces in Alpinist, but that's ok with me. Most climbers (and most people, for that matter) can't write: look at the quality of the average ST post to see what I mean.
The problem with climbing writing is that there are only so many ways to describe a certain climbs. Most climbing writing is boring because it's the same old stuff. The AAJ is the journal of record of our passion, sure, but most of the writing is not very good. I don't go back and reread articles there the way I can with old issues of Ascentand Alpinist. As Ed said, much of what appeared in Ascent has endured. It's too early for me to make a similar call for Alpinist because I haven't been reading it that long. But certainly the article on the Pickets in the latest issue seems to meet my tests: interweaving threads of first nations, exploratory mountaineering, environmental issues, guidebooks or not, hard modern routes told in prose that gives the essence of that range.
I agree that many people want how-to articles. The problem is that, because magazine readership turns over every few years, you have to keep repeating the how-to material, which soon becomes repetitive for the longer-term reader. Every magazine faces this issue: attract new readers or try and keep the current readers. For most, it is a balancing act.
I am not interested in the results of the latest climbing competition Keep that stuff for the web version of the mag. I want material that might be of lasting value, that gives me pleasure to read and contemplate. And I'll pay good money for that.
|
|
Katie_I
Mountain climber
Wyoming
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 10:40am PT
|
Thanks for all the interesting feedback! I want to speak up, briefly, for the people who write for Alpinist, because I feel (with all respect) that some comments might give a misleading sense of the process and fail to credit the writers’ own often very intense labor. The majority of our writers work incredibly hard—behind every story that is published there are often weeks or months (or in a few cases years) of their revisions, research and fact-checking (carried out by the writers with the assistance of our fact-checkers).
While many big magazine editors will simply rewrite an author’s work to suit the style of a particular publication (the most efficient method), I spend a lot of time working with writers on explaining different elements of craft, trying to figure out what parts of their stories are genuinely their voice and what parts might be detracting from their voice—and then I ask for multiple rewrites until we end up with something that is as true to their individual vision as possible and that also meets the standards of the majority of our readers (who subscribe to the magazine specifically because of the writing).
One of the things that inspires me is working with beginning writers and helping them get to a point where they can produce something that has literary value. Someone looking from the outside won’t know, necessarily, that many of those writers have gone through many drafts, read books and articles that I’ve suggested, waded through pages of feedback from me and then put a lot of effort into their own education and improvement. (Those who have asked for more direct writing aid from me are in the minority—only representing a few stories in the past ten years that I’ve been here.)
That commitment to helping writers is the number one reason I work 100-hour weeks instead of 40-hour ones. And we do strive to publish a diversity of voices—everything from the dark humor of someone like Andy Kirkpatrick, to the philosophical minimalism of someone like Katsutaka Yokoyama, to the spare matter-of-factness of Alex Honnold (in the last issue) to the academic insight of Maurice Isserman to the ornate prose of Peter Haan or the lyricism of Charlotte Austin.
And as to the number of editors at Alpinist: Because we publish minimal ads, print on high-quality paper, and chose stories that aren’t mainstream (no sport climbing, gym or comp climbing, no gear reviews in the print mag, no how-tos or top-ten lists, hence no mass audience), we have to function on a very small budget. Since Alpinist 43, we’ve been able to hire the talented Matt Samet to help on a part-time, freelance basis with some of the workload.
We're fortunate that the owners of the magazine are invested in Alpinist because they care about mountain literature, and they put quality ahead of profit. It's a labor of love for everyone--but we'll never have the vast resources of a magazine like The New Yorker. We get by as we can, working long hours and depending on community support. No issue will be perfect--we all push ourselves to the limits of our capacity and ability four times a year, but we also try to learn from our mistakes.
(I can’t follow this thread too much because I’m in the midst of another 100-hour week.)
Katie Ives
|
|
Mad69Dog
Ice climber
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 10:56am PT
|
"yeah, back when Mountain published British writers"
Not all the Brit writers dealt properly with their topic. They seemed to hate Messner as he was pushing at the front.
|
|
Katie_I
Mountain climber
Wyoming
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 10:59am PT
|
Maybe that was a bad choice of phrase for me. But I do want to support high-quality climbing writing--that's one of the purposes of the magazine.
For people who prefer unedited rough drafts, there's always the Internet and blogs. Print magazines exist to curate work in a way that's perhaps more polished and ideally potentially timeless--since a magazine will exist on a bookshelf or in a library for a long time, you want to create something that might have the possibility of becoming a classic.
I believe in helping writers achieve their potential--writing is a craft that takes dedication, work and care, just as climbing does.
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 11:02am PT
|
Well said, Paul Roehl.
Summit Magazine, published by two gals bitd, Big Bear Lake, CA as I remember. More termitic than mainstream. A slim little periodical more from the Thirties-Forties in aesthetic and view, than what we soon were having. Royal was kind of one of their editors even, I guess a contributing editor, and wanted to help them out.
But soon it was clear that even by going color, they would be buried by the new wave of publications. First climbing writing I did was for a little piece in their magazine with Royal as my editor. (g).
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 11:10am PT
|
"I'm guessing most climbers' writing is nearly unreadable."
I'm guessing your tongue is buried in your cheek, you cheeky monkey.
Best laff I had today, Brian!
"They did some 5.10. They rapped. And everyone lived happily ever after."
jstan, I'm too old to read that article, that monumental classic (I'm sure) based on the suggestion of a guy who only helped refine the 5.12 rating on the East Coast. It would take me too long, depriving me of posting.
THAT SAID, I like to read mainly book-length works on climbing.
From what I see the world is so full of sound bights that 'tention spans are shortened by default among the young, in particular.
One either loves to entertain or to inform when one takes up the pen.
You get what you pay for.
You only get ahead by working hard to improve constantly.
One of the problems I have in writing, and which has kept me from offering my services as an editor (I've nothing, really nothing, important to say that would be commercially appealing) is that I find it hard to PLAN what I want to write myself. An editor's job, is in large part re-assembly of parts in a box, the so-called "final draft," full of "little darlings" and making it forceful, easily-read (all of the commas need to be there, poor punctuation is a big distraction to me) and entertaining. Whether it's ideas or views be assumed into the public's collective awareness is not of concern, or should be low priority.
I can't outline because I don't like to do the work, the thinking. It takes intent, cunning, sometimes outright deceit on the writer's part to get his point across and to maybe even sway an opinion. I look at what Ed wrote upthread and what Ed said made me read the whole thing because I'll bet he PLANNED his points.
"Good literature isn't accidental."
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 11:17am PT
|
I blame Rock & Ice.
R&I made *the community* the focus, and put top level climbing achievement somewhere second. Then Climbing felt the need to do likewise. Like *Reality* TV in a magazine.
That's what I actually like most about climbing, having fun with my pals. I enjoy the drive out there, the approach, knocking back a not-so-cold one on the summit while enjoying the view and the company, and even sorting the gear when we're done. But it makes for lousy reading.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 11:22am PT
|
For people who prefer unedited rough drafts, there's always the Internet and blogs.
when I started the Sacherer thread I was asking a question that interested me... and eventually I became an editor for that thread.
Being the editor meant following up on lots of leads, and eventually discussing the matter with Jan when she discovered the thread and was mulling entering in on it, not being familiar with the literary form of STForum (and there is a distinct voice here).
Following up on a few recollections that Jan shared with me, and then getting some more leads from one of the people she recalled, I found that someone I had known was active at CERN and in climbing was the key...
Now having the essential story of Sacherer I wondered what to do with it... and I'm still wondering. Part of the editing was responding to many contributors that there was a lot of silly writing contributed to the thread, couldn't I please do something about it?
But that's not the way the blog sphere works, and especially here on STForum where, within a huge range, most things are possible.
I'd love to write up that thread as some more important piece, but I'm trapped in what had unfolded as the process of that thread, the discoveries, the surprising twists and turns, the amazing conclusions, which occurred more than once.
To me the story of how the thread unfolded was as amazing as the story that was told there.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone was writing it up, and I'd welcome it, but I felt that I had a shot at it once... if there were a good editor to collaborate with, who was interested and could serve has a guide, then the story could be told as a piece of our literature, a piece that would properly recognize Sacherer...
...without that editorial collaboration, in my mind, the whole story is a muddle of my own emotional reaction with the revelations. Those reactions aren't necessarily very interesting to the rest of you (as you have no doubt turned off by this point).
what I'd say is that editorial input and vision are very important to creating that literature...
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 11:59am PT
|
I can’t follow this thread too much because I’m in the midst of another 100-hour week.
I was wondering mightily how & why you were reading THIS crap and claiming to be working a hundred-hour week, dear KI, you word assassin, you plunderer of paragraphs!!!!!
Edit: LOL, KI.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
|
Ed recognizes our style and yet he's one of us.
What a little darling. :0)
[Click to View YouTube Video]We generally like some tunes to go with our commentary.
Where's Marlow?
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2014 - 12:11pm PT
|
Hmm. Have climbing magazines really gotten worse, or are we becoming a worse audience?
|
|
Mark Rodell
Trad climber
Bangkok
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2014 - 06:55am PT
|
When I was a teen and new to climbing any and all magazines that touched on our passion were great. Now it takes more to get and hold my attention. From my experience Alpinist pushes me both as a reader and writer....the rewards rich.
|
|
Baggins
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2014 - 09:39am PT
|
Any lifestyle magazine is bound to end up recycling things - I am always amazed how many fishing magazines there are out there for instance. Theyre aiming their material more towards those new to the sport, who are more likely to be buying the mags.
I really like R&I right now. The photography is stellar, and they have Niall Grimes (from Northern Ireland) writing a column who is hilarious.
But yeah we're facing an unknown future for the employment of writers photographers etc ie content creation. So many forms of media outlets exist and ppl now demand everything free on the internet. The internet certainly seems to be spawning a type of socialism, albeit in the midst of the most fierce capitalistic market we have ever lived in.
I agree that books still will continue to be popular.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!