UKH

A victim of his northern upbringing......an alcoholic 5ft 3inch 14 stone lump of lard.....he just couldn't escape until he did, of an early heart attack.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=105

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan:

Read the book yet?

In reply to Mick Ryan: Excellent article. I haven't read all the book, but the sections I've read have been a bit sobering - in the sense that it's always sad to have one's heroes frozen in cold print and then dissected. I must read the book to discover whether Perrin presents a convincing fully-fledged social and psychological portrait of the man, or whether he resorts to - as is sometimes his wont - speculative and overly high-flown theorising. I'd also be interested to know more about Perrin's research for the book: e.g. who he interviewed? which sources he used? In particular, I'd like to know more about what Chris Bonington thought of Whillans (they filmed that episode of Lakeland Rock together and seemed quite affable with each other).

In reply to catbaiter:

I've nearly finished it. I'm really enjoying it, predominantly for the way Perrin uses footnotes to contextualise; in consequence, I found it to be very informative about climbing in the 50s and 60s in general. That said, I haven't read much around climbing in that period, so I'm using it as an introduction.

I thought Gordon's review sounded pretty balanced.

In reply to CJD: This website (Mad Dogs and Englishmen) is an interesting source of info about 'the migration of English climbers to Llanberis in the 1960s'

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mad-dogs/index.html

In reply to Mick Ryan:

In reply to Mick Ryan:

'Whillans the Dobber'

Seems a bit unkind.

In reply to Mick Ryan:

It's a good review, but I always cringe a little when I read paragraphs like the final one:

"The overall emotion we are left with, then, at the end of this monumental, masterful book, is one of sadness and regret; ... That he was indeed, in Perrin's words, 'the most gifted nearly-man of British mountaineering'."

Surely this is where hagiography lurks? I mean, what do you want? Why not let the life, and the story and history, stand for themselves, without 'hoping' they might have been (in some way defined by you) better?

In reply to Mick Ryan: the book is very interesting as a history of climbing in that era. Im enjoying it. Perrin does seem at least to be using extensive research for any conclusions he makes. However I will never know if he is only quoting those who made comments that support his point of view and doesnt use any that dont.

As for judging Whillans, as a climber or as an individual? I would hate to judge him as an individual, and if so by whos standards? Definetely one of the top climbers of his time but as Brown said "he was a complete bastard"

In reply to Marc C:

I saw Sir Chris giving a lecture on Saturday afternoon at the NEC and he mentioned Whillans a few times. In particular he stressed that The Villain had the finest mountain sense of anyone he's ever climbed with and even wheeled out a couple of old anecdotes with the worst Lancashire accent you could imagine. He also referred to Perrin's book as being very fair and balanced.

I may be reading too much into what he said but he seemed to view Whillans with both affection (for their climbing experiences together) and regret (for how his life went after 1975). At the very least I would say that there was a tremendous amount of mutual respect between the two men.

In reply to Mick Ryan:

Say what you will of the man, but I think that he did very well to hold down a job as a plumber, new route some classic lines AND develop a career as a foremost country singer.

Alcoholic, 5ft 3inch, 14 stone lump of lard, my arse.

In reply to Clauso: Exactly. I think the reason Joe and Don split was some disagreement over new roiute names - Don wanted to call Cemetery Gates 'Rodeo Man', Dovedale Groove 'You're my best friend', and The Sloth 'I recall a gypsy woman' ?

In reply to Mick Ryan: The whole idea of writing a 'balanced' biography is riddled with problems - 'Will the REAL Don Whillans please stand up?'! Joe Brown (himself something of an enigma) writes in The Hard Years that 'Don always gave the wrong impression of himself'. We might do well to wonder what biographies would be written of ourselves after our demise - 'he was this, he was that...' I doubt we'd accept many of the interpretations and evaluations of our characters and behaviours.

In reply to Clauso:

Did you see the question mark Darren?

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan:

Yes we did Mick! We just chose to slightly redefine it...

In reply to Marc C:

So was he a victim of his northern upbringing? And if he was who gets the victims compensation? He should be on the Costa Del Sol sport climbing in his retirement not six feet under!

In reply to Mick Ryan: Like I say, I haven't read the book, but if DON was a victim of HIS northern upbringing, why wasn't JOE (brought up in a similar environment)?

In reply to Anonymous:


That was not quite what I meant. Any regret I feel, as the reader or reviewer, is one of sympathy really - for the real regrets and sadnesses (and disappointments and resentment etc etc etc) were those of Whillans. His career - after a spectacular start, and a later high point on Annapurna, with him still hoping for great things and happy days that were not to be - was not as successful, overall, as he would have liked.

And, however you look at it, his physical degeneration in his last decade was somewhat tragic.

In reply to Marc C:

That was the next question. I thought I'd leave it to you to answer.

In reply to Mick Ryan:

How come the word "f u c k" appears in the review uncensored, yet you are unable to post it on the forums?

(Genuinely interested BTW. I posted this earlier and the moderators deleted my post. Wonder if they'll do it again? Wonder if they'll email me about it? Wonder if I'll get a ban?)

In reply to Mick Ryan: Mick what a load of new age tosh, will you be proposing that:

Don Whillans, the first E8 climber if he'd had some crystal chakra re-alignment?

What do you want from your heros? Personally I want a little honesty and the refelction that sometimes life isn't as we'd wish and that at times we would also want to be happier / better / kinder people.

In reply to Mick Ryan: I'll sleep on it. But the contrast of JB and DW is seemingly quite marked. Certainly destroys any simplistic notion of cultural determinism. That said, the unrecognised or under-recognised similarities between the pair may also be illuminating. Too easy to create a binary scheme - JB = Dr. Jekyll, DW = Mr. Hyde!

In reply to Marc C:

That's the most telling point, isn't it? Joe's upbringing, from everything I now gather, was at least as hard as Don's and, economically, more so. Yet it was happy.

Which points to only two main possible explanations for Don's behaviour really:

1. Don's parents, despite Jim P's claims that they were good, warm, loving etc, were in fact lousy parents, giving him neither very much emotional support (despite giving him lots of money) nor any discipline at all. (The latter to me is a really baffling question - just what was Don's father doing in those crucial years when he was back from the war and Don was in his very early teens?)

Or:

2. Don had some genetic and/or deep psychological problem, so that for all his good qualities and wit, he always remained an undeveloped, volatile, fighting 'schoolboy'. So that, all too often, he would treat complete strangers (particularly women) incredibly rudely or even violently.

Or, of course, a mixture of both 1 and 2.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I never saw Don treat women violently, but then I was not with him a lot. however he did treat them brusquely or rudely, and audrey knew what she was getting before marrying don, as he sent her for water with a cast on her leg pre marriage and stayed in the barn playing cards.

In reply to sutty: why is there so much emphasis in the review on the 'sadness' and regret' and perceived f*ck up of Dons life? because his life didnt fit into the cosy and happy clapper middle class ideal? I dont think anyone has the right to do an expose and be the judge & jury on a dead persons life, doesnt matter if he was a well kent climber or not.

In reply to colski:
or the 'C' word which is the actual word that Joe Brown used to describe Don Whillans to Jim Perrin as revealed in his talk at the Lescar!

In reply to colski:


Are you wondering 'how come' technically? If so, the simple answer is that forum posts are filtered on receipt.

Are you wondering 'how come' in terms of policy? Again, the simple answer is: the people who run this forum have decided that this is the policy. It's simply their choice.

So, not much mystery thgere - and, as you have anyway realised, you can always sneak a f-u-c-k under the radar should you really want to.

In reply to Mick Ryan:

Victim AND villian.

Like 99% of humanity.

Is that too Buddhist for you ?

In reply to Marc C:


To me this seems an absurd question.

Leaving aside the personalities involved here, or the fact that it's about climbing, I would ask: what do you expect?

Look around you, and you will see that everybody is different (thank Christ ...); even, to labour the point, twins brought up at the same time within the same family.

As to the initial question of 'victimhood' in this case: why try to apportion 'blame' for everything that's seen as a problem? We all have rights, and we all have responsibilities.

In reply to Anonymous: Exactly. I was actually challenging the idea being mooted (albeit tongue-in-cheek by Mick) that Don was possibly a 'victim' of some nebulous concept 'northern upbringing' (!) As you say, people from very similar backgrounds can have totally different personalities - even identical twins can be very different in their personalities.

I think the more precise and more pertinent question, however, (and Gordon touched on this) is what was it that lay beneath Don's rudeness, violence, and belligerence? Of course, we're all different, but I do believe that peristent pattern of manifested anger, resentment and violence is pathological and stems from a complex interaction of inherited personality with social, cultural and environmental factors (factors that can nurture or damage). For example, research is demonstrating links between a child's disturbed behaviour + emotional problems and the kind of parenting she receives very early on in her life (and this 'damage' is observable at the neurological level). Aggression, paradoxically, reflects an underlying insecurity and lack of self-confidence.

We can speculate till the cows come home as to WHY Don might have felt insecure, and felt the need to adopt a confrontational stance to the world: genetics? being evacuated during the war? absent father? distant non-emotional parenting? macho tough culture? etc etc. Jim Perrin has had the luxury of having more evidence at his disposal to piece together a version of Don's persona that 'fits' his behaviour. All we can do is indulge in amateur speculation. Of course, no one is entitled to judge anyone else's life or make definitive statements as to how happy he was. However, Perrin (or anyone else) is entitled to their opinion that, given Don's talents as a mountaineer, he could have achieved even more; and, given the evidence of his behaviour to others, he did not SEEM to be a contented soul.

Strange as this sounds, when I read some of Don's famous quips and putdowns, I'm reminded of some of John Lennon's caustic comments - another troubled and insecure soul (who lost his mother at an early age, carried a chip on his shoulder, was resentful of another talented collaborator/rival's success).

In reply to Marc C:

That's not so strange at all Marc! I think that maybe you're on to something here?

Consider. DW - Rock and Ice, JL - Rock and Roll. DW - Working class hero, JL - Working class hero. DW - Killed by booze man, JL - Killed by Chapman.

... And that's just the things that I can list off the top of my head! I'm sure that there are more? The similarities are marked, I'm sure you'll agree? Was DW, JL's previously unsuspected secret brother? Manchester and Liverpool aren't really so far apart from each other?

Maybe I could propose a PHD off the back of this? Would you be willing to second my submission? Think of it Marc. You've been my life tutor, you could also be my academic tutor! We can be together! Long, cosy tutorials in your office, with me curled around your feet, lovingly hanging on each and every juicy pearl of wisdom that you utter. Bliss!

In reply to Clauso: Take it like a man, Daz! Tiggs sent ME her scarf (a chivalric gesture) in the post this morning.

But, on the subject of similarities, what about you and me: Both young, handsome, brilliant climbers, witty, intelligent, owl-fanciers, former members of pop groups, both adored by Tiggs.

In reply to sloper:


Peace Sloper.

I can get you a free session with my friend Julia she's a healer, sculptor and artist. And you are hurting deep inside. She'll give you some pranic healing, some serenity vibration massage, a touch of reiki and align your sacred geometry.

You'll be refreshed and ready to face the world after that.

I think you may even get a free crystal on your first visit.

Namaste,

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan:

will she be realigning his chakras too?

In reply to CJD:

<cringes at mental image>

In reply to Mick Ryan:

The review convinces me not to read the book, any summing up of an individual as 'the most gifted nearly-man of British mountaineering' reveals too much prejudice in the biographer - however much he may restrain himself.

Having read the usual climbing books 20 years or so ago, it is not necessarily the volume of ascents that is the measure of the man but their best achievements. For me Don's ascent of Annapurna in the period between 1950-75 is only clearly eclipsed by Buhl's solo ascent of Nanga Parbat. On a lesser stage Don's ascent of The Central Pillar of Freney equaled, in my view, the very best Alpine Ascents of the era.

Joe Brown, another true great has not bettered the above achievements, or come that close in the Himalaya? - such is the measure of Whillans.

I am sure there were many aspects about the guys persona which weren't very pleasant and are valid targets but "nearly-man", lets have a reality check...

Cheers,

In reply to simon cox:

In the Himalaya, Joe can count Kanchenjunga, Mustagh Tower and Trango Tower.

In the alps the biggest ascents would be the West Face of the Blaitiere and the West Face of the Dru, both being done with Whillans of course.

Bob

In reply to simon cox: Fair point. 'Nearly Man' does invoke Marlon Brando's 'I coulda bin a contenda..' speech in On The Waterfront. Whatever else he was, Don Whillans was surely a contender, a Somebody, one of the Top 5 British climbers of the last century.

In reply to Marc C:

I prefer to see him as a "Nearly the best" type, whereas Nearly Man evokes images of someone who never quite makes it ever. Don Whillians in this case seems to be a Victim - of new writings

In reply to Bob:

>In the Himalaya, Joe can count Kanchenjunga, Mustagh Tower and Trango Tower

That could nave been part of the problem, Joe got invited yet Don did not on the first two trips. I know Whillans was bitter about one of those trips, thinking he was as good as Joe.

In reply to simon cox: I agree, I will not be lining Jim Perrins pockets. Good job well done Gordon Stainforth, I will not be buying the book.

Maybe I should write a book about Jim Perrin when hes dead?

In reply to sutty: Understandable. Imagine your sports partner (someone you're the equal of) going to the 'Olympics' and getting Gold and you didn't even get invited?

In reply to Erik B: Title - "The Rise and Fall of Jim Perrin - The Nearly Man of British climbing writing" ?

In reply to Marc C:

Dear Marc

Who would play him in the film version?

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Stephen Fry!

Bob

In reply to Bob:
Dear Bob

I've not read any of Jim's books, and I won't be going to see the film of his nearly life.

Norrie

In reply to Erik B:

You will be missing out, because it is a brilliant book, and extremely fair (it refrains from delving too deeply into some of the darker aspects of Don's life, and avoids even mentioning some of the worst incidents). All the good aspects of Whillans, and particularly his climbing skills and mountaineering sense, are well depicted. It's also an extremely good resume of that whole period in British climbing history.

Bear in mind also that both Joe Brown and Chris Bonington have praised the book as being extremely good in every way.

It was perhaps unfortunate that I picked perhaps the strongest phrase in the whole of Perrin's book with which to end my review - yet, when his whole career is weighed, the comment seems an accurate one.

One final point. Don's final push to the summit on Annapurna with Dougal Haston was a very fine effort, but it is perhaps overlooked by Whillans' admirers just what a team effort the whole ascent was, with Burke and Boysen putting in particularly fine performances - the fact that Don was chosed for the summit bid actually caused quite bad feelings/resentment among some of the players (all this is well analysed by Perrin .. particularly the reasons why Bonington did not invite him on his later, Everest expeditions)

In reply to Marc C:
Surely that should be "The Fall and Rise of Jim Perrin"

In reply to Norrie Muir: Once Hollywood got their hands on it, it would be turned into some Murder thriller - psycho seeks revenge on writer who 'poisoned the memory' of his hero, the dead climber Gabe Curtis. Al Pacino would be Steve Weinberg (Jim Perrin), a Pulitzer Prizewinning climbing writer, living in Colorado. The psycho would be Ray Liotta, and Gabe Curtis (Don Whillans) - shown in flashbacks - would be Bruce willis?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Well, Gordon, if that's a fair description, then, your comment upon my bouldering ability at Widdop doesn't now seem quite so harsh: "Good grief Marc - you're the most ungifted Nowhere Near Man I've ever had the misfortune to witness on the rocks."

In reply to Marc C:

Dear Marc

It could be done in the style of American Psycho - The Northern Psycho.

Norrie

In reply to Erik B: I just pray Jim croaks before me - the prospect of a biography 'Nearly a Life - Marc C, Rocktalk Twitterer' scares the hell out of me.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I dont think Ill be missing out Gordon. I have no interest in Don Whillans or Jim Perrin's interpretation of Don Whillans.

Let the man RIP

In reply to Marc C:

Surely I deserve that title, Marc, if you remember my pathetic performance when we went bouldering at Widdop last year?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Stop beating yourself up (this is RT, there are plenty of volunteers to do that for you!). It was January FFS, you were just a bit ring rusty...by the time we went to The Roaches in July you were back to your best!

In reply to simon cox:

I agree. I was thinking that myself. DW can't compete with JB for volume but his hardest routes are staggering achievements. He didn't do much after 30 - well so what? Joe's best efforts (certainly in rock climbing terms) were before that age as well (not forgetting Gogarth, but I still think it's true). Why didn't Don ever get into Gogarth, I wonder?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous: Reading his 'autobiography', I sense he developed a yen for big mountain expeditions - and, in any case, quite early on, his fitness (for rock climbing anyway) was deteriorating. Towards the end of the book, Don describes an encounter in 1969, when, walking up the path to Cloggy, he bumps into Joe. Joe asks him if he wants to come climbing at Gogarth the next day. Don declines - citing his lack of condition (compared with Joe's fitness) -and adds that there'd be a booze-up going on anyway.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
"both Joe Brown and Chris Bonington have praised the book as being extremely good in every way"

Isn't Perrin Brown's friend? and as the book seems to cast Brown in a much better light than Whillans (his only real competition?)it would be hard for Brown not to praise the book.

This isn't about Whillans being better then Brown, mountaineering shouldn't be about world ranking's. It seems though to me that Perrin is ranking the climbers in a rather insidious way.

Just because Whillans wasted much of his talent, was bitter and sad at times, had aspects to his character which were rather disgraceful does not detract from the fact that he made with Haston, one of the top Himalayan ascents of the second half of last century; on the back of a well organised Bonnington expedition.

One of the most inspirational climbing books that I have read is Buhl's Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage. His whole life seemed to be in preparation for one incredible ascent, albeit built on an apprenticeship of top Alpine performance. OK Whillans might not have delivered the volume but the quality and difficulty WOW! Few of the bravest people have the guts to make hard big first ascents in the Himalaya, this "nearly man" thing sticks in the throat from some overly clever writer.

Gordon you think the phrase accurate? - arse!

Simon Cox,

In reply to lose7lbs: To be fair, I think anyone wishing to make comments or pass judgements upon the book should do the author the courtesy of reading it in its entirety first.

In reply to Marc C:

Dear Marc

I will not read the book, nothing against the author, I don't read mountaineering books. However, I did get pleasure from repeating some of the Whillans climbs and that is of more importance to me than he had a drink problem. His routes are a lasting legasy.

Norrie

In reply to lose7lbs:

'arse' isn't an argument.

Perrin does no 'ranking' whatsoever.

Please read his book.

((If you can be 'arsed'))

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

... well, he does call Brown the 'greatest British rockclimber' (I think - haven't looked it up - v busy working) .. but that seems like a different argument. For obvious reasons.

In reply to Norrie Muir: Fair comment, Norrie. All I'm pointing out - to those who are commenting upon the book and the author's motives - is that it's easy to get a misleading impression of anything (book, film, climb, whatever) by relying on hearsay, reviews, or by homing in on decontextualised selections. I AM interested in Don Whillans the man (as well as his climbs), and my initial impression that the book doesn't do him justice is solely based on the above 'weak' evidence - I really should wait till I've read it before forming any informed assessment.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

err... "Perrin does no ranking", or he "calls Brown the 'greatest British rockclimber'"; am I losing the plot? or are you!

I think I might just opt for a re-read of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and my Fontainebleau guide-books, the magic of The Forest beckons...

In reply to Marc C:

Dear Marc

How right you are. I am at least a self confessed mountaineering philistine, so I refrain from commenting on the these types of books, either hatchet or blow jobs.

Norrie

I'm one of Don's nephews. I read the book but was disappointed in that I don't feel that I know any more about Don than I did before I read it, except perhaps that the booze was a much worse problem for him than I had realised.

The book's weaknesses in the area of family background are perhaps understandable given that Jim Perrin waited nearly 20 years after Don's death to write his book. By that time most of the family who had known Don in his early years were long since deceased.

As regards Don's "Northern upbringing" and "poor parenting" being responsible for his particular demons, forget it. The short-fused temper is definitely a Whillans genetic trait but my grandparents were both wonderful people who never ceased to care for both their children and their grandchildren. Lack of discipline was not an option with my grandfather (he'd been a SM in the army) but that aspect of his character was always tempered with the love and care he showed to myself and my brothers. He would take us out for walks every weekend with trips to parks like Dunham & Lyme when he could. These were great adventures for youngsters and I suppose Don missed out on doing those same things with his dad at the same age.

Don's death destroyed my grandfather. He was incredibly proud of his son and his achievements. I saw him turn from a proud, independent man into old age very quickly after Don died. My grandfather died in 1986.

Perhaps lack of a concerned education (Don hated school by all accounts) and absence of effective authority for large parts of Don's early years are significant factors. Whilst my grandfather was in the army my grandmother had to work long hours in a munitions factory. Having said that, my mother seems to have come through all that without any problem, as did many, many others.

For me, the book also failed to give any insights into Don & Audrey's relationship. Even as a child of 10, it had seemed "unusual" to me, what with them both going off on expeditions and having no kids. Audrey probably deserves a book of her own and certainly a larger part in Don's story. Again, she isn't with us any longer so she can't comment on what Jim Perrin has said.

So, a well written book, maybe essential reading if you're into rock climbing history but for me lacking insight into the soul of a man I never did understand and probably never will.

In reply to Ian Parr: Thanks for that. I don't know how old you are, so don't know whether you remember Don (?). But if you did know him, would you care to share any memories you have of him?

PS some good points about 'weaknesses' in JP's research for the book.

In reply to Ian Parr:

Ian, thanks for your really interesting and useful post, particularly your assertion that Don's short-fused temper is a Whillans genetic trait, and your underlining for us that his parents were wonderful people. Also for filling us in about Don's father and his death in 1986 (that was a serious oversight by Perrin).

Interesting, too, that for you, an insider, the weakest aspects of the book, are Don's family background and his marriage to Audrey. As they are for me. As you say (and I suggest at the end of my review) there is definitely a 'hole' in the book in terms of gaining an insight into Don's soul.

Anyhow, I've printed out what you've written, and slipped it into the flyleaf of my copy of the book as an essential addition.

In reply to Marc C:

Hi Marc,

I didn't know Don at first hand well at all, most of my knowledge of him and his activities I gained second-hand from my parents and grandparents. That's why I had hoped this book would give me a broader understanding of the man.

I was born in 1961, so the first time I was really aware of Don and his exploits was the Annapurna expedition. I had the poster on my wall at home for years. My mother still has a copy. It's telling that hardly anyone pictured on it is still alive.

My few memories of Don, apart from family gatherings at Christmas and such, are from the house at Penmaenmawr. I went there with my family several times when they had just moved in.

I was interested in photography and Don showed me the cameras that he'd used. I remember he had this underwater Nikon that he had for when he and Audrey went diving in the Red Sea. He'd made a wooden chest to store all his 35mm slide sets in that he used for his lectures. All were neatly ordered in magazines ready to go.

The stuffed Piranha in a case on the wall was fascinating for us kids too. That and the motorbikes. One of my brothers is as much of a bike nut as Don was. I still remember him asking to be allowed to wash Don's Honda off-roader.

My impression is that he was a complicated character, nowhere near as one-dimensional as the "Whillans legend" would lead you to believe. On the other hand, I sure he could be pretty fearsome. My father, who grew up in the same streets, was considerably bigger than Don (and an Army boxing champ in his National Service) has always said that he wouldn't have liked a run-in with him.

In reply to Mick Ryan:

I have just started reading it. My inital view was that so far it has been a collection of the well known stories about the Don....just well put together.

So far ..nothing new..and what i'd expect. But if you are new to the character..then it will be a revelation.

In reply to Ian Parr: Thanks for sharing that, Ian. The little details (e.g. the cameras, the piranha, the bike) make Don seem more 'real' to those who didn't know him.

In reply to Mick Ryan:
Not read the book.
Seen him in person.
Would never have considered him to be a victim.
Not very PC the reference to 'northern' victim.
Would much prefer the reference to victim to be linked to Yorkshire, is that where you come from Mick?

I suspect this whole thread is a piece of viral marketing.

In reply to stonedonkey:

I hope you realise you are not making much sense, given that Whillans did not come from Yorkshire. As for your 'viral marketing' ... maybe this is some kind of little personal gripe you have with the OP?? - which is really offbeam when you see what interesting postings we've had from the likes of Whillans' nephew (who demolished the notion of DW as a 'northern' victim).

In reply to stonedonkey:

I'm from Lancashire. Yes I met Whillans several times, had a fight with him once......in front of a roaring fire in Lonsdales old pub....I think it was the same night Lonsdale slugged me for being a dick. Whillans was wearing dungarees with no shirt.....the bloody new age hippy.

I'm looking forward to reading the book.

Victim and villian......aren't we all?

Viral marketing? What's that?

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan:

I remember that, I was in the pub at the time and yeah
I thought you where a dick at that time.
Thing was there always seemed to be someone who fancied there chances with him no wonder he could get pissed off
I always got on ok with him. He came to the Black Dog that often that Ian invited him to be guest speaker at the
Black Pudding dinner, he had'nt been speaking 5 mins when
one knob ( who climbed better in his adverts and they usually showed him falling off) stood up and started
shouting him down, Whillans just looked at him and walked off to the bar

In reply to you all (except Dons nephew)

I was born in 1949 and started climbing at the age of 16.

In common with my mates climbing was one of the ways we could escape the oppressiveness of working class life. Dont lose sight of the fact that most of us from that time were earning bugger all, and had bugger all to look forward to in life.

Don, Joe and a lot of others were our heroes. We saw their achievements as a way to make ourselves a little more individual in a pretty bloody mundane world - we had a lot in common - post war babies, and in general all apprentices or tradesmen.

As a climber I was not fit to polish these blokes boots, but climbing gave me the ability to think as an individual and stand on my own two feet.

If you lot have to disect the life of one of the best innovative mountaineers ever, please do it in the privacy of your own home

Roger

In reply to Rog Dunant:

Well said.

But, as a biography has now been published I'd prefer it to have all the details (including Mick RoKfax's fight and my postcard).

In reply to Rog Dunant: Don Whillans' life HAS been 'dissected' (if you want to put it in those terms)by a book that is in the public domain. Readers of the book are entitled to discuss its contents. Many of us who have read the book are admirers of Don. Any discussion about his motivations, his formative influences, etc is an attempt to understand the man (NOT to dissect his life) - and in so doing we are exercising what you rightly see a virtue - our right to think as individuals. No book, no discussion can ever diminish his achievements.

In reply to Marc C:

I always wondered if disect had a double s.

Thanks for your reply Marc, you too Kipper

Roger (V Diff King!!!)