UKH

"If a 90-minute movie can be considered as a Literary Classic, then 'Free Solo' is a classic. And if it can't – too bad, because Free Solo's a classic anyway" reckons Ronald Turnbull. But try as we might, it's hard for most of us to fathom the mentality of its star.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

??

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

The picture on the cover of the book is fine. Many people including me crawled along the ledge. It's an iconic situation.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

the point of this article?

In reply to climberclimber321:

I have no idea what was intended but I found the article thought-provoking in terms of what we might or should mean by 'literature'.

It's tempting to confine 'literature' in a box marked 'Tales recorded through the medium of the written word', but in reality the boundaries of that have been pushed for many decades, as illustrations and photos have been common for a long time, and in 'comic books' the words and images are both integral to the telling of the tale.

The way I see it, we used the word 'literature' when the written word was the only option for published tales, and we've broadened the definition to include images too. Now that we can publish tales through other media, such as audio and video, I don't see a huge difference. Indeed audiobooks are fast becoming the way many of us consume 'literature', so should it really be necessary for a tale to have first been published in print for it to be regarded as literature?

In reply to climberclimber321:

Engagement. Which you've done twice, so it's doing it's job very well indeed! 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Whilst that segment had definite entertainment value, it's worth noting that as a bit of science this would (or should) get you laughed out of any academic department I can think of (except maybe psychology ) due to the total absence of any blind testing and the obvious confirmation bias (they found exactly what they were expecting to find).

So yeah, it was interesting but I wouldn't quote it as if it's any kind of valid medical finding.

In reply to Pedro50:

I must admit that I've seen thousands of good climbing pics, but I was blown away by that image of AH on that ledge, no rope, no fear, no brown trousers! I have the book, but somehow not read it all. Not quite Touching the Void, but it's not that kind of book. However I enjoyed the article.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I saw a lot of parallels with Guy Martin (diagnosed Asperger's) on the Closer to the Edge film.

Both incredibly brave (or just don't process risk in the same way?) and both quite awkward in their social interaction and human relations.  

In reply to PaulJepson: I previously thought that, but I don't believe that's true any more.  Honnold pops up quite a lot on various bits of youtube, and generally comes across very well. and a lot more normal than he appears on 'Free Solo'.  I have a feeling he has a very trained and developed ability to turn his 'climbing game brain' on and off.  I'd watch some of the interviews with him.

Guy Martin doesn't appear to change at all. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

A breath of fresh air to see such a well-written, thought-provoking article. Much as I still love UKC, my impression is that quality has suffered in recent years. Particularly unwelcome are sycophantic, over-long, and ultimately non-committal gear reviews.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Well, if 'literature' (however categorised) has to have a point, the point of my piece was to celebrate an outstanding piece of film making. One which investigates character and motivation as well as superbly portraying the scenery and the climb. Of course it leaves unanswered questions about Honnold himself - if it pretended to actually answer those questions then it would be a lesser piece of work.

Going by Latin roots, 'literature' has to be read rather than viewed. But I'll persist in regarding film as this century's principle literary artform. And I bet critics of 2123 will agree with me.

In reply to Ronald Turnbull:

As a writer and film maker I see them as essentially different. Although film always has to start from an idea/ outline/ script that can be expressed/written in words a screenplay is just a skeletal blueprint. Film is primarily a visual art form that doesn’t require any dialogue at all. The essential aspect of film as artform is how moving images are very precisely edited together in time. A more appropriate metaphor would be ‘visual music’.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

But surely literature doesn't require dialogue either? Many of the most moving passages in literature describe things that could, theoretically at least, be expressed just as well or better in still or moving images. The words conjure up images in the reader's mind.

I agree that they're very different, but fundamentally they're both vehicles for storytelling and, despite some notable differences, they both can be very effective in doing so.

In reply to Ronald Turnbull:

Your article just popped up again and I re-read it; amazed that I didn´t reply the first time. Thank you for this, it´s a great piece of writing!

In reply to john arran:

No, literature doesn’t require dialogue, but it does require words.

Agreed that they are both supreme methods of storytelling.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Not quite sure why UKC didn't just let Ronald write an admiring piece on the film as a standalone feature rather than trying to shoehorn it into a series of articles that it doesn't really belong in. Certainly got people talking though, so maybe it was worth it!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Well it's definitely a classic, which the book certainly isn't.

In reply to Derek Ryden:

I suspect those gear reviews pay for many users to continue using the site at no cost. 
They are of course optional. 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Re: can a film be literature

As someone who has taught literature at university level and with the relevant expensive bits of paper to hand...

Films are often taught on literature courses and can be considered texts/literature in several different ways. E.g. As Ron mentions, the origins of "literature" derive from the Latin verb for reading. But, to read is not to stare at squiggles but to interpret, as in to read (not the lines, but) between the lines; to read someone's expression; to understand the subtext of a situation; to decipher the language of images; to interrogate not only what is said, but what is left unsaid; or the ways meaning is produced by narrative structure. Sometimes this is called "textuality", that is, the capacity for a play of meaning, which can be attributed equally to images and words (which, in written form, are, after all, images).

I could go on, but I won't: clearly books and films are different in obvious ways, but only the obtuse would insist that narrative-based films are not a form of literature.

I thought the article was enjoyable and worth reading, though it'd be nice to see attention given to something less well publicised.

Best wishes.

In reply to C Witter:

Literature to me is the written word, and I would take 'reading' to at least some degree literally, not just figuratively.

I don't think songs are poetry. They are something else entirely, as the music is there as well as the lyrics, and ideally both should be of value and add to the whole.

But does it really matter what we call things? Literature, film, painting, music, poetry, all of them are art, which surely is the main thing. 

In reply to Derek Ryden:

Funny, my impression was totally different. I found the article disjointed, unclear and not saying much at all. Was it reviewing the book, the film, or both. If you've already seen the film (which most on UKC will have) then what did this article add.

Maybe my brain's wired differently because I seem to be the only negative post so far.

Think I'll read it again just in case. Hmm, doesn't feel so disjointed or unclear this time but my main impression is that it's talking almost exclusively about the film - in which case it's simply several years too late.

In reply to Michael Hood:

No, you are not alone. I tried not to be so blunt but I'm sorry, I found it poorly written and confused.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

What precisely is "reading literally"? When you bash your head against a page in the hope something sticks? Does reading occur when you pick up the book, when your eyes scan the page, when you transform them into a play of meaning, when you continue to think about it afterward or when you talk about the book with your friend the next day? Or is a book read only when it is reshelved and its meanings cease their dance around your mind? Is Shakespeare only literature when it is inflicted on students in book form, ceasing to be literature as soon as it is performed and enjoyed as intended? You do know Free Solo also has a script, right? You can continue to keep things in their common sense boxes, if you prefer, but it hasn't stopped Bob Dylan from enjoying the Nobel Prize for Literature for his music, nor famous literary theorist Terry Eagleton from claiming the sign at the bottom of escalators, "Dogs Must Be Carried", is a sublime piece of surrealist poetry.

Anyway, enough of my provocation All best.