vice/virtue

*Correction: the Alpinist weekly features cover soloing of all sorts. Not just free soloing. This week, they interview Silvia Vidal on big wall aid soloing.*

Been following the Alpinist weekly feature on free soloing, a style that captivates, stumps, and kinda horrifies the climbing community in equal measure. If you go to YouTube and search “rock climbing,” Dan Osman’s speed free solo at Lover’s Leap comes up first with 518,760 views, 5 stars, and 559 comments. When Climbing Magazine themed an issue after free soloing, they painted a dark picture of depression and self-destruction.

But since when has rock climbing been for perfect people only? Is free soloing any different than ascending an X rated route? Free soloing is a contentious issue, but I think it deserves respect just like any (and every) other style. Which is why I’m pleased with Alpinist magazine’s unbiased recognition.

Last week was Alex Hannold. A young American climber who made a name for himself free soloing Astroman (5.11c, 300m) and the Rostrum Regular North Face in Yosemite in a day. After that he free soloed Moonlight Buttress (V 5.12+, 9 pitches, 1,200′) in Utah’s Zion National Park.

About .5 seconds into the interview, you see Hannold is pure rock jock. He does nothing outside of climbing, which tells you right off the bat this kid has crackpot tendencies. (People think I’m crazy for climbing 3-5 days a week and I still have my day job.)

Now, I’m one of those “free choice” sorta people who says, to each their own. Every rock climber takes risks the general public often fails to understand. To argue that we’re duty-bound to minimize those risks as much as possible is bunkus. If that were the case we’d all be top-roping at the local crag day in and day out. I don’t know what mountaineers would do. Stay home and use the stair-stepper in front of the Discovery Channel, I guess.

That said, as I read Hannold’s interview, I can’t help but think he thinks about risk and safety in a completely not-based-in-reality sort of way.

Hannold got into free soloing because he couldn’t find partners. He continued for the thrill. He loves excitement, exposure, and total commitment. Ok, cool. Sounds like most of us, even if we make a show of by-the-book safety precautions.

Hannold says other things I can relate to, too. “When I lead I can often just charge ahead. Soloing requires more.” Many climbers I know, myself included, feel the same way about top-roping vs. leading. Hannold might be a step up on the scale, but the mental exercise is identical.

Then his reasoning gets a weird.

“The first time I soloed it was a little scary. Everyone says, “If your foot pops you die,” or “What if you get stung by a bee?! You’d die.” One by one I had all those things happen to me. I’ve blown feet, had birds come out of cracks, had bats hiss (which always scares the shit out of me), and nothing ever came of it… I haven’t died yet.” Emphasis on the yet.

I remember my dad used to mock and ridicule children who played in the street. He’d fake a kid voice, say “A car hasn’t hit me yet,” and put this goofy look on his face that meant total tragic innocence.

Put another way, Hannold can’t prove that (competent) free soloing is safe. He can only disprove it. So I’m wondering, does he really think he’s discovered a fool-proof method for not falling?

And more generally, do all climbers sound like this to non-climbers?

In a roundabout way, examining the free solo perspective gives me insight into the entire sport. The style may very well be the origin and natural conclusion to rock climbing. By picking apart Hannold’s reasoning, I see I’ve been thinking the same way all along, but with a larger community and (imperfect) precautions to back me up.

I guess the question should never be “why take risks,” but rather “how much risk are you up for today?”