Paper #2 assignment (the next set of questions is posted below this)

Paper #2: Culture Above the Clouds

“Above 8,000 meters is not a place where people can afford morality” (253). 

For this conversation about travel, I want you to write from ONE of the following:

Ø  A family member of one of the clients who died (you can pretend to be a specific one or simply remain vague about who you were related to)

Ø  One of the experienced guides from the Adventure Consultants or Mountain Madness teams

Ø  A Sherpa from one of the expeditions

From this perspective, I want you to either attack or defend the idea of tourism on Mt. Everest.  Should climbing Everest be a tourist attraction, despite the incredible danger, uncertainty, cost, and possible damage to the local environment/culture?  Is it worth the risk and the expense?  As you can imagine, the widow/widower of one of the victims would probably be very against the entire idea, especially once he/she realized how the culture of Everest doesn’t provide much room for error—or a safety net for mistakes.  On the other hand, the guides and Sherpas rely on tourism for their livelihood, and want the expeditions to continue despite occasional disasters.  HOWEVER, after this disaster, it’s possible that a guide could decide that future expeditions would be unethical, and a Sherpa could decide that the industry is dangerous to his culture and religion.  You can take any position on this topic, but consider how your writer would examine it. 

SOME IDEAS TO RESPOND TO (BUT YOU CAN CONSIDER OTHERS):

v  Should only trained professionals be on the mountain?  Should you have to be part of the culture (have experience, not need bottled oxygen, etc.)? 

v  Can any company promise to get their clients to the top, or at least to “maximize” their success rate?  Is it ethical?

v  Was the culture of climbing—and specifically, the competitive nature of the guides/Sherpas—responsible for more deaths than the mountain itself?

v  Is getting to the summit a safe goal?  After all, once up, you still have to get down. 

v  Is the culture of tourism incompatible with the culture of climbing?

v  Can Sherpa culture exist without climbing/tourism?  Do we have an obligation to continue?

v  Are their lessons to be learned from the 1996 disaster that could improve the industry?  Is it still a viable industry? 

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

v  You must quote from Into Thin Air for support throughout your paper; have a conversation with the book—show where your ideas came from. 

v  You need at least 2-3 outside sources besides Into Thin Air to help you develop your views.  Articles and essays could talk about this disaster, other disasters, climbing, Everest, Sherpa culture, or Tourism in general. 

v  Consider the Naysayer: this is someone (perhaps one of the other groups) who would either disagree with you totally or would simply see another side of the discussion.  You should address this conversation/person in your paper and respond to it. 

v  DUE Monday, March 9th by 5pm (for MWF classes) 
            Tuesday, March 10th by 5pm (for TR classes) 

Last Questions for Into Thin Air (pp.207-254)

For Friday (MWF classes)/Tuesday (TR classes): Into Thin Air, pp. 207-254

NOTE: These are our last questions for the novel; we will do an in-class writing for the final chapters, so be sure to answer these, as they will definitely help you on Paper #2.  

Answer 2 of the 4 questions that follow:

1. Why did the various tourist groups get so disorganized and lost so quickly?  Hall and other had established district timelines and protocols to follow to avoid these very mishaps.  So why did they go off schedule?  Was any one person responsible for this?  Was it more the fault of the guides or the clients? 

2. These chapters of the book offer a strange double portrait of Bourkeev: at one point he seems totally indifferent to the clients, someone who simply “cut and ran” (218), but on the other hand, he selflessly risked his life to save people high on the mountain when no one else would help him.  How can this be the same person?  Why was he willing to risk his life after the fact when he wouldn’t help people before they got in trouble?

3. On page 253, one of the Japanese climbers refuses to help people dying on the mountain with extra food or oxygen.  As he explains, “We were too tired to help.  Above 8,000 meters is not a place where people can afford morality.”  Is this part of the culture of climbing—that since risking your life is part of the experience, you can’t expect rescue or basic humanity?  Do all the climbers basically respect this code of ethics?  Does Krakauer?

4. How does Krakauer help readers understand that his own story, though carefully observed and researched, might not be 100% accurate?  Where does he get information wrong, and where do others?  What makes writing this story uniquely difficult and often hurtful to the people involved?  

For Next Week: Into Thin Air, pp.148-203

For Next Week: Krakauer, Into Thin Air, pp. 148-203

Answer 2 of the 4 questions that follow:

1. One of the greatest assets to a serious climber is experience and intuition.  We see this when Göran Kropp, a master climber, decides to turn back just minutes from reaching the summit.  Hall remarks, “To turn around that close to the summit...That showed incredibly good judgment on [his] part” (153).  Even so, why does this intuition go against the culture of extreme climbers such as Hall, Bourkeev, and even Krakauer himself?  Where do we see climbers not following their inner advice? 

2. How does the close-knit community of guides and climbers break down in the fateful climb to the summit?  According to Krakauer, who is most responsible for this breakdown in communication?  What causes it?  Why might the very culture of Everest travel make it impossible for so many expeditions to succeed at once? 

3. Part of the true climbing culture is the debate over bottled oxygen.  Why do the most serious climbers refuse to use it, even though at that altitude, “Brains cells [are] dying...blood [grows] dangerously thick and sludgelike” (161)?  How does this play into the argument of who ‘deserves’ to be on Everest?  Should technology play a role in getting to the top, or should it be truly man vs. nature? 

4. In the Preface to Chapter 14, Reinhold Messner writes “The longer I climb the less important the goal seems to me, the more indifferent I become to myself...It is so pleasant to sit doing nothing—and therefore so dangerous.  Death through exhaustion is—like death through freezing—a pleasant one” (193).  How does Krakauer explain the psychological toll of climbing, which is perhaps even greater than the physical toll?  How do the battles of the mind overcome him and other travelers on the journey in potentially disastrous ways?  

For Thursday/Friday: Into Thin Air

[Note: MWF classes won't address this reading/questions until Friday; for Wednesday we'll continue on pages 1-88--see note below]

For Thursday/Friday: Krakauer, Into Thin Air, pp.89-147

1. On page 92, Krakauer writes that “Everest has always been a magnet for kooks, publicity seekers, hopeless romantics, and others with a shaky hold on reality.”  Why do you think this is?  Why do so many people without the ability or background in climbing seek out Everest—often to their doom?  Consider especially the Taiwanese expedition led by “Malaku” and the South Africa expedition. 

2. For most climbers, Everest is a destination—a place to test themselves in the most extreme conditions imaginable.  For the Sherpas, however, this is their home and their culture.  Climbing for them is a way of life, and the mountain is their physical and spiritual home.  How are the climbers interfering with local culture and beliefs?  What don’t they see or understand about the Sherpas which could be dangerous for both parties? 

3. How does a climber like Sandy Pittman (who travels with laptops, printers, solar panels, and gourmet food) complicate the argument of who deserves to be on Everest?  Though she has climbing experience, she would not be on the mountain without enormous help (which she is willing to pay for).  Do you think she ‘cheapens’ the Everest experience?  Endangers it?  Or does she have as much right as anyone to attempt the summit? 

4. In Chapter Ten, Krakauer writes that “People who don’t climb mountains...tend to assume that the sport is a reckless, Dionysian pursuit of ever escalating thrills.  But the notion that climbers are merely adrenaline junkies chasing a righteous fix is a fallacy, at least in the case of Everest” (140).  According to him, what does bring people to the mountain, and what do they hope to find there?  

For Monday Class Only!

Since very few people made it to Monday's class, I'm going to let everyone catch up and not assign any new reading.  Read up to page 88 for Wednesday and respond to the questions for Monday on Wednesday if you haven't already.  Remember, just because it's icy out doesn't mean you can't read and respond to questions--indeed, being stuck inside is a perfect time to read and write!  :)

See you on Wednesday.  

For Next Week: Krakaeur, Into Thin Air

For Next Week: Krakaeur, Into thin Air, pp. 7-89

NOTE: You can read more than these pages, of course, since we’ll be moving fairly quickly through the book.  However, our questions and discussion for Monday/Tuesday will only cover these pages.  Also, try to define any words or terms you’re not familiar with, since we might discuss some of these in class. 

Answer 2 of the 4 questions below:

1. What brings Krakaeur to accept the assignment to go to Everest in the first place?  Why does he lobby to get permission (and funds) to go all the way to the top?  How does he explain this to both his wife and the reader, even though the former is enraged at him and thinks the entire mission is “so fucking stupid and pointless?” (87). 

2. What has exploration tourism done to Everest?  How has the influx of foreigners changed the culture and environment of the region?  Do you feel tourism has improved or damaged the Sherpas way of life?  Does Krakaeur seem to have an opinion in this?

3. How do the Prefaces to each chapter illustrate the “conversation” Krakaeur is having with travel and exploration in this book?  Consider, for example, the passage from A. Alvarez that opens Chapter Six, where he writes, “Unlike your routine life, where mistakes can usually be recouped and some kind of compromise patched up, your actions, for however brief a period, are deadly serious” (79).  How does this passage—and others like it—connect to the overall story Krakaeur is trying to tell?

4. Hall’s travel company, “Adventure Consultants,” offers trips to Everest with the promise that “We will not drag you up a mountain—you will have to work hard—but we guarantee to maximize the safety and success of your adventure” (37).  Do you feel that exploration should ever become mixed with tourism?  Is it ethical to promise people a trip to the peak of Everest for a fee?  Does this downplay the danger of such an enterprise?  Does it also encourage less qualified applicants simply because they can afford it? 

Paper #1 Conference Schedule for This Week

Remember, if you haven't signed up for a conference, the spaces between times suggest openings.  Suggest a time and I'll try to fit you in this week.  

Tuesday, February 10

11:00 Colton
11:10 Courtney
11: 20 Anna
11:30 Hayden B.
11:40 Rachel R.
11:50 John F.
12:00 Bessie
12:10 Martha
12:20 Terra

1:30 Tyler C.

2:00 Roland

Wednesday, February 11
11:00 Christian
11:10 Ashlyn T.
11:20 Chase 
11:30 Andrew N.
11:40 Andrew D.
11:50 John W.
12:00 Faith
12:10 Mikayla
12:20 Walter 

1:00 Elyse

1:30 Clarissa

2:00 Skye

2:20 Neekie

Thursday, February 12
11:00 Kaylee
11:10 Vanessa
11:20 Richard 
11:30 Nikolette
11:40 Preston
11:50 Garrett
12:00 Jose
12:10 Ryan
12:20 Savannah

1:50 Lulu

Friday. February 13
11:00 Angel
11:10 Priscilla
11:20 Amelia
11:30 Amber
11:40 Kalli
11:50 Robert F.

12:10 Will

For This Week: Daughter of Danang

Questions for Daughter of Danang (2003)

NOTE: These questions are due on Thursday for TR classes and Friday for MWF classes.  

Answer 2 of the 4 questions below in a short response based on our viewing in Tuesday’s class.  We’ll finish the film on Thursday, so you can see if your ideas and predictions are correct.

1. Why do you think Heidi is really traveling to Vietnam?  What does she want to find besides her mother, sisters, etc.?  Do you feel she is culturally prepared for what she encounters there?  If not, what might she have done to better prepare for this journey?

2. Is Heidi American or Vietnamese?  How does she and others in the film weigh in on this question?  What does it ultimately mean to be of one culture and not another?  Is it speaking the language?  Knowing the culture?  Or simply one’s family and racial identity?  Can you be part of a culture you don’t even know you’re part of?  Or, conversely, can you decide to be part of a culture that others would deny you? 

3. What do you think the outcome of Heidi’s trip will be?  She only planned a relatively short, 7-day journey to Vietnam, and doesn’t seem to have long-term plans for coming back and/or bringing people back with her.  How might this shape the end of their trip and the future for both families? 

4. For most Americans today, this film is a journey into a history we know relatively little about: the Vietnam War.  How is this film trying to bring back lost pieces of history so that we can better understand our own culture?  What surprised or confused you about the history of the war as presented in the film?  Related to this, why is it important to know the history of the war to understand Heidi and her mother’s story?  

Reminders for Next Week

Remember that Paper #1 is due on Monday for MWF classes and Tuesday for TR classes.  There is no class on Monday for MWF classes; however, TR classes will still meet on Tuesday.  

We will start watching the film Daughter of Danang next week, and I will give you questions to respond to like a traditional reading.  However, we will take a reading break for 2 weeks to watch the film and for individual conferences over Paper #1 (we'll sign up for those next week).  

Good luck on your first paper!  See you next week.  

Integrating Quotations for Paper #1

Integrating Quotations in Paper #1 (and all others!)

Using Quotes in your paper:

“The urbex life is at heart a form of play, a pressure valve to regulate the atmospheric crush of daily life.  Explo, at his programming job, might daydream of a manhole in the floor of his cubicle, of some escape from the mundane requirements of society.  Once  you begin playing this game, the entire world becomes filled with secret doors” (Power 153). 

The Quotation Sandwich: Introduction + Quotation + Response

As Power explains in his essay, “Excuse Us While We Kiss the Sky,” “Once  you begin playing this game, the entire world becomes filled with secret doors” (153). 

OR,

As Power writes in his essay, “The urbex life is at heart a form of play, a pressure valve to regulate the atmospheric crush of daily life.  Explo, at his programming job, might daydream of a manhole in the floor of his cubicle, of some escape from the mundane requirements of society.  Once  you begin playing this game, the entire world becomes filled with secret doors” (153). 

Then, Respond...

This passage is important because instead of dismissing these travelers as bored, spoiled kids looking for a thrill, it makes us realize that we all share the essential desire behind urbex.  We all want to find an escape from the world, a window to a new life, or at least a beautiful experience away from the crush of homework, traffic, and bills.  If we can do that in our own backyard, then why not try?  Why not try to see a more exciting world without having to go anywhere? 

The Works Cited Page

Power, Matthew.  “Excuse Us While We Kiss the Sky.”  The Best American Travel

               Writing 2014.  Ed. Paul Theroux. 

Always list the author + article/book + where it appears (if necessary) + all publication information (editor, publisher, date, etc.). 

Make sure you include all sources you quote in your paper in the Works Cited. 

Also be sure that the in-text citation matches the Works Cited page.  If you quote from “Excuse Us While We Kiss the Sky,” be sure that you identify the author & article so we can find the full citation in your Works Cited page.

And of course, anything you borrow from an essay, whether ideas or actual words, must be quoted.  Otherwise it’s plagiarism.  The idea is to always acknowledge the source of ideas or phrases that are not your own.