Do I dare ask for a reasoned recounting of the literary offenses of Jon Krakauer?
 

Or should I just drop it? Don't get me wrong, I fully realize Krakauer's greatest draw is not his writing, but rather the subject matter he chooses and his sometimes vague relationship with facts. That being said I don't recall anything egregiously anti-mainstream Mormon in "Under the Banner of Heaven."

I'll have to pull my copy out, but he was actually very subtle, yet not so subtle in his blatant misrepresentation of the Church and its culture.

And if you know something about climbing, perhaps you should compare Ed Viesturs No Shortcuts to the Top with Into Thin Air, to see what a hack he is.

It is a legitimate question but to give you a reasoned answer will require I go back and look at specific instances to illustrate my point.

I've already said that is primarily what he chose not to include, as well as broad unfounded conclusions.

Didn't President Hinckley quote Ed Viesturs' No Shortcusts?

I don't know. I grabbed the book while waiting at the airport and found him to be a fascinating figure.

He has a safety first mentality, which has served him well. "Ascending is optional, descending is mandatory."

After reading his report, you'll find somebody like Crackhead to be completely sensationalistic and useless.

I've read the criticisms of "Into Thin Air" and I have a good friend who just gets livid about the whole premise of "Into the Wild" so I've been thoroughly disabused of the notion that Krakauer is either a good or unbiased writer. But he does know how to pick interesting subject matter which I suppose is half the battle for an author.

As I said in response to you over in the other thread, I didn't see the subtle insults. Then again I'm not a member of your church so maybe it's just ignorance on my part. I have been known to mistake you all for the Amish so I guess it wouldn't be the first time.

Well we who organically understand the faith caught his attempts at subtle deception. However, because he's not a good writer, nor unbiased, those outside the faith may not have caught on to his swipes. For that I can be grateful.

I think I would like Krakauer more if he clearly inserted and stated his own biases and interests. We would say "Ok this is his take, and he admits it, and it's as much an exploration of him as it is the subject material he tackles."

Well, this is what he does, but he does not say so, and that's what pisses people off.

I've only walked up a couple >10K feet peaks, but that's the thing that I always think about in climbing--the getting back down when you're completely exhausted. It's not like once you're at the top you get helicoptered off...

He spent a long time rehashing Mormon history that to many of us is old ground broken by Brodie, Stegner and others, and not nearly as well written. He relied primarily on these works, secondary sources, and broke no new ground. I liked Into Thin Air, thought it was a well written, gripping read, even a classic in its own right, but this book felt sylishly klunky. The one unique element of his book was the true crime story and his thesis that Mormonism's violent culture and past bears a share of responsiblity.

I thought the thesis was a stretch, not well proven or developed, and kind of a truism about all religions in a way. Though I think a case could be made that the net effect of Christianity (Mormonism is Christian, isn't it?) has been to greatly modulate our or males' inherently violent and bloodthirsty nature.