[SA Chris]

Out soon. Not seen it ,or even know anyone who has, but may be worth a look.

http://stonecountry.blogspot.com/2007/10/stone-play-art-of-bouldering-out-now.html

[dave]

as an owner of a copy of the dismal stoney country guide i find it hard to get excited about this. i hope its a fuck-load better.

art-style B&W images

oh joy.

[SA Chris]

I'm  approaching it with a more open mind. Will see it before I order it.

[dave]

to be fair, if its got photos by different photographers, and no si o'connor lie-athon essays then its got a fair chance. but when a book comes out by the company that recently brought out the worst bouldering guide of the modern era I find it hard not to be at least a tiny bit sceptical! once bitten twice shite etc.

[Dave Flanagan]

I got a copy of this in the post yesterday, I have had only a flick through it but can say it looks very nice indeed.
Dave what specifically didn't you like about Stone Country, I though it looked nice and was a bit more interesting than your average guidebook. The inclusion of Li O'Conner writing was unfortunate I agree.

[dave]

specifically i didn't like:

the fact the book is badly laid out, there is a small map on the inside cover showing where the areas lie roughly, but this doesn't include all the areas in the book. when you read through the book theres no way of telling what the bouldering on the page you're looking at is, you've got to work back toward the start of that section (which may or not be obvious because of the over-minimalist design), and the what that area is titled on the page may or may not correspond to the name of the area on the inside-cover map. There is a grid reference which is useful for those of you who also carry around a full set of scottish OS maps wherever you go. basically until you've read the book cover to cover, or are a local already, you've no idea where anything is.

the maps/topos of the areas are poorly done. nothing is even roughly to scale, and even relatively roadside areas like the glen nevis bouldering is fairly hard to work yourself around. bearing in mind this is scotland not burbage the maps should be paramount. the landmarks and parking aren't clear. and because each topo is shrunk down onto a fraction of one page its even worse. This is excaberated because all the accompianing text is pretty useless, often given conflicting information, and often it isn't clear which problems its refering to. its like the topo and the text on each page have been written by 2 seperate writers who've never met. Imagine combining a simon jaques froggatt post with a microfiche topo. And then trying to tie-up the text descriptions to the topos to the tiny captioned photos is a nightmare. Lets not also forget when you do find your boulder, like the heather hat boulder in glen nevis, theres plainly about 6 lines on this, but the guide says about 3 things, one of which clearly an o'connor make believe problem (or about 4 grades harder than listed). I had to text someone back home to find an old website on the internet to find out what stuff was. Theres also stuff on the topo that not in the text and vise versa. You really have to go up there and try and use it to find this out, just having a flick through in the shop won't tell you this.

It uses V(ague) grades. I was of the understanding that scotland traditionally used font grades.

There is also no easily accessable general background info on each area. stuff like "here's a good place for X weather, don't go here when the wind is blowing from Y direction or its Z time of year or you'll get midged to death" etc. forget about local info, good pubs, accomodation, times of year to visit, other stuff to see etc. Also forget about virtually any historical info whatsoever.

Theres also just not enough information in this book to call it a guide. bearing in mind the book is already under a centimeter thick and about 1/2 of the volume of the book is shit photos or all the supporting writing/poetry stuff (complete self-indulgent tripe). If you cut out this chaff the book would be even thinner. I mean for fucks sake you've got places like glen nevis which are supposedly some of the best, most popular and accessable bouldering venues and all you've got in the guide is 1 double page spread (only 1 page of this is the actual map/topo/problem list) and thats it. what a fucking joke. imagine picking up a Font guide to find bas cuvier relegated to a footnote, but pages upon pages devoted to haikus written by JJ Charles and Christophe Laumone's guide to inner synergy and self-fulfillment.

No graded list - this ties in with the general feeling that the actual problem description takes second place.

the final crowning failure is the medioctity of the tedious UKC-esque "arty" B&W photos and the awful reproduction of the few colour photos. plus the captions don't make it clear what you're looking at, or what page that problem is on.

its a joke that they're asking £20 for this guide. I paid less and i was still robbed. £20 and its got about 20th of the amount of information that say a BMC guide or Ru's guide has got. And the information that is there is astoundingly low quality. does this reek of a good deal? does it fuck. if this book is worth £20 then the Ru's guide is worth a grand. I'm probably going to try and unload mine on ebay to recoup my losses.

[Greg C]

Could you be a bit more specific? 

[dave]

oh you know me, i'm easy.

[cowboyhat]

Dave I think you should submit some reviews to the TLS.

[Dave Flanagan]

Fair play for spelling it out. I'm sure you feel better now.

[Pantontino]

Ouch! That's got to hurt.

For what it's worth I actually liked elements of this book. That said, I've only used it as a guide at Dumbarton. And I'm not sure the comparison with Ru's guide is as bullet proof as you make out. This is also flawed (as most guidebooks are in some way or other) - e.g. I was disappointed by the extent of the coverage; many classic problems are not included (e.g. why not mention the brilliant Small is Beautiful next to the Remergence section?) and some of the topos are poor. Compare the topo for Wimberry boulders in Ru's guide with Malc Baxter's original masterpiece in the 1988 BMC guide: chalk and cheese.

...but I guess, ultimately, pound for pound Ru's guide is better value for money if you just wanted a guidebook.

[a dense loner]

the topo for the wimberry boulders is poor? why would you say that? i have both guides in front of me n all i see is ru's has built upon malc's. which always happens. ok, four photo's of slap happy is three too much but the topo's are fine. are you just saying malc's was a masterpiece since it's got a lot of historical drivel in order to make the guide a little thicker?   

[Pantontino]

Dense I'm amazed that you can't see the difference!

The topos in Ru's guide are too simple and stylised for my liking. As a visitor I found the Wimberry ones confusing, especially the Sugar Loaf. (Bear in mind that I knew the crag reasonably well already)

Malc's topos are/were much more accurate, easy to use and from an aesthetic point of view, in a different league. That has got nothing to do with history or padded out old fashioned guidebooks - and whilst we're on the subject, as much as I like the overall aesthetic of Ru's guide it is much closer to the 'space lavish' end of the design spectrum, than the crammed/efficient layout you get, say with a Rockfax guide. Ru's guide may be history light (another failing to my mind), but it is certainly padded with space.

New isn't always automatically better.

Back to Dave's critique of the Scottish bouldering guide - I think the problem is that the book was perhaps mis-sold as a pure bouldering 'guide'. It arguably failed to hit modern standards of information presentation (thus Dave's annoyance), but I do applaud John Watson's attempts to stretch the boundaries of what a guide/bouldering book can be. He took a risk and tried do do something different. Some people (John Gill for example) loved it, others didn't. Such is life.

[dave]

did john gill try to use it in anger out in the field though? (genuinley i don't know). its easy to like a guidebook from the comfort of an armchair. Coffee table books about climbing are fine, but at least a book should do one thing or the other right. As a guide its piss poor, and as a pamphlet of low-rent poetry and writing its also found wanting. its like the scottish book is trying to have a dick in both holes, but not sealing the deal in either of them.

[r-man]

trying to have a dick in both holes, but not sealing the deal

The questing penis, a marine mammal with whiskers.

Now that's the sort of poetry our guidebooks are lacking.

[tc]

... as a pamphlet of low-rent poetry and writing its also found wanting.

Hmmm...pithy   

"Asking a working writer what he thinks about critics is like asking a lamppost what it feels about dogs”

[Percy B]

As one of the poor bastards who has used this book as a guide on a very misguided 'Scottish bouldering trip', my biggest problem that many of the areas depicted in this book as nice places with great bouldering were in fact utter shite. I'm sure that Scotland has some great bouldering - unfortunately none of it seems to be reported on in great depth in the Stone Country book. I was disappointed, to say the very least. Gutted is another expression I could use. Its a pigging long drive from Sheffield to be confronted by the unmitigated disaster that is Portlethen (bad rock, bad landings, smells of fish) or Rhiconich (filthy rock which has probably only ever been climbed on once (by a mentalist) and is surrounded by a bottomless bog of stagnant filth). Never made it to the famous hardcore blocs of Skye, but spent a very miserable night on the campsite as the special guest on a midge banquet before we fled. Applecross promised much but delivered sod all - the expression "that can't be it" was uttered many times by everybody in the car before we left in disgust.
Why so much coverage of these areas, and so little of Glen Coe or Dumbarton (the best areas I know of in Scotland to go bouldering)?

[SA Chris]

And there's the rub. Selective guides can give a disjointed view of what is out there. I would be gutted if I drove all the way to Rhiconich to climb on that boulder, when the stuff around Oldshoremore and Sheigra is really good and gets no mention. Or Applecross vs Torridon. I had a good day out at the Trossach boulders, but the directions for Ben Ledi boulders were pretty poor and was not too impressed with the place. Likewise I think Portlethen gets oversold for what it is.

Stone Country Vol 2 is currently in the pipeline. I know for a fact John has made the decision to go for Font grades, and I believe is sticking with the out and out guidebook format this time. There IS a lot of good stuff here, but it is pretty spread out and the midgies and weather can be pretty bad compared to the balmy conditions of the Peak.

[Pantontino]

All bouldering guides are selective to some degree or other. Quality should be the criteria for inclusion, but quality is subjective. In the end it is up to the editor to make the right decisions. I used the phrase 'local crag' to describe places that I thought were esoteric/wierd in North Wales. Sometimes wierd is good, but most sane people want a healthy collection of independent, clean problems, with decent landings and easy access. Some places have all this, but fickle conditions. On the right day they can seem like nirvana, but on the wrong day, like one of dense's worst nightmares (imagine that! No don't, it'll just twist your head.)

Maybe, just maybe, some of the crags you visited Percy would have seemed better in different weather/conditions?

Consider this:

wet Angel Bay = rubbish crag

dry Angel Bay = heaven

[Percy B]

I get your point, Si, but I know the difference between a wet crag and a shit one. The weather was OK, but the rock and problems were poor at best...

[Pantontino]

Fair enough.

[Houdini]

"Asking a working writer what he thinks about critics is like asking a lamppost what it feels about dogs”

I agree with Dave.  Just because man has learnt to put pen to paper doesn't mean that he should.


It's a barrel of tits and I wouldn't piss on it if it was on fire.

[tc]

"Asking a working writer what he thinks about critics is like asking a lamppost what it feels about dogs”

I agree with Dave.  Just because man has learnt to put pen to paper doesn't mean that he should.

Nonsense. The fun is in the trying. When ideas fail, words come in very handy.

[Houdini]

Ah ha!

Thought that would smoke you out.  For what it's worth I thought your piece the least irritating (take that in a good way, bitte) of them all - in a world of generally poor climbing writing.  This book is a great idea poorly executed.  There is no way on Earth I would part with my hard-earned for it, I can understand why someone might.

[Pantontino]

Well said tc. You have to try, and you have to keep on trying. Great writing doesn't just fall out of the sky.

I liked the last line in particular in your piece; something about opening the windows of your car to make room for your smile - I could just visualise your cheshire cat grin. Superb stuff.

[fashionguru]

Hi all,

Just thought I'd put my 2p in for what its worth as a yorkshire man.

Having used the Scots guide on several trips now, I do think it could be very easy to see why some people dont like it.

On first look at it in the shop, I thought pants, its gona be crap. But in fact I think it is very good clear and to the point where it needs to be.

The crags some people (soz Percy) are having a go about being crap, well all I can say is they must not have been to such places as Applecross and Torridon, Cummingston, Thirlstane and Dumby just to name a few. Whats wrong with you all these places are fantastic with great problems in brilliant locations.

I think we should give the boys at Stone country there dues, they did what no one else wanted to and brought us a guide to some fantastic places.

It was the first attempt at producing a guide that was slightly different to the norm taking the history and the culture of Scotland to its heart.

For me, lads well done.

I have enjoyed some great times bouldering with your little guide.

I await the next bigger and better addition.

Tony Simpson

[tc]

Ah ha!

Thought that would smoke you out.  For what it's worth I thought your piece the least irritating (take that in a good way, bitte) of them all - in a world of generally poor climbing writing. 

Yes, I am a shining beacon of literary hope in a widespread ocean of mundanity. I am also very, very humble 
Check out "Stone Play". I think it's better.

[Christobal]

So, whats the verdict?

[SA Chris]

Not bought it yet, but had a look at it in Tiso yesterday. Photos are generally very good, but quite small (book is the same size as Stone Country) Most of the writing is pretty good, but some strays slightly beyond the profound and into the bull field. Quite a big price tag for a small book, but be nice to get as a stocking filler.

Review here http://www.scottishclimbs.com/wiki/Stone_Play_Review

[Christobal]

So i got the book at last and found it quite enjoyable. Very good photos and writing although i have read not a few of them earlier in various books and mags.
All in all it gets a strong 3 grading.