Since it's obvious you have not bothered to read a link provided, I am just going to copy/paste the text published by Fisher's widow.
It’s just me. A pretty simple person. Not in any order: Friend, Mother, Widow. The last does not come easily off my tongue, nor from my fingertips typing now. It was years before I could write, say, or even type the W word.
Simple. Ordinary. But Smart. Persistent. Well-spoken. Not afraid to joust against Incredible Odds. To make my voice heard. In one case it took years of effort in a corporation that had done repeated injustices to myself and other women with whom I worked. I can be a dog with a bone.
But this is different. How do I stand against a revisionist history that has re-written not only my husband’s death, but his life itself? Where do I turn – in my effete helplessness – to be heard, listened to, acknowledged? I am the Verizon cell phone guy who keeps trying to have a phone conversation from a sewer in Manhattan, a swamp, a cornfield, a neighborhood yard where he steps on a rake and almost gets hit in the head. Even he was heard – maybe not by the invisible person on the receiving end of his call – but by an entire world of TV commercial watchers.
But who is going to listen to me? And why should they?
I don’t have corporate backing. I am not an ace writer. I did more mundane things like pilot Learjets, Boeing 727s and MD80s. I can think ahead of a jet speeding through the air at 500 mph, but am still a powerless media underdawg. I’m a nobody. Who cares if I have pieces of the truth that aren’t romantic, or zingers that will sell newspapers and books and TV shows and movies. I have truth on my side. The Truth. But no one cares.
I was married to Scott “Bruce” Fischer for 15 years when he died. He was my partner and best friend for an additional seven. Twenty-two years. That should count for something. It does to me. I have truth on my side, in my quiver, in my heart and mind. But how do I communicate that they have gotten so much of Scott Fischer wrong? Wanna know a secret that the Media Chuckleheads have found unimportant? Scott was just a guy. In his words, “I’m just a guy, trying to get by.” A man, not a god. Not an egocentric Adonis interested only in furthering his goals and personal ambitions. He was an introvert. The portrayal of this gentle soul – and he was gentle as a husband and, especially, a father – has been twisted into some bizarre behemoth that I do not recognize. That is not the truth of this incredible man. But no one searching online realizes this because being gentle and kind doesn’t sell. Scores of books have been written about the “1996 Everest Tragedy” which is the moniker of his death. He died doing what he truly loved and excelled in, but this tidy little bow-wrapped package is the way the world now remembers him. The numbers of news stories, and magazine and online articles are impossible to count. Even an opera. How about the documentaries? Remember the IMAX Everest movie about the 1996 climb? The highest grossing documentary of all time never mentioned Scott Fischer in the entire movie. How bizarre is that? You know what the producers told me before they asked me to speak at the premiere in Seattle? “Scott is not mentioned. Our test audiences were confused by the many characters in the film, so we decided to not include Scott and his expedition.” Huh. I wonder what most people think about that now. Any of you who are familiar with 96 Everest not know the name Scott Fischer? Are you confused by the names and numbers of people who were involved in that event? Granted, you may not remember Makalu Gau or Yasuko Namba, but for you Americans, how ‘bout Scott Fischer? Not that I care. I would love it if there had been no publicity at all surrounding his death. Another high altitude climber dies on Everest. Happens all the time. That wasn’t 96 Everest. The lack of acknowledging him in the IMAX documentary was distressing for me and Scott’s parents and sisters. It was so incredibly arrogant and insensitive of the producers and promoters. But that’s the Media in its infinite wisdom.
Scott’s original Wikipedia entry mostly discussed how he died in the 1996 Everest Disaster. It caused me incredible pain to read this schlocky tribute to the man I loved. Two things really impacted me: that all the important details about his life were left out, and that they stated that “his body remains on the mountain at the request of the family.”
First,the omissions. No mention that Scott was one of the first climbing guides to do his job with a social consciousness: a 1993 climb on Denali in support of AIDS research; his environmental award-wining, and paradigm-shifting 1994 Everest cleanup; his 1996 Kilimanjaro climb in support of CARE. Of course it was vital that the names of the actors who have played him in crappy movies in the past and future are recognized in the Wiki bio, but none of these other remarkable achievements were mentioned.
That’s just efffed up. (And so the rake whacks.)
Second, this obsession with his body. Most families don’t have to deal with their loved one’s body the way that climbers in remote mountains do. Scott and I had had a discussion about his wishes should he die on a mountain somewhere, but it was private and not something I felt a need to share with anyone. And I have not shared my desires outside of our family (until recently, but that’s another story). I believe, as does most of the family, that the body is not Scott, just a vessel that allowed us to have him in our lives for all those years. Still, when part of the thrill for clients now summiting Everest includes taking pictures of Scott Fischer’s body on the descent, and then posting those pictures online or using them for self-promotion in powerpoint presentations, the disgust becomes not only very real, but palpable and simply nauseating. These are things and images that are hard to rid from your mind when you haven’t had the benefit of some sort of ceremony and disposal of your loved one’s body.
So the Wikipedia comment about his body being left on Everest at my request pissed me off. But what can a Voiceless Me actually do?
Well, get this. I found out that a guy I had known casually was a senior editor for Wikipedia (“WTH? You do what in your free time?”). When I told him I wanted a new bio submitted about Scott, he explained some interesting things about Wikipedia. The editors have to verify every statement they write by referring to an article in print or online. That's actually pretty reassuring if you think about it. These Wikipedia editors, working unpaid and in their free time, can't just post whatever they like. They really try to verify all information. But what happens when, as in my case, the source contains incorrect information? Let’s take the example of Scott’s body. The last line of his former bio stated that “his body remains on the mountain at the request of the family.” I spoke in person to my Wiki editor buddy, and he said he could not change that on my word, as that would be hear-say. WTF? I Am The Family. As the surviving spouse of a climber who died in Nepal, all decisions about his body need to be cleared and approved by me. I tell this guy that I never stated publicly my desire around the body and that what it says on his bio is incorrect, so change just it. But he wouldn’t. Couldn’t. Did I have proof of my statements or lack of statements about his body online or in print anywhere? No, of course not. I have no voice. I don’t get to speak my truth. The Media thinks it has done that for me.
Well, god bless this guy. You know what he did? He researched the source listed in the old bio. It was something along these lines (ok, I probably exaggerated this a bit): an Italian translation of an Austrian article that was a quote from an Australian newspaper from an interview with the wife of a New Zealand guide who died on Everest with Scott. “You’re right,” he emails me. “That’s a quote made by a different woman.” Bingo!! He changed the comment to read, "His body remains on the mountain." I was so pleased! This man heard me! It took for-flippin-ever, but eventually he edited the bio I wrote about Scott’s life to meet the strict parameters required for a Wikipedia article (what the samheck do they go through to verify the stuff that they post? I think a lot). He removed some frilly quotes I had referenced from Scott's official biography, Mountain Madness: Scott Fischer, Mt. Everest and a Life Lived on High, moved things around and "Wikified" my entry. My original submission had 23 footnotes from books, magazine articles and online sources; I was able to show this editor that my facts were valid. And change happened. I am incredibly proud of the new record of Scott’s life. I did that! (rake misses caller’s head as he continues to walk through yard)
So here comes the next rake, or sewer hole in the road ahead. The Universal Pictures movie Everest will be released in September of this year. It makes me incredibly anxious. I recently watched the trailer, which in the first 5 days after its release had received 1.3 million views. At second 00:45 into it we see a lazy, stoned-looking Scott Fischer stretched out in a lounge chair at Base Camp. As he hands what one would assume is booze in a cup to the character who plays Rob Hall, Bruce slurs gleefully, “Sit down, man. Acclimatize.” Ahem. Ok, so they are going to go with the laissez-faire totally unprofessional and disorganized boozer caricature of my husband. Well, at least I’m forewarned. (caller steps on rake which rises ominously toward his head)
I was approached in the spring of 1997 by Universal Pictures to begin negotiations to buy my life rights and those of Scott’s for this same movie. They started low but I eventually got them up to around $150,000 which they would pay me to not sue them if they maligned us in their movie. That’s a tough decision to make when you are raising two young children on your own. They pay me all that loot but can then say anything they want about me or Scott? After a very difficult mental wrassling match with myself, I eventually turned down their offer. They never made the movie in 1997 but I’ve been told that my re-negotiated fee now would have easily been $350,000 – 400,000. That’s a lot of dough. But here’s a quote from the agreement they wanted me to sign then (I am the “Owner” below):
The Granted Rights [of Universal over my persona] shall include without limitation, the following exclusive and perpetual rights:
…The exclusive right to portray, represent, impersonate and depict Owner (and/or Fisher) in any manner whatsoever, whether factual, fictional or both…
…[And] subject to the provision of the Agreement, Universal shall have the right to fictionalize, adapt, dramatize, rearrange, add to and subtract from the actual facts in preparation of any story or screenplay…
… Owner agrees that she will not at any time claim or assert that any portrayal, representation, impersonation or depiction of (Owner or Fisher…) constitutes a violation of any of Owner’s rights, including without limitation, Owner’s rights of privacy, publicity, false light, and Owner’s right to bring and prosecute an action for defamation…
The fact that they could never manage to spell Scott’s last name correctly did not endear them to me. Even after I backed out of the project, meaning they can’t portray me in the film, I pushed to not allow them to portray Scott in any false or contrived way, but my attorney informed me that since Scott is considered a “public figure” they can say or present him in any way they choose.
A word of caution to you all. Anytime you watch a movie that is “based on a true story,” a whole bunch of it is guaranteed to be 100% bullshit.
I hope that, as they did in 1996 through 1999, the Seattle climbing community is vocal in their dislike of any false portrayal of Scott Fischer in this movie or other media. Seattle let it be known that the versions of their friend and climbing partner presented in the book and movie Into Thin Air were totally unacceptable and offensive to those who knew him. I found out years later about this quiet upswell, and it gave me great comfort. I feel almost invisibly protected by this community of people – most of whom I do not even know – and I assume that they may have some input on the reviews of this next portrayal.
But as for me, I turn now to my friends at Sondry.com, and hope that this little Sonder will help ease the pain of the upcoming rake blow. Maybe a dodge altogether. Little voices reaching smaller audiences, but an outlet to give me a chance to speak my truth. It has to suffice. And it does help, somewhat. Can you hear me now?
