"Pickets and Dead Men"

[Raindawg]

Anybody read the new book, "Pickets and Dead Men" by former Mt. Rainier climbing ranger Bree Loewen? In my opinion: very well-written, a few good adventure/rescue stories and some nice descriptions of my favorite mountain, but mostly self-pity and whining. I recommend it for people who really enjoy Rainier but gee whiz, even the people she seems to like are described in unflattering ways!

Am I missing something here???

 

P.S. I wish her the best of luck and the "Afterword" seems to suggest that she's happy now doing other things.

 

[DPS]

I really enjoyed it. I found it to be very well written, introspective, and personal. I guess it was self pitying, but if I had to hike up and down from Muir as often as she did I would pity myself too.

[musky333]

Any beta on who publishes or where it can be ordered from? Thank you.

[DPS]

The Mountaineers publishes it. Amazon.com sells it.

[LostCamKenny]

Its got a good title - one that makes me curious to read it. A good read usually starts out that way for me...

[Z-Man]

A very well-written, honest, and exciting book. I liked it.

[mankato]

Well Raindawg, you had it right; this Bree Loewen is the most self-absorbed, self-pitying climber I’ve ever heard of. I got this book from the local library system after reading this thread. When I placed a hold on the library web site, I noticed I was the only one checking out the book; it isn’t exactly a hot read.

 

So here is my review/synopsis of the book: It starts out where she and another woman plan to climb up to Camp Rainier in February, but when they get to Paradise weather is awful with snowstorm and winds. So they go up anyway, trying to get to Muir. Why the hell would anyone start out in bad weather from Paradise, knowing it’s going to be ten times worse at Muir? She says in the book she wants to have a “bonding” experience with her girlfriend and I guess spending several days cooped up in a tent at Camp Muir will provide that. Of course they quickly get lost and have to be rescued off the mountain. So the dumb-ass park service gives her a job as a climbing ranger, even though there are infinitely more qualified climbers available who have been volunteering for years, patiently waiting for a ranger position to open up.

 

The book goes downhill from there. She constantly complains about having to do her job. She doesn’t like working with the public, she doesn’t like climbing, she doesn’t like the people she works with and they don’t like her. She can’t keep up with the other climbing rangers. She gets bad job performance reviews. She is not allowed on any difficult rescue missions because they think she will freak out. She is pretty much relegated to dead body retrieval and outhouse detail at Muir. She is also obsessed with food and eating and talks about it constantly. While the other rangers use their time off to go to Alaska or the Himalayas to climb even harder mountains, she goes to Seattle, eats and lies around doing nothing. Not exactly dedicated to her job.

 

In one part of the book, she and her boss, a guy named Mike (not sure if that’s his real name) are choppered up to retrieve the body of a climber killed by an avalanche on the Ingraham direct. When they dig him out, she recognizes they guy as a volunteer firefighter she once worked with and had eaten Thanksgiving dinner together. To prove to her boss she is “tough,” she eats some M and M’s over his body and nonchalantly says: “He was a Republican, right-wing Christian, good fucking riddance he’s dead, really.” Her boss Mike, “laughed so hard he fell off his backpack, tears coming out of his eyes.” I understand gallows humor and all, but if I were a friend or relative of this guy who died, I would be pissed off at this cowardly woman and this idiot Mike guy. Talk about a total lack of class and compassion.

 

It just goes on an on like that, I quit reading after a while, couldn’t take it anymore. And our tax dollars and park fees pay these people. What a waste.

 

The summary: worst mountaineering book ever. It belongs in the compost toilet at Camp Muir.

 

 

 

[Dechristo]

In one part of the book, she and her boss, a guy named Mike (not sure if that’s his real name) are choppered up to retrieve the body of a climber killed by an avalanche on the Ingraham direct. When they dig him out, she recognizes they guy as a volunteer firefighter she once worked with and had eaten Thanksgiving dinner together. To prove to her boss she is “tough,” she eats some M and M’s over his body and nonchalantly says: “He was a Republican, right-wing Christian, good fucking riddance he’s dead, really.” Her boss Mike, “laughed so hard he fell off his backpack, tears coming out of his eyes.” I understand gallows humor and all, but if I were a friend or relative of this guy who died, I would be pissed off at this cowardly woman and this idiot Mike guy. Talk about a total lack of class and compassion.

 

 

 

 

 

One, it sounds as more than a few grains of salt should be taken with anything the author wrote.

 

Two, I'd want to talk to "Mike" directly before I developed an opinion of him.

[catbirdseat]

That certainly was an interesting review.

[Z-Man]

Wow, I get the feeling Mankato might have been in the book.

[cbcbd]

So did they ever make it to Camp Rainier?

[faster_than_you]

A.... honest... book.

 

Readers should be aware that names and situations were changed and altered throughout the book. One example is the situation referenced by Mankato - i.e. the conversation on the glacier about knowing the deceased climber and then subesquently saying "good riddance... etc". That simply did not happen. And Mankato is right, it's too bad that a terribly inaccurate and insensitive picture was portrayed for the family and friends of the deceased climber.

 

But aren't mountaineering books notorious for heavily opinionated 'facts' and kiss and tell stories? They make much better reads that way. Otherwise, without some embellishment, this book would have been nearly 200 pages of blaming everyone else for her problems while trying to explain why the author couldn't get along with her climbing partners.

[jshamster]

Well...I just finished the book, and I'm just not sure of what to make of it.

Because I know most of the folks in the book except for the author, it's hard to put all of her negative experiences into perspective. It is just not what I've seen first hand on the mountain. She truly must have been an outsider.

The book is an entertaining read, but, jeez, 188 pages of negativity and self pity is a bit much.

 

Cheers.

Jimbo

[Gary_Yngve]

...one-sided rant...

 

Wow, you sound like you're channeling Limbaugh or O'Reilly.

 

One of the things she was getting at in her book is if you're top in your field, you don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Because your production is more important than discipline or fairness. The same behaviors found in the book are found in the business setting, on athletic teams, etc.

 

I have met most of the people in the book, including the author, and know a subset of those people more in depth. It is interesting to connect the gossip from the past five years with stories in the book. An example would be the fallout caused by an infamous TR here that made props to a cool ranger.

[JayB]

 

 

 

In one part of the book, she and her boss, a guy named Mike (not sure if that’s his real name) are choppered up to retrieve the body of a climber killed by an avalanche on the Ingraham direct. When they dig him out, she recognizes they guy as a volunteer firefighter she once worked with and had eaten Thanksgiving dinner together. To prove to her boss she is “tough,” she eats some M and M’s over his body and nonchalantly says: “He was a Republican, right-wing Christian, good fucking riddance he’s dead, really.” Her boss Mike, “laughed so hard he fell off his backpack, tears coming out of his eyes.” I understand gallows humor and all, but if I were a friend or relative of this guy who died, I would be pissed off at this cowardly woman and this idiot Mike guy. Talk about a total lack of class and compassion."

 

 

Looks like the unnamed climber in question here was Aaron Koester, of Monroe Washington.

 

http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Washington-Firefighter-Loses-Life-Climbing-On-Mount-Rainier/46113

 

"And Mankato is right, it's too bad that a terribly inaccurate and insensitive picture was portrayed for the family and friends of the deceased climber."

 

Agreed. I can't claim to know anything about what transpired on the mountain, but if FTY's version is accurate, the real mystery is why someone would *invent* a scenario that paints such an incredibly unfortunate portrait of themselves for the explicit purpose of sharing it with the rest of the world.

 

Edited June 2, 2009 by JayB

[ivan]

this guy would work great for snow-pro!

or is this just my leftist tendencies shining through?

[billcoe]

Well Ivan, Lenins too little and SHORT to be used effectively as a Dead man. Besides, everyone knows that if you chose Trotsky instead, he comes with an ice axe in the head so you get a 2 for 1 Duh.

 

Jus' tryin'

to help ya out....

[mankato]

I also am still not sure what to make of the book. I have no idea if it’s all fabricated or only parts of it are BS or what. And no, I'm not in it or know the author or any of the characters and I’m not a right-wing conservative. Actually, I’ve talked to rangers many times at Rainier, and always found them to be friendly and helpful, and so her description of “Mike” really puzzles me.

 

After reading my review, I should have toned it down a bit. But I was pissed off at the time. After all, the death of the climber in question was fairly recent, so his friends and family are still out there. I have no doubt the description of his death will get back to them. Can you imagine if it were your father or brother or friend that was described this way? I know I wouldn’t like it very much. The guy seemed to be a good person, and was not acting recklessly on the mountain. I can only speak for myself, but if I were to find a fellow climber killed in an accident, I think it would be a somber experience. Eating food over the guy and saying “good riddance” – I’m not sure how that can be defended in any context, whether it really happened that way or not. If it didn’t really happen that way, why put it in the book? If so, she should have clearly stated the whole book is fiction. My only conclusion is that the author is a couple pickets short of a solid anchor. She's free to write books like this, but Mountaineer’s Press shouldn’t have published it.

 

[billcoe]

Well Raindawg, you had it right; this Bree Loewen is the most self-absorbed, self-pitying climber I’ve ever heard of. I got this book from the local library system after reading this thread. When I placed a hold on the library web site, I noticed I was the only one checking out the book; it isn’t exactly a hot read.

 

So here is my review/synopsis of the book: It starts out where she and another woman plan to climb up to Camp Rainier in February, but when they get to Paradise weather is awful with snowstorm and winds. So they go up anyway, trying to get to Muir. Why the hell would anyone start out in bad weather from Paradise, knowing it’s going to be ten times worse at Muir? She says in the book she wants to have a “bonding” experience with her girlfriend and I guess spending several days cooped up in a tent at Camp Muir will provide that. Of course they quickly get lost and have to be rescued off the mountain. So the dumb-ass park service gives her a job as a climbing ranger, even though there are infinitely more qualified climbers available who have been volunteering for years, patiently waiting for a ranger position to open up.

 

The book goes downhill from there. She constantly complains about having to do her job. She doesn’t like working with the public, she doesn’t like climbing, she doesn’t like the people she works with and they don’t like her. She can’t keep up with the other climbing rangers. She gets bad job performance reviews. She is not allowed on any difficult rescue missions because they think she will freak out. She is pretty much relegated to dead body retrieval and outhouse detail at Muir. She is also obsessed with food and eating and talks about it constantly. While the other rangers use their time off to go to Alaska or the Himalayas to climb even harder mountains, she goes to Seattle, eats and lies around doing nothing. Not exactly dedicated to her job.

 

In one part of the book, she and her boss, a guy named Mike (not sure if that’s his real name) are choppered up to retrieve the body of a climber killed by an avalanche on the Ingraham direct. When they dig him out, she recognizes they guy as a volunteer firefighter she once worked with and had eaten Thanksgiving dinner together. To prove to her boss she is “tough,” she eats some M and M’s over his body and nonchalantly says: “He was a Republican, right-wing Christian, good fucking riddance he’s dead, really.” Her boss Mike, “laughed so hard he fell off his backpack, tears coming out of his eyes.” I understand gallows humor and all, but if I were a friend or relative of this guy who died, I would be pissed off at this cowardly woman and this idiot Mike guy. Talk about a total lack of class and compassion.

 

It just goes on an on like that, I quit reading after a while, couldn’t take it anymore. And our tax dollars and park fees pay these people. What a waste.

 

The summary: worst mountaineering book ever. It belongs in the compost toilet at Camp Muir.

 

 

 

Thanks for the review Mankato. There's no way in hell I'll support what appears to be a spiteful, self-absorbed, lying b** after reading your review.

 

Thank you.

[Gary_Yngve]

Eating food over the guy and saying “good riddance” – I’m not sure how that can be defended in any context, whether it really happened that way or not. If it didn’t really happen that way, why put it in the book?

 

I guess you haven't read John Long.

 

Rescuers find dead guy. Rescuer1=>Rescuer2: His jacket looks like it might fit you.

[Raindawg]

Eating food over the guy and saying “good riddance” – I’m not sure how that can be defended in any context, whether it really happened that way or not. If it didn’t really happen that way, why put it in the book?

 

I guess you haven't read John Long.

 

Rescuers find dead guy. Rescuer1=>Rescuer2: His jacket looks like it might fit you.

 

There's a HUGE difference between making impersonal jokes about scammin' gear and saying “good f*&king riddance he’s dead, really”.

 

In its context it seems to me that she was trying to show off how tough and hip she was by being both over-the-top callous and demonstrating her "politically correct" credentials [“He was a Republican, right-wing Christian, good f*&king riddance he’s dead, really.”]

 

Whatever...what a disgraceful thing to write about yourself and what a horrible long-lasting memory of the deceased...a record in print for all to read!

 

I'm surprised the Mountaineers published this thing.

Will this be their first in a series of foul-mouthed personal confession books?

 

 

 

 

[sobo]

Eating food over the guy and saying “good riddance” – I’m not sure how that can be defended in any context, whether it really happened that way or not. If it didn’t really happen that way, why put it in the book?

 

I guess you haven't read John Long.

 

Rescuers find dead guy. Rescuer1=>Rescuer2: His jacket looks like it might fit you.

 

There's a HUGE difference between making impersonal jokes about scammin' gear and saying “good f*&king riddance he’s dead, really”.

I was thinking the EXACT same thing. Sort of like our fighting men will strip the weapons and ammo (and his dog tags) from a fallen comrade. It's nothing personal, just picking up the necessities of life. Survival mode.

That was clearly not the author's intent, judging by how mankato paraphrased the lead-up to the conversation from the book.

[DPS]

I got the feeling from reading the book that she was ashamed of making the statement about the deceased young man. I think it shows a lot of honesty that she portrays herself in such a negative light.

 

Also, can we stop with referring to the author as a bitch? I know some of you folks and you are better than that.

[DPS]

 

Readers should be aware that names and situations were changed and altered throughout the book. One example is the situation referenced by Mankato - i.e. the conversation on the glacier about knowing the deceased climber and then subesquently saying "good riddance... etc". That simply did not happen.

 

Just out of curiousity, how do you know that event did not happen?

[faster_than_you]

Just out of curiousity, how do you know that event did not happen?

 

Because I'm faster than you.

 

And I agree w/ you DPS about the name calling.