I have a certain amount of respect for crappy FA's.
There is something telling about this post that resonates with me. What it says, I think, is that the FA's subjective experience is deserving of respect despite the "outcome" aka the collective post hoc judgment of the aesthetic qualities of the line.
So many times this antecedent evaluation of aesthetics is born from the "must be fun" commandment. Garbage climbs being, per se not fun. I think at times, without the loss-leading 'crappy' lines being established as a big 'FU' to a collective herd mentality about the supposed value of a climb, we become pushed along the distribution curve to the middle and mediocre.
Exceptionality, in the form of garbage climbs, has a signifying value all it's own in reasserting what the standard deviation can and should be.
Take for example Fritz's story about an FA in the backcountry of Idaho (?) where they climbed several, horribly loose with big blocks, pitches. It was a direct line, but never reported. But in reading about it, the idea of how terrible it was reset my calculation. So horrible you wouldn't ever report it, but it being a directissima, and still no reportage?
Choss is the yin to the yang. The dark to the light. The terrifying to the fun.
