Jargon

Jargon is terminology which is especially defined in relationship to a specific activity, profession, group, or event. In "Into Thin Air" Krakauer uses jargon to describe some of the equipment and activities involved in mountain climbing. Try to recall some of the terms he uses that are particular to mountain climbing, then try to think if you use any jargon yourself. Is there any activity you take part in that has it's own vocabulary or slang? What about being a student? Are there special terms that are particular to that? Hint: sometimes we are so immersed in our activities that we don't even realize that we are using specialized language.


"Into Thin Air" makes use of some jargon associated with mountain climbing. Phrases and terms such as "short-roping" and "rappelling" were used to describe specific mountain climbing activities. This use of jargon would mean little or nothing to someone who has no knowledge of mountain climbing.


I guess I also take use of jargon, sometimes without realizing it. As students, we also utilized jargon by simplifying class names/textbook names and pronouncing them based on their acronyms ("lant" refers to LANT - Language Arts, "a-push" refers to APUSH, AP US History, "psych" refers to Psychology, and our "LOL" refers to our "Language of Literature" textbook).


We also utilize internet jargon when we IM our friends or read blog posts. Acronyms such as "lol" (laugh out loud), "ftj" (fuel the jet), and "rofl" (roll on floor laughing) are just three examples of countless phrases of internet jargon, many of which I have never heard before. In addition, the creation of emoticons by linking specific keyboard symbols together may also be deemed a type of internet jargon.


When I am gaming with friends, we also utilize a kind of jargon. Words like " 'nade" (grenade), "spawn-killing" (picking off opponents right as they enter a battle), "camping" (picking off opponents from one specific location), and "tea-bagging" (crouching repeatedly over the dead body of an opponent, a derogatory act in the video-gaming world) are thrown around the room.

Risk for a Reason

In the event of a disaster, would most people risk their lives to save a stranger? Think of true stories you have heard about people who, facing danger and death, save the lives of strangers. Why do some people risk their own lives to save others? Why do some people look out for themselves first? Which do you think you would do? Do you think that the reason for the disaster would make a difference? For example, if there is a disaster because people foolishly put themselves at risk, would you be less willing to help than if the victims had no responsibility for their situation, such as in a natural disaster?

In the event of an immediate disaster, most people act on impulse to save others - it seems a burst of adrenaline or other hormones prompt an immediate "flight or fight" response that, for some people, causes them to rush to save others. In cases where one is able to think clearly about the pros and cons for helping others in a situation, one is much less likely to extend a helping hand. However, even for an immediate situation, I think a split second of decision is made, albeit subconsciously.

Some people, I believe, just possess an innate nature of selflessness. Other quote en quote "sensible" people will carefully weight the options before deciding whether rescue is worth it. People look out for themselves first because it's human nature to do so - simple economics (and Darwin, I guess) will teach you that everyone acts in their self-interest in order to compete and survive. However humans - and animals as well - aren't always self-centered. In some events, we will commit altruistic actions that seem to contradict the theory of rational self-interest, to protect the general welfare of others.

The reason for the disaster can prompt people to be more or less responsive to aid. For example, if a fireman is to put his life at risk to save a man who tried to climb Taipei 101, he would probably be suppressing a grumble as he climbs the ladder, as opposed to if he were saving a screaming infant in a burning mansion.
In addition, the person he is saving will affect his decision as well. Between saving a drug addict and a dedicated World War II veteran, one would probably choose the latter. In addition, how much the individual can later contribute to society can affect the decision as well. Like in the film Saving Private Ryan, everyone was reluctant to save the one life of James Ryan - and at the end of the film, Tom Hanks' character tells him to "earn it."

Nevertheless, each life saved is still a human life. I would like to believe that in the split second when aid is necessary I will be able to provide it. If I am thoroughly capable of helping another, I hope I will do so. But I was taught never to save a drowning man and never do mouth-to-mouth, for fear of dying yourself and procuring AIDS, respectively.

Why Take Risks?

What does Krakauer say about why mountain climbers take such risks? Think of the kinds of risks people take, both physical and otherwise. Do his conclusions apply to other risk takers as well? In your own experience, when you have taken risks or seen others take risks, what do you think the reasons were? Do they match up with what Krakauer says?

Krakauer states that mountain climbers have little prudence, as they undergo great challenges for seemingly little reward. This is, of course, from the perspective of a third-person. I have to say that most risk-takers are like this. Since risk generally means that the probability of success is low, accepting risks can be seen as acting on a lack of prudence. In most cases, risks are taken when there is a (albeit small) possibility to gain more than what one already has.

People are also drawn to risk because of its excitement. Taking risks release a wild combination of hormones that stimulate the mind, leading to periods of pleasure. This can be derived from the anxiety of possibly taking losses, or from the feelings of living life on the edge, focusing on only the important things in life and savoring each minute. Common life is uninteresting and dull, and risks stimulate our minds.

Some take risks to embark on a sort of spiritual journey, or a way to get back in touch with their humanity. Our current society is replete with distractions - bills, taxes, trivial relationship issues - that it is too easy for us to forget our priorities in life. Taking risks sometimes may allow us to put the world and our lives in perspective and remember the characteristics of our lives that really matter.

Still others take risks to be able to boast that they have lived through them. Mountain climbers, bungee jumpers - these are the people who take unnecessary risks, most of the time so that they can retell their experiences to others. This is mentioned by Krakauer as well.

Cause and Effect

One way that a story-teller moves the story forward is by relating the events to each other. This can take the form of cause-and-effect relationships. There are many different ways to describe this relationship: focus on causes, focus on effects, or focus on both. Sometimes and effect has many causes, sometimes only one of several possible causes is sufficient to have an effect. Many times the cause and effect relationship takes the form of a complex chain in which several causes create an effect that in turn creates other effects. In the excerpt from Into Thin Air, try to examine what happens and why. What are the causes of the events that happen? What are the effects?

In the excerpt from Into Thin Air, a multitude of people die on the mountain due to a sudden storm that catches the climbers off guard. This catastrophe occurred for a couple of reasons. Mountainous weather is capricious and hard-to-predict, and this is the underlying (the final) cause for this event. Even if there wasn't a storm, it would have still been exceedingly difficult to navigate their way back to the camp.

However the choices the mountaineers made also contributed to their unfortunate deaths. The decision to finish climbing the mountain despite being behind schedule, and how they wasted precious time on the apex were such choices. The prideful or confident thinking of the mountain climbers also attributed to their deaths; some chose to continue up the slope despite the dangers involved, and one member died because he decided to wait for their team leader to return down the slope.

Krakouer's difficult journey down to camp was also hindered because of his ailing medical and physical conditions. Furthermore, a blunder on the behalf of one of his group members caused him to rapidly waste a large portion of his oxygen, causing him more harm.

Compare Disasters

Think about the Krakauer story and the story of the Titanic. How are they similar? How are they different? What about the way they are told? Are there similarities and differences in the narrative accounts?

Both disasters occurred in an environment where here was already known danger - the Titanic in the Atlantic and Krakauer on the tallest mountain in the world. Both disasters took place in circumstances that could have been foreseen and prevented, but weren't, and both disasters were foreshadowed in the story.

The differences are obvious - the settings are different, the numbers of casualties are far from being similar. The Titanic incident also occurred due to human error (the Titanic refused to heed to iceberg warnings; the pride of its occupants and the laziness of the ship's designers and crew caused the deaths of many; social class prejudice allowed more lower-class men to die; the Californian did not respond to any of the conspicuous signs radiating from the Titanic). Krakauer was caught in a violent storm that was not predicted, and people perished because they were not aware of the impending danger. This was not an incident that directly occurred as a result of their actions.

The styles are similar in that the story is told in strict chronological order, giving exact times, specifying exact locations, mentioning specific people. The Titanic story does not use dialogue, however, and the perspectives from which the stories are told are also different; one is third person limited and is a secondary source, whereas the other is a first-person narrative and is a primary source.

Participation

Jon Krakauer went on the Everest expedition as a paid observer for a magazine. This is called “participatory journalism,” and it can be quite dangerous. What do you think the job of a journalist is or should be? What challenges might a journalist face who writes about an event in which he or she is also a participant? Where do you draw the line between being an observer—outside the event—and being a participant—inside the event? How does a journalist deal with events such as disasters without becoming emotionally involved?

 According to my old social studies teacher, the job of a journalist is to investigate events, ideas, and trends and relay that information to the public. Dangers are sometimes associated with investigating such issues, but in my opinion despite these hazards a journalist should persevere in obtaining information for the sake of public knowledge. When dealing with international issues, war zones, or human rights violations, I believe in this doctrine 100% (speaking of which, journalists probably need to be paid more). Challenges vary depending on the assignment at hand. A journalist may battle against natural events, face opposition from humans, or both. As a participatory journalist, there may be severe consequences. The journalist may be untrained or under-trained to handle a fragile situation, may be caught inside a violent situation, or may be poorly-equipped for life-threatening situations.

To be a participant of the event, one must take on a role within the conflict. They are to take part in whatever situation they are reporting on. Krakauer, for example, is a participatory journalist as he was part of the expedition. An observer journalist would be like a photographic journalist who takes pictures from the sidelines without getting directly involved with the situation.

Journalists need to train themselves not to give in too much to empathy. Some journalists take part in observing and recording immense suffering around the world, and if they give themselves over to the grief it could most likely result in negative consequences. The army achieves this by dehumanizing targets; journalists most likely do not do this, as a job of a journalist is to stay humane, clear-minded, and passionate. They must, however, have hope and faith. Possible many find comfort knowing that the information they bring back can be used to educate or prevent the current situation from occurring.

Risk

Why do you think some people are drawn to risk and adventure? What is the attraction to danger? Do you like to take chances? Why or why not? Describe a risk or adventure you have had or would like to have—perhaps due to something you have seen someone else do.

To be completely straightforward, life is boring. Sure, you may have the occasional surge in adrenaline as you dodge a scooter on the streets, or you may have to fight a mental breakdown when you realize you’re out of instant coffee powder, but generally speaking our typical, everyday lives are blunt, unstimulating, and blissfully eventless. People are drawn to risk and adventure because some like to live on the edge – they want to be capricious, to live without boundaries, and most importantly to experience how life is without constants. They want to experience events where their very lives hang on a thread, where they have no idea when their next meals will be, or where they have nothing to trust except for themselves and luck. Experiencing life in the great unknown is mentally stimulating and extremely exciting, and essentially becomes one large game of Chicken.

Taking chances is risky, scary, and unpredictable, and logically unappealing in every possible way. Most people hate taking chances and taking risks (HARDCORE ASIANS!), which makes them very unsuitable for Vegas. I don’t gamble with money and I will probably never visit Vegas (I hope), but given the correct circumstances I like taking chances. They’re exhilarating and put you on the edge, and I believe some risk is necessary for a person to make discoveries, gain experiences, learn about life, and to create opportunities. In the words of Morgan Spurlock, “If you take chances and if you take risks, in those risks will come opportunity. I believe when you push people away from that, you are pushing people towards failure. I feel that when you train your employees to be risk averse, then you’re preparing your whole company to be reward challenged… We need to encourage people to take risks. We need to encourage people to not be afraid… We need to embrace fear.”

There exists a balance, however, between a slow and peaceful life and an exciting and stimulating one.

I want to have the opportunity to travel to another country to conduct community service activities. I want to experience another mission trip, where I was challenged spiritually and physically.