Sorry for not sharing anything for a while. I was actually going to write about a Paul de Man essay I encountered. I was not all that familiar with him until I found his essay “The Resistance to Theory” in Modern Literary Theory 4^th Edition. It's sad to say that the more I've learned about him, the less inclined I've been to respond to what I came across, but I will more than likely share something of that experience another time.

I decided to pick up a Suzan-Lori Parks collection, The America Play and Other Works. Some time ago, I read The America Play itself and it was quite a ride, guided by a very knowledgeable and enthusiastic professor who was a great fan of the good lady. Well, she effectively sold Parks's works to me, as here I am now hoping to catch only a fraction of your attention.

The book begins with short essays, one of which is accompanied with fairly crude drawings provided by the author, and others with equations for drama with black people— as far as formulas for common “black dramas” that focus on the oppression of black people. Parks recommends shifting away from these and instead she advocates such dramas whose formulas introduce new and unknown terms. The experience of black people all around the world will vary greatly, constantly questioning exactly what being black means. A very hilarious anecdote from Parks that illustrates this can be found at one point in the extensive and random exegesis strewn throughout the book's intro:

A black man from Nigeria asked me once “What is this interest with watermelon you Black Americans have? I do not understand.” His not understanding does not make him non-Black/White/an inauthentic Black man. His not understanding simply means that he grew up Black yes! But Black somewhere else.

There may always be debate about whether blackness is ethnically, mentally, or performatively based. I guess you can say this about any group identification in the end. What does it mean to be tall? Fat? Young? A nerd? A woman? A leader? A douchebag?

As far as being black (or any race), clearly it is very popular and common to base identity on physical features. Just due to how I look, I can't help but to identify as black when pressed to choose an ethnicity and I have seen others do this on my behalf time and again. But if someone is asked their ethnicity and they insist that their appearance, personality, or both should clearly communicate the answer, I can't help but to agree to their identification. Rather than “agree with”, which I feel implies that I'm right there with them and understand exactly what they are saying, I “agree to”, in that I agree to meet them where they are, acknowledging that I can only do so by my own means of understanding. And I do hope to inform my understanding with theirs, not “inform” in any didactic sense, but in the spirit of paying attention to new information— and even like def. 4 in the 2012 Random House Dictionary.

And then… to my utter shock and amazement (and endless amusement), I find the following article (which I recommend reading entirely), entitled Why don’t black Americans swim? currently number 6 in the top read articles on BBC News:

A month ago, six African-American teenagers drowned in a single incident in Louisiana, prompting soul-searching about why so many young black Americans can't swim.

When 15-year-old DeKendrix Warner accidentally stepped into deeper water while wading in the Red River in Shreveport, he panicked.

JaTavious Warner, 17, Takeitha Warner, 13, JaMarcus Warner, 14, Litrelle Stewart, 18, Latevin Stewart, 15, and LaDarius Stewart, 17, rushed to help him and each other.

None of them could swim. All six drowned. DeKendrix was rescued by a passer-by.

…

… according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the fatal drowning rate of African-American children aged five-14 is three times that of white children.

Enter yet another man from Nigeria: “Why do you black Americans have this inability to swim? I do not understand. ”

It gives me great pleasure to inform you that you can now register for an account and leave comments on posts. The registration system is not yet as developed as I'd like it to be. As it is now, you will have to let me know if you have problems, such as forgetting your password or bugs of any kind that I have yet to discover. Thank you, everyone, for being so patient while I crank everything out.

Coming soon:

• Edit your profile!
• Log in through Facebook!
• Flag comments for abuse!

Please let me know if you're having any problems creating an account.

From Part X on, I could not shake a great sense of disappointment that this book was not going in the direction I thought it would. It hardly needs to go in any particular direction. I don't believe that this book, or any, is supposed to be written in any specific way.

One feature that preoccupied me during this journey was all of the descriptions of great violence, particularly violence done towards woman and children. This is a theme throughout the book that we readers are warned about in the story's first epigraph and the theme does not relent. I could not help but to see the systems that Iris was compelled to participate in as parallel to the Sakiel-Norn sacrifices, which were also socially-mandated. Iris's coercion and that of the sacrificed virgins came across as strongly related stories, as if one was an allegory of the other. Upon realizing, however, that Alex Thomas's stories were immense exaggerations of historical events, that his stories took far more literary license than I first thought, I could not help but to feel that I had been duped.

Of course, upon retrospection, I can more readily observe that reaction and not get so swept up by it. Of course, so many of the expectations are coming from me, not that the writer doesn't have a hand in what they are preparing for me to interpret, but it is I who does the interpreting, of course. And so, surely I'll have very different interpretations than other readers and the writer.

The kind of parallel relation I saw in Thomas's stories of virgin sacrifices and Iris sacrificing herself to Richard is surely seen by others. Men readily give their first daughter to be sacrificed to the Temple and Iris's father, though reluctantly, also gives her daughter to Richard to save what little of his company and reputation remain. Iris is de-virginized by Richard, an act that is described in what I would think most readers would consider horrific terms—that is, terms that evoke horror for us, which I partially quoted in the previous post.

The horror that Richard brings to Iris is also realized by Laura, and slowly revealed to us. The events that led to Laura's suicide are very slowly, painfully, and reluctantly revealed, which mirrors Iris's experience unfolding these events while she lived with Winifred and Richard. It is clear that they tried to obstruct the truth from her in order to cover for Richard's…perversity, we'll say.

They cover up the real reason for Laura's stay at Bella Vista in a believable way, so that just like Iris, I too was initially greatly disappointed in Laura. But my disappointment continued even up to Iris's discovery of a message Laura wrote that took me some time to interpret:

Avilion, no. No. No. Sunnyside. No. Xanadu, no. No. Queen Mary, no no. New York, no. Avilion. No at first.

Water Nixie, X. "Besotted."

Tornoto again. X.

X. X. X. X.

O.

And so, as I'm sure so many other readers picked up, this would appear to be some kind of record of the times when Richard accosted Laura, where she was quite resistant at first but then gave into him.

Is Laura truly so helpless? Would we have done the same thing in her situation? Well, I guess that kind of inquiry may not be too helpful, because people are so vastly different that I suppose we can already assume that if Laura was a different person she would have done something different. So, let's take Laura as she's been described to us. Yes, Laura is a character in a story, but as Iris consistently reminds us, these things really do happen. People are really like this. And so, I discuss such people.

When I read Laura's message, I can't help but to wonder if other women agree that these are slightly better times for people who may be in Laura's kind of distress. There are simply more jobs available now than there were in the 40s, even with the recession and job-losses. When Laura inspires Iris to get some crap job with her, like waiting, I can't help but to view that as a better scenario than… you know… literally getting fucked. Crap jobs are indeed shit, but if the alternative is to get raped on a regular basis… I can't help but to see Laura's waffle house aspirations as slightly more noble than grinning and bearing it… Now, I know Iris had no idea what was happening, and I understand that she trusted that Richard would keep his word and not take everything of the Chase legacy for his own. Why couldn't Laura tell her what was happening?

Because she was sure she'd ruin everything. She was sure that many a bridge would be burned. I suppose that Laura was mostly afraid of upsetting Iris… she would ruin her… um… yeah, it's actually not too clear to me… Laura was already convinced that they were in a crap-deal with Richard. I am sure that Iris's reluctance to believe Mr. Erskine's perversity made Laura hesitant as well. But didn't Iris eventually believe her? And didn't Reenie believe her pretty much immediately? But Reenie was under the care of Richard. Maybe Laura didn't want to ruin all of that. But the thing is that Reenie and her husband eventually got themselves fired from Richard's service for neglecting to do their tasks. It is unclear whether or not they intended to stay under Richard's care in the first place. Well, what a perfect trap… of Laura's own design. Surely Laura was not under the impression that Iris was content with Richard, but maybe Laura did not want to so independently wrench her sister from her… comfort… She did not want to be the catalyst of their downfall. However, I can't help but to see that they were doomed from the beginning.

The thing is that women DO NOT have to grin and bear it, as we all know, I'm sure. Iris clearly sees this truth in her sex with Alex Thomas, which is totally consensual at this point, unlike the time when he accosted her in the Avilion attic. I am slightly thrown off by this, by the way… if not totally thrown off. I bet anything that if we engaged Iris today and asked her how she perceived being attacked at that time compared to now, Iris would not characterize that attack as an attack. That is, she would not maintain that she wanted nothing to do with that interaction. She does want the antagonistic interaction, but in a safer environment, I suppose you could say. She wants such antagonism with him in a scenario where she is assured that he does not want to do her in and where the bashing and perversity is performed by someone who she syncs up with more mentally. They are sparring, as I spoke of earlier.

And so, if her first sex had been with Alex, it probably would have still hurt and there would still have been blood, and now that I think of it, there would have still been some grinning and bearing, all taking place in a setting in which she feels safer. The pain is more pleasurable. His assholery is confined, although there's plenty of play as far as how perverse he may act or speak during sex, how dirty the whole enterprise is, the revenge in the form of sex that occurs due to the antagonism between Alex Thomas and Richard. Hot stuff…

What I'm getting at here is that it more and more looks like one may not be able to so easily point to specific sexual acts and define them as rape, or perversion, etc. It appears that we have to gather the context of the situation. One woman's rape is another's bliss. My, can things get tricky out there…

Imagine if Iris was very much turned on by the reluctance, disgust, and vessel-like confinement that her husband subjected her to. Imagine if she was convinced that this is the way it's supposed to be. Could we then consider such acts as forms of enormity?

Well, consider the sado-masochists. Consider people who willingly undergo enslavement. They do exist. And I'm not just talking about sexual enslavement. Now clearly, there is a strong disparity between the people who are actually enslaved and the people who actually appreciate enslavement. As an über-perceptive Southerner in the hilarious documentary Sherman's March once explained, If you want to be a slave, then be a slave! True that, but the good lady misses the point of the Civil War in that it was more to settle the issue of whether or not it should be lawful to force people into slavery, that is, create conditions so that escape is difficult and sic the entire federal apparatus upon you if you do manage to escape.

And so, I am compelled to view the type of sex Iris has with Richard as bad and the type she has with Alex Thomas as good, even though both sexual scenarios are rife with deplorable aspects. It is her content perspective with Alex Thomas that makes me side more with her there, though I can't really side too strongly with her. I feel she has made a grave mistake… but he seems like a good guy. Aren't we all subject to impulses? They shouldn't define us as a person. However, I doubt he would characterize what he did as particularly bad, and I doubt Iris would either, at this point anyway.

This story really has me thinking… as all good stories do. And so, kudos to Atwood for continuing to pump out excellent literature that forces you to gather your thoughts and determine what you think about all of this.

Now, that I've said all that, let me just share a few words regarding The Handmaid's Tale:

I found that book to be a very fantastical and, I'm sorry to say, misguided perception of the most pressing issues of freedom that the US deals with. It is pure fantasy to imagine the US becoming a Christian North Korea. There is nowhere near an organized enough of a mass in this country to coup us into handmaid heaven. Atwood's atheism could not be more propagandized. Surely the good writer sees that we are more apt to destroy others than ourselves. On top of that, we are a very prude nation. Sex, when publicly expressed, is pretty much always obscene, except in very narrow circumstances— caveats that were hard fought for, let me tell you. To see this country as on any realistic path of delegating sex to a public service can only be seen as a very imaginative scenario. Truly unreal and pure fantasy.

I basically see that book as Atwood plopping the perils of very closed societies like North Korea or Iran (for a more religious-based totalitarian comparison) right on to US society. I can see that she has taken great care to make this move, as all of the good writer's work is clearly the product of careful attention and patient study, but in doing so she too readily equates the religious fervor that led to Iran's revolution to the religious fervor one finds in the US.

If Pat Robertson and co. had their way, not even they would advocate a social system that mirrors that of Islamists. The extreme religious right gets their way a lot of the time in the form of much legislation and social norms, but there is far too much resistance from liberals and even conservatives who value our freedoms (i.e. not making it illegal for women to dress in a way so-and-so considers provocative) so that the red burka of the handmaids would not have a snowflake's chance in heck to rear its ugly head in our legal system.

To account for this, Atwood portrays a story where unknown assailants forcibly take over the government. I insist that there is no force in the country that is so organized. Now, there are surely groups here who long to see an order for this country where oppression in the guise of religious adherence would run rampant if they were in charge, but just look at our independent militias. They are not exactly what you would call intimidating. Even if a group of militiamen forced their way into government offices, they would be immediately repelled by the feds, national guard, etc. and the offending group would be forever branded as a “terrorist organization”. I am not sure what force or spirit would convince the US's security apparatuses to stand down in the face of armed religious fanatics, or armed fanatics of any kind.

Now again, many in the world already see us as the armed religious fanatics, imposing our will at missile-point. That is the true manifestation of our evil empire. We do make examples out of people by way of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc., but this is popularly viewed as deplorable. A resurgence of interest in those times has sparked investigations, especially with all of this Wikileak-mania. I'm not so zealous as to go ahead and attribute the Arab Spring to Bradley Manning's bravery, an idea that is gaining some steam, but we can safely say that with more and more info being made available, people are starting to realize that they are not alone.

There are intense divisions in this country, but totalitarianism is far from claiming a victory here. We are eons, if not parallel universes, away from turning into the US described in The Handmaid's Tale.

Recently, Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, wrote a post on his blog called Pegs and Holes where he laments about how what men want is very opposed to what women want and that the natural inclinations of men are more frequently vilified than those of women. His essay ends by outlining an apocalyptic scenario where society may prefer men to be chemically castrated, if the vilification continues. Unfortunately, he does not give much evidence or detail regarding his points. This is very unfortunate because I agree with some of what he's saying, but I'm wary about even saying that, given the vagueness of his statements.

The post has created quite a firestorm. First of all, if you visit his site, you'll see that the comment thread has been thoroughly spam-bombed. Some of the comments suggest that the bulk of the negative flak is being organized by other sites. Nevertheless, he has upset many people.

Again, I agree with very little of what Adams wrote. Let me begin by quoting part of a response from a Salon.com writer:

By virtue of our hormones, body mass and cultural conditioning, we can make generalizations about behavior based on gender, and we can give the human sex drive its due as a driving force to be reckoned with. …That does not now, nor will it ever, presume that men are natural born rapists, or that to behave in an unrapey manner leads to "unfulfilled urges" and "unhappiness".

Mary Elizabeth Williams, Scott Adams' defense of rape mentality

It deeply pains me to admit that it does appear that men have a natural tendency to rape. Although not succumbing to such urges will leave those urges unfulfilled, this will not necessarily bring about unhappiness. It's painful to admit this because I'd rather consider people in general to be predisposed to doing good and there being simply a handful of bad people. Instead, all people have the capacity to do both great and terrible things. Luckily, we can affect our direction and avoid convincing ourselves that we can only be pleased by others' suffering.

By rape, I mean engage in sexual activity with someone against their will. To me, this is the most sensible definition of the word. Unfortunately, there is a more general definition, though one that its users tend to be hesitant to admit: sex that is disapproved of (i.e. statutory rape). If we are talking about the first definition, then yes, like to murder and to rob, there is a universal tendency to have sexual relations with another where the other convincingly expresses to their listeners that they do not share the passion and that they are in fact being accosted. This is not a desire alien to women, but it is possible that men experience this “urge” on a grander scale.

Where things initially get confusing is how sex is surrounded by taboos, and is itself tinged with forbiddance. And so, when one engages in sexual activity with another: when the guy's watching a movie with the girl on a couch and they're about a foot away and they've been going out to a few places a week now for maybe like a couple weeks and maybe he might lean over and make a move and see what happens… But in doing so he is stepping on all sorts of peoples' toes. Maybe he should ask her what he'd think if he'd kiss her first? Maybe this would ruin the mood? Regardless, he leans over and it's either acceptance or rejection, but regardless there will surely be ambivalence, as there already is on both their parts. And this kiss could be very improper indeed or maybe just the right thing. Or maybe both.

At that point, it would seem that the guy is obligated to either engage or disengage depending on how the girl receives the kiss. However, what if he kisses and she shies away. Should he try again? Should he stop? Should he set a limit on the number of his advances and what clearly appear to be her rejections? Perhaps on hearing the word “Stop” or any other negative he should refrain. And so he does, because he's a gentleman.

Now, imagine the scenario where she does say “Stop” and/or “No” and he continues. Imagine that they then eventually mutually embrace. I want to separate this from the incident where he continues but she maintains her disinterest and, eventually, disgust and now it would seem he is coercing her. In the scenario where they eventually mutually embrace, many a taboo had to be bravely jaunted over, if not outright hacked through—on both the guy and girl's part. The guy consistently fears that he may be coercing her the entire time and the girl consistently fears that she is similarly being coerced. This is a very dangerous game, and it is one we are expected to play.

In a sense, men and women are expected to spar. For a guy, in this case anyway, victory would be a kiss that is answered in kind, or, at the very least, one that is answered without rejection, which would imply consent. This consent could be verified upon their conversation, as acts can be deceiving… but so can words. Victory could also be a kiss for the girl, but at the beginning, for all the guy knows a kiss could actually result in a loss for her. This cannot be known until he goes for it, and in doing so he is offending many different people, including possibly her. He cannot afford to think about this at the time, but these thoughts will continue to confound any sure sense he has of what would be the “best” way to express his affection. Only after going for it will he discover if he has indeed offended her, where he will then be obliged to completely retract—any raging waters of passion that may have been suddenly released will need to be just as suddenly stopped back up. So, if she is offended, not only is he ashamed of his natural urges, but he will have to consider that what he wanted was wrong, perhaps fundamentally so. Surely, he'll come to realize that what he wanted wasn't wrong in all cases, it was just that she is not that into him. But should he assume that he will never be into him? Should he change his tactics? Should he continue to pursue her?

The guy and girl are sparring because, I assume, that they are of good sport and neither of them wishes for the other to suffer a total defeat in any sense. But consider the very act of sex. Is sex not the ultimate end of a kiss? Would it just be coincidence that he is thinking about sex while they kiss? Is there not some kind of cause and effect relationship to kissing and sex? Are such thoughts totally inappropriate? Or are they expected? Who would have the ultimate say in the consent of the two partners? Would that consent rest among the individuals? Would others' disapproval of the sexual nature in which the two engage each other trump any consent that we could reasonably surmise from the partners? Who should judge this ultimately? Sex experts? The individuals themselves?

Now, I agree that as nice as kisses are, they are not contracts. My point is that when it comes to men, women, and affection, confrontation is inevitable— confrontation with all sorts of people and ideas. Sex alone is an act of violence, is it not? When a woman has sex for the first time, she must expect to be stabbed: that is, her flesh will be penetrated and there will be blood. In any other scenario, this is interpreted as a violent act. As far as sex, this sort of act is necessary. Consider the character Iris from Margaret Atwood's The Blind Assassin when she describes her first sexual experience with her husband: a wealthy man whom she did not want to marry but did so out of pity for her father's fledgling clothes-button empire:

I didn't know what to expect; my only informant had been Reenie [Iris's nanny/mentor growing up], who had led me to believe that whatever would happen would be unpleasant and most likely painful, and in this I was not deceived… Grin and bear it had been her words. She'd said there would be some blood, and there was. (But she hadn't said why. That part was a complete surprise)

The situation for Iris is unbearable because she does not want to be there. The character Iris describes being raped by a man she must consider her husband. If she was with someone she actually trusted and loved, she might be more willing/compelled to have sex. But wouldn't she still have to undergo violence? Surely, she still would have been surprised (and I would think unpleasantly so) after bleeding, but would she have viewed it more positively? If she did view it more positively, would she then not be given to just a little masochism?

It would seem that men are then expected to be assailants of a controlled kind of violence, where the guy and girl are more in sync— where they are sparring for a win or a loss rather than fighting to truly defeat the other.

Now, again, when we see someone violently accosted and they clearly want nothing to do with the sex acts they insist are being forced upon them, we can denounce such acts of rape as we do murder or theft. From here, though, we should not claim that we don't understand why anyone would ever do such things. We all experience passion to little and great extents and the key is not to get too carried away, although I acknowledge that some people are irreconcilable. We all understand revenge. We all understand masochism and its appeal. We can all be, and are, pray to urges of the most horrible sort, but it is our responsibility not to act upon them. Although we can be convinced that doing something of great detriment to others can be can be a useful way of expressing ourselves, there are other mediums where harm may still be done, where people can still be forced to endure your actions. I'm talking about artistic mediums, of course.

Regarding Adams' zebra/lion metaphor, we can assume that the lion eats the zebra for food and destroys the zebra in the process. Although the assailant in a rape could indeed have the life-sustaining act of procreation in mind, the primary goal of such coercion is to express dominance. Unfortunately, the lion cannot be brought to any awareness that it should avoid ripping other animals apart. There are slightly more humane ways to kill animals for food. Since we are aware of others' suffering and know that we can't sacrifice another's pleasure solely so that we can enjoy ours, we are obligated to go about things with more modesty. We can always spend more money on food if we want to find the brands where manufacturers are less sadistic with the animals they sacrifice for us— but of course that gets tricky as well.

Certainly, we all have different thresholds for brutality. I don't think Adams' lion analogy is a good one because a very different dynamic is at work for why animals eat each other. There are carnal similarities, instinctual ones, sure. In the end, we should aim not to do violence to each other. There will continue to be debate about what circumstances warrant violence. But if you even take that couple on the couch again, there are people who would find that setting alone quote jarring. My very existence as a person who doesn't respect the Sabbath, who flagrantly ignores certain dietary and dress laws, etc. brings great offense to some people. Sitting with a person of the opposite sex at certain hours without certain others present can be very offensive to some. And so, you must pick your battles.

In Outside magazine's article “Greg Mortenson Speaks”, the interviewee addresses some of his critcs' claims, but he doesn't do so too thoroughly. He does admit to Three Cups of Tea containing some embellishments created by editors during the writing process, which he insists he protested. He maintains that he accidentally stumbled into Korphe after not being able to keep up with his K2 crew. He claims that he actually got separated from his team twice and that it was on the second incident that he stumbled into Korphe. He clarifies, however, that this was not an overnight stay, contrary to what he recounts in his book, nor did he promise to build them a school at that time. Mortenson says that he went to Korphe a second time in 1994 (the time that 60 Minutes/Krakauer said he visited Korphe for the first time), and it was then that he both promised and did establish a school.

Sadly, neither Mortenson nor the interviewer take the time to address more specific accusations Krakauer makes. (Before I get on with this, I want to apologize for not being able to cite page numbers. I grabbed the Kindle version of Jon Krakauer's essay [which, oddly is the only way to obtain his essay and they force you to donate to charity to obtain it] and it appears to have disposed of such ancient methods of reference). For one, the alternate telling of Mortenson's post-K2 adventures are provided to Krakauer by numerous sources. One of Mortenson's climbing partners, Scott Darsney, told Krakauer that when they left that expedition, Darsney assured me, Mortenson didn't know Korphe existed. Darsney did have more to say about his interview with Krakauer. He does directly respond to things that Krakauer says he told him with the intent of clearing up what Darsney feels were miscommunications between him and Krakauer. Darsney also disassociates himself from some of the conclusions that Krakauer reached from their conversation.

The most damning evidence of Mortenson's deceit regarding his Korphe story, however, are two major pieces of evidence that I would not be surprised if it took Mortenson some time to respond to. For one, Krakauer refers to an essay Mortenson wrote for the American Himalayan Foundation newsletter, where Mortenson essentially tells the beginning of his Three Cups of Tea story, but the setting is a village called Khane instead of Korphe. On top of that, footnote 2 of Krakauer's essay references a memo Mortenson sent to Jean Hoerni [Mortenson's first and biggest donor] and the AHF board of directors in March 1995 that listed specific reasons for moving the Central Asia Institute's first school's location from Khane to Korphe. Khane is not mentioned in the quotation of the memo, but it explicitly refers to MOVING THE PROJECT SITE TO KORPHE [emphasis in source]. Mortenson must address this evidence.

On top of that, Krakauer lifts the veil off of a series of what I suppose you could call “little white lies” strewn throughout the book. One of the most interesting ones, where I can see some room for misunderstanding that can only portray Mortenson as something of an ignorant fellow, is an account in Three Cups of Tea in September of 2000 when Mortenson claims he heard that Mother Theresa died which prompted him to make a side trip while in Calcutta to visit her grave. Maybe he did this, but Krakauer makes clear that Mother Theresa died in 1997. So either this event did not happen, or Mortenson did make such a trip but was mistakenly informed that Mother Theresa died in 2000 when she really died three years earlier. And so now, of course, I'm quite curious to know if any average reader would gather from Mortenson's account in his book that he really thought Mother Theresa died that year, or if he was actually talking about just having been informed she died (even though it happened years earlier) and then visited her deathbed, provided that her body is indeed so preserved.

Mortenson also claimed to have met the late and former king of Afghanistan, more formally known as Zaher (or Zahir) Shah on a commercial flight from Afghanistan to Kabul, Pakistan. He gives a very detailed and heart-warming account, in Three Cups of Tea, of their encounter. However, Krakauer was able to get a hold of Mostapha Zaher, the successor and grandson of Zaher Shah, who sent a message back to him saying in no uncertain terms:

I wish to categorically state, and in no uncertain terms, that my late grandfather had NEVER taken the mentioned flight PIA 737 from Islamabad to Kabul during the Holy Month Ramadhan of 2003. As a matter of fact, he has NEVER traveled on any PIA flights from 1973 to 2007, the year of his passing away [emphasis by Zaher]. The information provided by the person [Mortenson] is simply not factual.

Before Greg Mortenson even talks about the whole Taliban abduction story again, he will definitely want to specifically respond to these accusations. He has to say whether or not he wrote that AHF newsletter article and why he won't talk about, or at the very least denies, he ever made the Korphe promise to Khane. Also, if he could clear up the myriad other claims of falsehood Krakauer attributes to Mortenson's recollection of events, that would really show that he's listening to the criticism and he's responding to it directly so as to clarify things once and for all.

I'd like to comment a little more about Darsney's interview and email. First off, his email is curiously titled: Three Cups of Tea Is Not Diminished by One Cup of WikiLeaks. I'm not sure what WikiLeaks has to do with any of this…

At one point, Darsney writes:

If Jon Krakauer and some of Greg's detractors had taken the time to have three or more cups of tea with Greg and others–instead of one cup of tea with a select few who would discredit him–they would have found some minor problems and transgressions. But to the extent to call it all “lies” and “fraud”? No way. They would have come to very different conclusions. It takes a lot longer than one journalistic research cycle to have three cups of tea with someone.

The problem is that Krakauer totally tried to talk to Mortenson before he released his essay and even before the 60 Minutes exposé. The issue his critics claimed they ran into, and they provide some documentation, was Mortenson's classic stonewalling, that is acting like he'd actually like to engage with them, but when the time comes he's nowhere to be found. Hell, we all do this to an extent, but they made clear that they were going to make very serious claims against him and his organization and they wanted to give him the chance to talk. Mortenson, bizarrely, claims that Krakauer only once sent a message to him and lied about trying to get a hold of him for so long. Mortenson, also claims that 60 Minutes acted similarly. The truth is that Mortenson had plenty of time to meet with these people, and I think the factual record will reveal their attempts to contact him, as numerous people cite Mortenson's stonewalling as a constant issue. In fact, the people who left his Institute, whom Krakauer interviewed, consistently cite this tendency of his, particularly when they tried to bring up the Institute's financial practices to him.

On top of that, Darsney repeats a false claim that Mortenson in his limited statements has been very eager to disseminate. They claim that Mortenson's detractors are trying to cast his entire organization as a sham. No, this is merely a line of rhetoric that is exploding from tabloid headlines, but it is nothing that Krakauer or 60 Minutes tries to advocate. I doubt Mortenson has even read Krakauer's essay yet, to tell you the truth… if he did, or if Darsney paid attention to it, they'd realize that they are trying to not stain CAI's reputation. Krakauer is clear, though, about how upset he is of Mortenson's deceits and what appears to be intentional ignoring of financial regulations for charities. Krakauer says in his essay that he himself had donated over $70,000 to the CAI, and so it is somewhat personal.

Luckily, Darsney does have this to say:

On the other hand, in light of these events, it is only fair that Greg be willing and available to have one cup of tea–if not more–with his naysayers as well. If Greg is unwilling or unable, then the court of public opinion may not be very understanding.

Mortenson absolutely must sit down with his critics, or at least other popular publications, and directly respond to the accusations. Again, I'd focus on Krakauer's essay because it provides the most evidence.

Also from Darsney's email:

Yes, I did say to Jon Krakauer that Greg didn't go to Korphe until 1994. However, on our way out, Greg got lost a second time somewhere between the Biafo glacier region and Askole. About half a day later, Greg finally showed up in Askole saying he'd made a major wrong turn. He'd ended up in a village on the wrong side of the Braldu River. It's certainly plausible that this was Korphe.

It is quite strange that Darsney would tell Krakauer with such certitude that Mortenson had not even heard of Korphe until 1994, and then insist in this email that it's possible, or plausible anyway, he may have ended up there before they met him in Askole. I can't help but to think, however, that in the moment Darsney told Krakauer this, that Darsney was relying on other encounters, perhaps future ones with Mortenson, that betrayed that he was unaware of the village Korphe until Mortenson went there in 1994. Hopefully, time and more honesty will tell…

One more interesting quote from Darsney's email:

If you are a stickler for minutiae, strict detail, and exact accountability, all of this may be troubling for you, and perhaps some extra oversight and introspection will be good and welcomed by Greg and the Central Asia Institute.

Yeah, if you happen to be one of those people who actually cares about facts and detail, the information you are taking in about Greg Mortenson may totally shock you in a bad way. The thing is, Krakauer and 60 Minutes make clear that numerous CAI employees were diligently trying to apply basic financial over watch to their institute's coffers, but their executive director regularly sabotaged their efforts. And so, yes… accountability…

Please also take a look at an Outside magazine blog post by Grayson Schaffer where he points out other grave issues with Mortenson's revised Korphe story and with Mortenson's claims to have climbed Himalayan mountains. Also, Schaffer talks about how Krakauer expressed to a certain Pakistan guide based in Colorado via email how Mortenson's revised visit to Korphe may not be so plausible.

I'll try to keep updated about this. By the way, thank you everyone for your patience with this site…

The essay in question:

Krakauer, Jon (2011). Three Cups of Deceit: How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 1189-1195). Byliner. Kindle Edition.