Question of the day

[rydra_wong]

What the actual fuck is going on in this illustration?

Why did the Guardian think it was a good illustration for a column on climbing for fitness?

Since the author of the column does climb (according to the column, though I'm confused as to why she thinks boulder problems are called "runs"), why did she agree to be photographed doing ... this?

What is happening? Why?

Comments

[emperor]

*headdesk*

[wpadmirer]

That photo is ridiculous. It's like the very old Batman show. Obviously photographed flat and then flipped.

It was her first time climbing, and clearly she knows very little about it, and didn't bother to do any research. As a former magazine freelancer, I'm offended.

[rydra_wong]

It was her first time climbing, and clearly she knows very little about it, and didn't bother to do any research.

No, she's been indoor bouldering before, and has written about it before. So she may be fairly inexperienced, but she knows you don't actually climb like that.

[wpadmirer]

UGH. Even worse, then. She will go along with stupid things the magazine wants to do.

[ivy]

I was thinking maybe they sent along a photographer and she wasn't expecting it, so it was all "ummmm, there's not really any rocks here, or a gym, soooooo..." crappy improvisation?

[wpadmirer]

I'm thinking they didn't send a photographer along. And why not just put on her harness and pose wearing that? Or maybe she doesn't own gear and just rents it. Hmmm...

[niqaeli]

I think what offends me the most is that, even putting aside how absurdly nonsensical the posing is, no one would use that rope for ANYTHING even vaguely like unto climbing. Rope as an apparatus (in gymnastics/aerial) is like twenty times that size! Ropes you use for top-rope are as well! What the fuck!

[rydra_wong]

I. Just. What.