The tragic tale of Mt Everest’s most famous dead body
October 9, 2015 3:28 PM   Subscribe

The tragic tale of Mt Everest’s most famous dead body is part one of a two part BBC article centered around the story of Tsewang Paljor, known as "Green Boots", whose body has remained for 20 years near the summit where he died. Part two is Death in the clouds: The problem with Everest’s 200+ bodies

The first article is about the life of the man whose body became an anonymous landmark. The second is about all the bodies that remain on the mountain, including the mysterious removal of several bodies in 2014.
posted by danny the boy (75 comments total) 52 users marked this as a favorite
 
When snow cover is light, climbers have had to step over Paljor’s extended legs on their way to and from the peak

And that was the beginning of a long chain of 'Are you fucking kidding me?'s
posted by bq at 3:59 PM on October 9, 2015 [17 favorites]


Most of them are in the death zone.

I've been situations where the air I was breathing was nonstandard, though not mountain climbing, and the hardest part is that your thinking gets fucked up to the point that you don't realize your thinking is fucked up.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:31 PM on October 9, 2015 [13 favorites]


Do not, under any circumstances, Google image search "rainbow valley." Unless, of course, you want to be kept awake for many nights in a row with the howling fantods. [Trigger warning: dead bodies in colorful parkas (thus the 'rainbow' part of "rainbow valley") near the peak of Everest]
posted by sexyrobot at 4:42 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


I've always wondered why we can't put together some kind of heated pressure suit, kind of like a less extreme spacesuit, so people can operate at Everest's altitude. That way, they could conduct rescues and body recoveries safely and whatnot.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:05 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


respectfully pushed into a crevasse
posted by XMLicious at 5:22 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


Technically possible, but no one wants to spend money on that. They'd rather spend it courting death by doing something hundreds of others have done for the thrill of their ego.

Yep, people will knowingly choose to almost literally walk on the backs of the dead to reach their petty goal.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:24 PM on October 9, 2015 [39 favorites]


Do you think anyone has ever gone to climb Everest with the intention of dying there? Hit the summit and then just never come down, that kind of thing.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 5:39 PM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]


I've always wondered why we can't put together some kind of heated pressure suit, kind of like a less extreme spacesuit, so people can operate at Everest's altitude.

I imagine additional weight and possibly reduced mobility would bring their own problems.
posted by zippy at 5:41 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


See, this is why I don't doubt when people say they would sign up for a one way trip to Mars.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:52 PM on October 9, 2015 [17 favorites]


Yep, people will knowingly choose to almost literally walk on the backs of the dead to reach their petty goal.

The flipside of the deal being knowing that if they die up there (not unlikely), it is their backs that will be walked on by waves of successive adventurers.
posted by acb at 5:53 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


Actually Mitrovarr, now that you mention it I'm noticing this Vogue article from only a couple of weeks ago which purports to show a SpaceX space suit prototype, much more form-fitting than any EVA suit. This Congressional testimony from the beginning of the year describes it thusly:
Crew Dragon carries sufficient breathable gas stores to allow for a safe return to Earth in the event of a leak of up to an equivalent orifice of 0.25 inches in diameter. As an extra level of protection, the crew will wear SpaceX-designed spacesuits to protect them from a rapid cabin depressurization emergency event of even greater severity. The suits and the vehicle itself will be rated for operation at vacuum.
So that sounds like a job for Elon Musk—if it would be suitable for the environment on Everest it would be totally Elon-Musk-esque PR synergy to test the suit prototypes with some sort of Everest-related project.
posted by XMLicious at 6:01 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


predictably, I googled "rainbow valley Everest bodies" (autocomplete added that last word for me) and now I'm sad. don't go to Everest, folks. can you all promise me you won't go to Everest? it's a bad place.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:15 PM on October 9, 2015 [14 favorites]


I dunno, I can think of worse places to leave my corpse.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 6:43 PM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


For some reason, I find what's happened on Everest in recent years fascinating. When I see pictures of the long lines of climbers in traffic jams waiting their turn on fixed ropes, for instance, I wonder what that experience is like. It always seemed to me that part of doing difficult wilderness stuff of any kind must be to experience the feeling of being somewhere where it's just you and nature, to enjoy the sense that you worked hard to have something that most of us won't have. But summiting Everest always seemed kind of disappointing to me—like, you get there and take a few pictures and then start heading back down, because the hardest part is ahead of you and the day ain't getting any younger. To have the coupled with the experience of standing around in a long line like you're at a backed-up grocery checkout lane on Christmas Eve...It undermines everything that I imagine would make it worthwhile. Except bragging rights, I guess. And other things that matter to people but that I can't come up with on my own.

I find the moral questions interesting, too. I always have questions about what our obligations are to people who deliberately put themselves in harm's way. Hikers who head out on remote trails they're not equipped to deal with. Small-craft pilots who don't file correct flight plans. People crossing the ocean all alone in sailboats. Mountain climbers. I kind of understand why people do these things; or, at least, I'm not in the camp that says they shouldn't risk themselves. But I catch myself thinking, "Why are the coast guard putting their own lives at risk for these people who went out in their boat even though they were told the weather was going to get bad and they shouldn't do it?"

So I think the moral questions at the top of Everest are pretty murky, too. Should you give up your summit bid to help that climber you don't know? Should you do it even if you can't save them? How would you feel if you gave up your bid, they died anyway, and you found out they'd come ill-equipped, or too inexperienced to make the climb, or ignored the Sherpas and teammates telling them to turn around, or... There are certainly some inherent risks up there, but there are also people whose bad judgment—down on the ground, where oxygen deprivation couldn't be blamed—was at least partly at fault. Am I a bad person if I go for the summit because I don't want to lose my chance by trying to help some risk-taker who thought they were a better climber than they were?

The funny thing is that I am a super-compassionate and helpful person in real life. But in the semi-abstract, I can be ruthless and cold-hearted. At least to the extent that I don't think the morality is clear-cut.

I'm really impressed by the occasional person who turns around near the top. We are all subject to the sunk-cost fallacy. We're are sometimes guilty of staying with something too long if we feel our goal is near. I think it takes a remarkable will to turn around.

I recently watched part of the documentary Man on Wire, about the tightrope walker who walked between the World Trade Center towers. Two things stuck with me from the portion I watched: Phillippe Petit talking about how profoundly it concentrates the mind to know that the consequences of even the smallest lapse is death. This is a thing he enjoys about tightrope-walking illegally in very high places. He loves that experience of being so tightly and completely focused on staying alive. It wasn't adrenaline he was talking about; it was almost the opposite of that, I think. The sweeping away of everything inessential.

The bit I especially loved, though, was the interview with one of his helpers who backed out at the last minute. Really last minute: they were up on the hundred-and-whateverth floor of the WTC, with the gear, and were getting ready to set up the wire. They heard a security guard coming. Two of them hid under a tarp (the floor they were on was still under construction). The third said, "I can't do this," and headed for the stairs. Even describing this decades later, knowing that it worked out OK and nobody died, he was absolutely joyful as he described his descent. He felt free. He barely felt he was touching the stairs. It was like flying in a dream. He seemed to have no self-recrimination; it was a moment of joy and freedom for him.

I can't remember why I thought that was relevant. Oh! I was going to say something, I think, about Petit and how it wasn't just the tightrope walking he was into. It was the near possibility of death. He didn't want to do the tightrope walking despite how dangerous it was; he wanted to do it because it was that dangerous. In one of the articles, someone said that you shouldn't climb Everest unless you were the kind of person who might like a friendly game of Russian Roulette. Petit is that kind of person.

There's an interesting mixed message in these articles about Everest: on the one hand, it's become a climb that any reasonably fit rich person can be jollied through by guides and Sherpas. On the other hand, it's absolutely deadly. I want to say, "Which is it?" But, of course, it really does seem to be both.
posted by not that girl at 6:46 PM on October 9, 2015 [96 favorites]


I dunno, I can think of worse places to leave my corpse.

And archaeologists might one day be very grateful that you made that choice.
posted by jamjam at 6:48 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yep, people will knowingly choose to almost literally walk on the backs of the dead to reach their petty goal.

They're long dead, beyond help. Nothing you can do for them. Everyone who goes there knows that to be the case and that they could become one of the dead. Anyone even attempting the incredibly difficult and dangerous task to retrieve a dead body is risking their own life for a dead person.
posted by JackFlash at 6:50 PM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


Hopefully if you're willing to climb Everest you're somewhat comfortable with the concept of charnel grounds.
posted by ch1x0r at 7:17 PM on October 9, 2015


Except bragging rights, I guess.

When you think about it this is kind of like a memetically-transmitted human version of Cordyceps, the behavior-altering fungus that makes an infected insect seek higher ground until spores burst from its head.
posted by XMLicious at 7:22 PM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


It's the opposite direction, but I imagine that bringing bodies back from the death zone on Everest might turn out a lot like this.
posted by chimpsonfilm at 7:23 PM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]


It isn't just corpses. The preferred route to the summit has been scaled by hundreds of groups by this point, and every one of them has discarded huge amounts (tons) of garbage by just leaving it up there, not to mention human waste. (The estimate is 12,000 pounds of human waste per year.)

The route these days (especially nearer the bottom) is littered with trash from top to bottom. It's like hiking through a garbage dump, or a sewer.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:25 PM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


Following up on what not that girl wrote (which is a fantastic comment, BTW), this is a quote from Beck Weathers, one of the climbers that survived the 1996 expedition that Jon Krakauer chronicled in Into Thin Air:
Seaborn Beck Weathers, a pathologist in Dallas who lost his nose and parts of his hands and feet – and very nearly his life – on Everest in 1996, was originally attracted to climbing precisely because of a paralysing fear of heights. As he described in his book, Left for Dead, facing off in the mountains with that fear proved to be an effective (albeit temporary) antidote for his severe depression. Everest was his last mountaineering experience, though, and that close call with death saved his marriage by causing him to realise what was truly important in life. Because of that, he does not regret it. But at the same time, he would not recommend anyone to climb Everest.

“My view has changed on this fairly dramatically,” he says. “If you don’t have anyone who cares about you or is dependent on you, if you have no friends or colleagues, and if you’re willing to put a single round in the chamber of a revolver and put it in your mouth and pull the trigger, then yeah, it’s a pretty good idea to climb Everest.”
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:44 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


I may be fooling myself, but I really can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't abandon my goals to try and save someone's life. I would far rather live with the experience (and story) of having turned back from the summit to attempt, even futilely, to save a human life than to live with the experience of having summited Everest.

I guess that is probably tied up in why I am unlikely to ever try to summit Everest.
posted by 256 at 8:17 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


Mount Everest stories always make me realize there's a lot of completionists out there who just like to win the "achievement unlocked!" badge for having done The Hard Thing. Makes me glad my own personal completionism runs towards pretentious books or having sex in all fifty states rather than courting death to claim mountains.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:33 PM on October 9, 2015 [32 favorites]


There should be a big fee to go up there, with the money funding some consistent management/custodianship.
posted by Segundus at 10:11 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]


I have read a lot of these types of Everest articles and watched documentaries and read Into Thin Air, and the thing that bothers me the most is how people get divided into "climbers" and "Sherpas". The news articles will say "Bob Jones, Dave Brussels, and Barb Fartly died on Everest today in an accident that also claimed the lives of three Sherpas." Then you get a biography of Bob Jones and never hear of the Sherpas again. Or "Jane Winklesnout reached the summit, guided by Rachel Climbergood and a Sherpa."

When did it become OK to group all the humans up there into "individuals" and "Sherpas"? Half the bodies on the mountain are Sherpas, and yet I've never seen a biographical article about a deceased Sherpa or an interview with the family or a sad news clip about the community left behind. They're lucky if they even get names. Not to mention the total lack of credit for doing the same climb all the other climbers are doing--except with more gear and a responsibility for checking lines and dragging people around. One Sherpa in the second article has summitted 17 times! Outside magazine, do a spread on that guy!

I wish journalists would call everyone climbers. When they talk about the dead, I wish they would give everyone names, not just the paying individuals and guides. Don't just tell me about the schoolteacher from Indiana who loved mountain biking and rescued dogs, or the Chinese office worker who dreamed of climbing Everest since they were little. Also tell me about the Sherpa who guided them, how many kids he had and how long he'd been a guide and how he was going to night school. Treat them like people, not pack mules.

OK, rant over. These articles were better than ones I've seen in the past, in that the author actually bothered to talk with a few Sherpas. But there's still that language of separation laced throughout.
posted by schroedinger at 10:17 PM on October 9, 2015 [159 favorites]


1: what schroedinger said about Sherpas.

2: According to the second article, someone (possibly the Chinese Mountaineering Association) has removed Green Boots and some of the other bodies from the North side of Everest. This is one good thing to come out of this.
posted by monotreme at 11:28 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Most of them are in the death zone.

I've been situations where the air I was breathing was nonstandard, though not mountain climbing, and the hardest part is that your thinking gets fucked up to the point that you don't realize your thinking is fucked up.


I'm not convinced their thinking is all that great before they get to the nonstandard breathing part if they make plans to visit somewhere known as the death zone.
posted by biffa at 11:35 PM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]


I have a handful of friends and acquaintances who are pretty serious climbers and mountaineers. They have, I am entirely certain, a range of experiences that run far past any easy description in their intensity, beauty, joy, and creation of a sense-of-accomplishment.

Knowing all that, I still haven't found a better model for a lot of their behavior than to view it as a specialized form of suicidal ideation.

(Hi Dave.)
posted by brennen at 12:37 AM on October 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


I find the concern over "respect" for the bodies so odd. That anyone would risk their life to collect / return a dead body attests to the persistence of a kind of mystical, superstition around the dead for most people. What point does this obsession with the body serve?

Secondly, given that most of the climbers a driven by a kind of narcissistic need for grandeur, it seems somehow fitting that their corpses remain there as a kind of testament to human folly. Does not the nickname "Green Boots" perfectly capture the absurdity and ultimate nihilism of the act of climbing everest in the first place? Its so poetic that an act that lusts after such grand heights is ultimately remembered by the accidental minor detail of the colour of ones boots. It's like scene from a of a play by Sartre or a novel by Camus.
posted by mary8nne at 1:43 AM on October 10, 2015 [23 favorites]


I've read pretty much every recent big-mountain mountaineering book since Into Thin Air. I don't know why I find them so compelling, but I do. It's certainly not because I'd ever do on any such expedition.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:09 AM on October 10, 2015 [8 favorites]


I too think that I couldn't imagine a circumstance where I wouldn't abandon a summit push to save someone if I could. (Often you can't.) But I've never been 28k-feet hypoxic and extremely sleep deprived. Really, who knows what I'd do.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:15 AM on October 10, 2015


last comment. The mainstream media doesn't treat Sherpa as people in reporting. And it's disgraceful. The actual mountaineers tend to be better, as they live with them for weeks, and know nearly none of them are climbing anything without the Sherpa doing pretty much all the work.

I was heartened at the money raised for the families of the Sherpa killed in the Icefall in 2014. But, again, that's primarily by mountaineers.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:20 AM on October 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


Segundus: There should be a big fee to go up there, with the money funding some consistent management/custodianship.

Er, what makes you think there isn't? All climbers who go up Mt Everest have to pay a large fee to the Nepali or Chinese government (depending on which side they ascend) for a summit permit, and on the South (Nepali) side, at least, an extra fee to an environmental association -- sorry, I'm blanking on the name of that group and can't find a reference to it right now.

Now, to be clear, there's certainly a debate to be had about how much of that money actually gets used to clean up the mountain, to support the local communities and insure the Sherpas who go up there, etc., but that's a current political issue in Nepal (see: the Sherpa strikes after the 2014 avalanche) and can't be blamed on commercial climbers themselves. The money paid to the environmental association does also pay for ladder and fixed rope setup in the Khumbu icefall, as well as taking away rubbish and waste. But it's really not the case that no one in Nepal is thinking about the problem, or doing anything to solve it!

On the topic of human waste specifically, there's a good blog post here about the situation on Everest and other high peaks.
For years now most operators on the big expedition peaks have been packing their trash off the mountain. Whether from base camp or the higher camps, it all comes down. At base camp climbers usually crap into drums, and this also gets disposed of properly. This is normal procedure, and while there are still inconsiderate people who leave waste behind, they are in a minority. ...

Gradually climbers and operators are coming round to the realisation popular peaks in the Himalayas are in need of self-imposed toilet regulation.
posted by daisyk at 4:14 AM on October 10, 2015 [8 favorites]


I find the concern over "respect" for the bodies so odd. That anyone would risk their life to collect / return a dead body attests to the persistence of a kind of mystical, superstition around the dead for most people. What point does this obsession with the body serve? Secondly, given that most of the climbers a driven by a kind of narcissistic need for grandeur, it seems somehow fitting that their corpses remain there as a kind of testament to human folly. Does not the nickname "Green Boots" perfectly capture the absurdity and ultimate nihilism of the act of climbing everest in the first place?

For many families, the act of performing a funeral for their loved ones brings a powerful and needed sense of closure. Actually seeing the actual body of your son or husband or brother or uncle or father being placed into the ground, or slid into a crematorium, or dropped into the sea or whatever other funerary rite you believe in, underscores for you at a visceral level that "he is gone and is never coming back". And having that kind of visceral reminder can help you come to grips with the grieving process better.

Moreover - yes, the nickname "Green Boots" does indeed comment upon human folly. But his name was actually Tsewang Paljor. And I suspect his family would much rather the world know him by that name.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:34 AM on October 10, 2015 [15 favorites]


If you're interested in Sherpa culture and mountaineering, there is a very good book called Buried in the Sky, which is about Sherpas involved in an accident on K2 in 2008, their families, and lots about Sherpa culture and what it means to be ethnically Sherpa (or not) in the context of mountaineering.

In my Introduction to Cultural Anthropology class on undergrad, the professor was a demographer and anthropologist who worked with Tibetans in highland Nepal. His book, Tibetan Diary, is all about life in the small highland villages where a lot of the staff on these expeditions are coming from.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:50 AM on October 10, 2015 [17 favorites]


Hikers who head out on remote trails they're not equipped to deal with. Small-craft pilots who don't file correct flight plans. People crossing the ocean all alone in sailboats.

I've thought about the sailboat one quite a lot, and be miles out in the ocean all alone. There's an element of potential danger and challenge but not in the sense of Russian roulette at all. There a an incredible number of technical challenges in the preparation and execution of offshore sails but the majority of people doing that are older couples. Unless you count being born an example of Russian roulette climbing/flying/hiking/sailing are all safer than many activities. The edge cases like the top of Everest are outliers.

Rolland Petite was in a very real sense, statistical and otherwise much safer on his walk between the buildings safer than most of the pedestrians staring at him from below. I wonder what the mortality of the onlookers was in the next few years from auto accidents.
posted by sammyo at 5:22 AM on October 10, 2015


For many families, the act of performing a funeral for their loved ones brings a powerful and needed sense of closure. Actually seeing the actual body of your son or husband or brother or uncle or father being placed into the ground, or slid into a crematorium, or dropped into the sea or whatever other funerary rite you believe in, underscores for you at a visceral level that "he is gone and is never coming back". And having that kind of visceral reminder can help you come to grips with the grieving process better.

This is not an argument, this is merely emotional sophistry. It doesn't avoid my point that it is mere superstition, and secondly that people die in all kinds of situations where there is no "body" to bury undermines the "value" of spending so much money (suggested at $70,000) and risking the lives of numerous people to give a family "closure" - a dubious notion in itself that seems mostly to persist in the west due to hollywood.


Moreover - yes, the nickname "Green Boots" does indeed comment upon human folly. But his name was actually Tsewang Paljor. And I suspect his family would much rather the world know him by that name.

Yes, Thats true. But I"m sure there are many families and individuals who would prefer to be known by their name rather than some folly for which they have renown. It is only due to this very fact that its true absurdity of "Green Boots" in rendered manifest.
posted by mary8nne at 5:52 AM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


Recovering the bodies should be a side project of the Mars colony environmental outstation test site.

(well the station that should be set up, if folks can live without outside supplies for a couple years at the top of Everest they'll stand a pretty good chance on Mars).
posted by sammyo at 6:07 AM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


I understand why the family would want the body back. I don't understand why you'd want the body back at the risk of many other lives (see also underwater caving, sailing near Antarctica, etc).

That said, if you feel you want to risk your own life for a corpse, I don't really see how it's worse than risking your life to summit Everest.
posted by jeather at 7:06 AM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


This is not an argument, this is merely emotional sophistry. It doesn't avoid my point that it is mere superstition

This took me back to the very earliest days of being an undergraduate. Humans are much more emotionally complicated things than this.
posted by Nevin at 7:12 AM on October 10, 2015 [20 favorites]


This is not an argument, this is merely emotional sophistry. It doesn't avoid my point that it is mere superstition, and secondly that people die in all kinds of situations where there is no "body" to bury undermines the "value" of spending so much money (suggested at $70,000) and risking the lives of numerous people to give a family "closure" - a dubious notion in itself that seems mostly to persist in the west due to hollywood.

So, the motivation of "showing compassion to a grieving family" isn't sufficient for you?

There are plenty of things that bring comfort to people that I find silly, but I like to think that I would have the compassion to leave them to it rather than calling their desires "superstitions".

I"m sure there are many families and individuals who would prefer to be known by their name rather than some folly for which they have renown. It is only due to this very fact that its true absurdity of "Green Boots" in rendered manifest.

....And again, it is compassion for the grieving family that - for me, at least - negates any need to "let his death serve as a lesson". Especially since it probably wasn't Tsewang's own folly which lead him to Everest - it was the folly of others. He was being paid to do a job, and he only took a job with this level of risk because of financial need. Tsewang didn't join the expedition to Everest because he personally wanted glory, he joined that expedition because he needed money and he was hired to be there. Which is all the more reason why his actual name should be known, rather than saying that he should be known as "Green Boots" because of "human folly".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:25 AM on October 10, 2015 [11 favorites]


> So I think the moral questions at the top of Everest are pretty murky, too. Should you give up
> your summit bid to help that climber you don't know? Should you do it even if you can't save
> them?

Saving a life, or even trying to and failing, seems so much more significant to me than achieving any sort of arbitrary benchmark. If your neighbor comes to you in panic and says "My toddler swallowed a little toy car and he's choking and turning blue!" you just don't say "Sorry, I'm in the middle of trying to set a new personal best number of chin-ups. You shouldn't have let him have choking-size toys." That's a ridiculous example but it's meant to be so because in any such clear choice between going for the save and going about your business, whatever it may be, your business is less important.

(Implicitly appended IMHO and twelve dense paragraphs of But What Abouts.)
posted by jfuller at 7:30 AM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


the man of twists and turns: I've been situations where the air I was breathing was nonstandard, though not mountain climbing, and the hardest part is that your thinking gets fucked up to the point that you don't realize your thinking is fucked up.

My family was on an small airplane in Peru, where you used the oxygen masks just to get through the flight, which we didn't realize even as others were doing that. My brother looked back at our mom and said "mom, your lips are turning blue." Once breathing oxygen, we realized how hazy we had felt, and we were just sitting still, not exerting ourselves at all. Climbing where you need oxygen? I'm not ready to say "nope," but the idea of climbing over a mountain of trash just made Everest seem really unappealing.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:37 AM on October 10, 2015


So, the motivation of "showing compassion to a grieving family" isn't sufficient for you?


So you would risk more lives, which may then require again compassionate recovery missions to return the bodies of those sent to collect the bodies of those sent.. ...where will it end? all for a bit of "closure"?

Tsewang didn't join the expedition to Everest because he personally wanted glory, he joined that expedition because he needed money and he was hired to be there.

That's not what is suggested by the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsewang_Paljor

'His brother Thinley was quoted as saying after Paljor's death, "He’d just passed his health exam, and he was so excited to go to Tibet. He wasn’t nervous at all. He was really happy about all of this."[2]'
posted by mary8nne at 7:57 AM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


If your neighbor comes to you in panic and says "My toddler swallowed a little toy car and he's choking and turning blue!" ...

BUT.... If my neighbour was on mount everest with his toddler when he swallowed the toy car, I might have second thoughts about putting my life in even greater risk, in order to save some idiot who brought a toddler up mount everest.
posted by mary8nne at 8:02 AM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


Saving a life, or even trying to and failing, seems so much more significant to me than achieving any sort of arbitrary benchmark.

It totally is. But "Hey I am doing this thing with a very high chance of dying and whoops I am about to die unless you risk your life even more to save mine" has a different calculus. It isn't that it becomes wrong to save them, but increasing the casualty count and decreasing the responder count is generally not a good idea.
posted by jeather at 8:32 AM on October 10, 2015


So you would risk more lives, which may then require again compassionate recovery missions to return the bodies of those sent to collect the bodies of those sent.. ...where will it end? all for a bit of "closure"?

I do agree that the costs and benefits of retrieving bodies must be weighed before making a decision, but, to be clear, you are calling the very human emotional need to retrieve the bodies of loved ones "merely emotional sophistry" and "mere superstition."

That's pretty harsh, and does not reflect at least my understanding of what it means to be human to have a real connection or bond with others.
posted by Nevin at 8:47 AM on October 10, 2015 [7 favorites]


If it's too dangerous to recover the bodies of the dead, what the hell are people doing going there recreationally? Yes, many people are there to make a living, but it's driven by the need of others to have a special experience. The very wealthy have always done this stuff, and now the pool of people wealthy enough for this is pretty big. They should just tax this even more than they already do. Permits should cost 250,000, and the money should be used to improves the lives of the people of the area, and maybe a little of it to clean up some of the trash.

It must be horribly sad for Tsewang Paljor's family to know that he is called Green Boots and that hikers walk over his body. I'm not wildly concerned about what happens to my body when I die, but if that was my son/ brother/ cousin, I would be sad.
posted by theora55 at 8:48 AM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


If it's too dangerous to recover the bodies of the dead, what the hell are people doing going there recreationally?

I remember reading a message board discussion about Into Thin Air where someone claiming to be from Nepal called the mountain cursed. She said that the mountain is sacred and is a deity, and as such exerts tremendous pull on humanity. But it is a sacred mountain and, according to the commenter, has been defiled by Western (ie, non-Nepalese) climbers.
posted by Nevin at 8:50 AM on October 10, 2015


mary8nne: "I find the concern over "respect" for the bodies so odd. That anyone would risk their life to collect / return a dead body attests to the persistence of a kind of mystical, superstition around the dead for most people. What point does this obsession with the body serve? "

I'm actually glad this continued as a conversation overnight because I have Thoughts.

So, caring for the dead is one of our most profound human needs. In fact, many anthropologists use it as one of the cut-off points for deciding when we become "human." Only a very small number of animals have (or had) funeral rites -- homo sapiens, elephants, Neanderthals, homo heidelbergensis, and apparently our new cousins homo naledi. (Chimpanzees and bonobos seems to have some mourning practices at least some of the time, in the immediate aftermath of death, but aren't too worried about the dead body itself after it's removed from their living area. Elephants, by contrast, will go back and visit the bones of their matriarchs even years later. Dolphins will guard a dead body for several days and fight off attempts to retrieve it but obviously can't bury it or make it stay put and eventually leave it to decay.)

The urge to care for the dead may well be a side-effect of consciousness, in terms of our ability to think about ourselves as people and ponder our own existence. It is one of the very few practices that occurs universally across humanity throughout all of history and in all cultures and religions. The worst thing you could do to a convicted criminal in the Renaissance wasn't execute him -- it was execute him and then give his body to scientists to dissect. Desecration of a grave is a crime in most of the world -- even if nobody knows whose grave it is and none of their descendants are living! Who's the victim? Humanity, apparently -- it's so distressing to us as human animals when someone defiles a grave that it is a criminal act. And not one that anybody is arguing needs to have sentencing reduced: people universally find it horrifying and worthy of punishment.

One of the difficulties early organ donation ran into was people's deep sense that it was, in some fashion, disrespectful to the body of the dead. Even today you frequently have a person who wants to donate, and a family who (once they are dead) refuses because of their deep emotional sense that it is a wrong way to treat the body of a loved one. Educating people about organ donation helps somewhat, but it's really difficult to get people to think rationally when their deepest emotions, like grief, are activated. What does help is creating rituals of death and mourning around the organ donation process so that people can experience the body being treated with respect.

Something that appears in many ancient religious and ethical texts is an injunction not to save or honor the dead at the expense of the living. Frequently it is left to a god to make this point, because we tell each other this is the right and rational thing to do (leave the body, save ourselves), but we still do the dumb thing (go back for the body) and we require a super-human authority like God to say, "No, your rational, ethical decision about this is correct even though you feel super-bad about it and I will backstop you on this one. In fact I'll issue an order to try to make you stop doing the dumb thing." We still do the dumb thing.

So it's not "just" a superstition, like "haha, don't open an umbrella in the house!" It's superstitious in that it's irrational, yes, but it's an impulse that deserves far more respect than "just" a superstition, since it is one of our oldest, most profound, and most human impulses. We probably can't be human without it. And while that doesn't mean we should be going back for bodies on Everest -- we shouldn't -- it means that we can't short-circuit that discussion by saying, "GUYS THIS IS DUMB IT'S JUST A DEAD BODY NOBODY'S IN IT ANYMORE." It doesn't work even when an omnipotent God says "Guys, this is dumb, stop it."

Probably the better question is, "How can we show respect for this dead body that we cannot safely retrieve, in such a way that people will quit trying to retrieve it because they are able to accept the body is at rest?" In the case of Green Boots or other Everest climbers, it might be possible to carry up a lightweight plastic grave-marker analog that can be easily driven into the ground that has their name and dates and a ritual death phrase of some sort (like "rest in peace," but as culturally appropriate and probably something poetic about mountains). Or it may be possible to carry up to them a death offering of some sort (coins, plastic flowers, a stone), or a very lightweight pall that can cover part of the body and conceal it from the living (this helps a lot).

But yeah, unless you're able to shove them into a crevasse -- which actually registers as more respectful than just leaving them where they fell -- you're going to have an ongoing problem with people wanting to go back after the bodies. Because there are seven billion people on the planet and we all feel pretty strongly about how we need to care for our dead and we're not all going to be able to override that fundamental impulse all of the time and some portion of that seven billion is going to be willing to do crazy-dangerous things to get the bodies back. Whether it's a mountaineering accident or a diving accident or leaving Mark Watney on Mars, people always go back, no matter how much you urge them not to. It's going to keep happening until the bodies are perceived to be at rest.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:25 AM on October 10, 2015 [81 favorites]


BUT.... If my neighbour was on mount everest with his toddler when he swallowed the toy car, I might have second thoughts about putting my life in even greater risk, in order to save some idiot who brought a toddler up mount everest.

Don't be obtuse.

And for the rest I'll just point at what Eyebrows McGee just said and say "that."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:42 AM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


I've been addicted to climbing novels since Into Thin Air as well; honestly it's the same thing as reading about the Apollo missions and we're not going to see any new stories about those.

That having been said, I've never read anything written by an actual climber who believes that a person who decides to sit down exhausted, out of oxygen, frostbitten, and injured in the Death Zone is anything but a goner. They all know the score. In fact, climbers have radioed down to base camp to inform their team that they are going to stop and wait for death. Literally, the astronauts on Apollo 13 had a better shot at saving themselves -- they were uninjured, thinking clearly, and were better oxygenated. Further, there was no temptation to send others after them in a futile hope that would certainly mean the deaths of additional astronauts. Beck Weathers was the profound exception -- and he had people basically carrying him up, then when shit got bad, there were several people who did think to help him and assessed that he was unsavable and left him to die. He finally made it out on his own power. Nearly every mountain survival story that takes place in an extremely isolated place like Everest ends with the victim having to find a way to help themselves or they die. I feel like there's an understanding in places like Everest that each climber has made that commitment that, as hard as you prepare and train, ultimately the mountain decides whether you summit or not, or whether you survive or not. Each of your fellow climbers makes that same commitment, or if they didn't, they will certainly kill you if try to bring them down.

I like this graphic that came out of an earlier Reddit thread: why they die.

Now, as to whether you *should* make that commitment, that's a whole huge question, and one that is hugely important in the climbing community, since even before the first big Everest disaster. It's certainly problematic that money and privilege gets you on the mountain in the first place. I think these climber-tourists really believe they are making the all-in commitment to live or die, but they definitely lack the perspective of a climber who has been on the mountain year after year, in all conditions, and watched experienced colleagues who made no mistakes and died anyway. And the introduction of vast amounts of money (more than 100,000 dollars per ascent attempt) really changes what climbers are willing tolerate on the mountain. I mean, this is money that pays for a Sherpas' daughter's life saving surgery, or clean drinking water for a village. And it's not like the tourist climbers are totally inexperienced.

In Seattle, mountaineering is like what golf is in a lot of other places. It's a hobby for mostly affluent people, it's something you can do on a day off, there are clubs where you can surround yourself with like minded people who share your experience and values. There's bound to be people who are relatively new to the sport but who find themselves quickly quite proficient in the Cascades and climbing in the Himalayas seems like an achievable goal.

A doctor friend of mine has been climbing the 7 highest peaks on the 7 continents and he'd completed everything (including Mt. Vinson on Antarctica) except Everest. His wife is a fabulously wealthy best selling author, this sort of hobby is well outside of mere doctor money. He'd never climbed in his life until 15 years ago, at age 30, but he's passionate about it. He's in incredible shape. He sleeps in an oxygen tent at home, pushing out those extra red blood cells. He also has 2 school age children, and a job where he does a great deal of good in the world. As he was planning his Everest the risk of death or major disability for climbers was actually close to 10% per ascent attempt. Everyone expressed to him this was a foolhardy thing to put his family through and that's what sticks with me, that even though you accept that you could die, and it's up to you to be prepared, so much is outside your control, assuming you make zero bad decisions, it just strikes me as an incredibly selfish thing to do. If you had the means to do this kind of thing, you could do so much more for conservation, for the Nepalese people, and still experience the majesty of nature and oh by the way not risk leaving your children fatherless.

As it turned out, my friend was at base camp when the big earthquake hit. All climbing was cancelled, he was out $80,000. He was stuck up there for a while but when they finally got helicopters going, western tourists were the first evacuees. There was no attempt to enlist him in recovery efforts, nor do I think there was a need for someone with his skill set. If any of this made an impact on him, I don't know. He hasn't made plans to go again yet, but like everyone else who's made it this close to their goal, I suspect the temptation, despite all the signs telling him to do otherwise, will be too much to resist.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:47 AM on October 10, 2015 [14 favorites]


Moreover - yes, the nickname "Green Boots" does indeed comment upon human folly. But his name was actually Tsewang Paljor. And I suspect his family would much rather the world know him by that name.

Though it's only briefly mentioned in this article, I believe there's still debate over Green Boots's identity, which is one of the reasons he's referred to by nickname.
posted by Yoko Ono's Advice Column at 10:07 AM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


I thought about it some more while I did the dishes, the question of why that mary8nne asked -- what point does it serve?

All of the animals mentioned as having burial rites (humans, elephants, human ancestors) are highly social animals that live in complex social groups and that rely on those groups to survive. My expertise is in religious liturgy, and wherever you find strange human liturgies or celebrations or customs, the "point" is almost always ritual maintenance of community (accomplished in two general ways -- routine liturgies like weekly church attendance or daily prayer or a yearly cycle of celebrations, and in celebrations of transitions such as birth, marriage, adulthood, and death). Humans spend a lot of time on ritual maintenance of community, even down to things like small talk, which at base is an exchange of "Hello, fellow human, I am using my words to say inane things about the weather rather than punching you in the face. Do you also wish to return this ritual of human recognition and confirmation of peaceful intent?" "Why yes, fellow human, I do. I also have noticed there is weather, and do not wish to get into any face-punching today." "How nice that we are both humans and recognize each other as members of a group we should not punch in the face." "Yes, we shall not face-punch today, and also it is raining." As a highly social creatures, we spend a lot of time initiating and testing social connections to ensure that our communities remain whole, safe, and unthreatened, and that we are still embedded in that community.

Death rites are definitely the oldest ritual we have evidence for (because buried bodies can be archaeologically discovered) and it's plausible (even likely) that they're the oldest and first ritual that conscious, social creatures engage in. So I would hypothesize that the reason it is so intensely distressing when a body is left behind is that it's a visible break in the human community, a person who has been excluded from the tribe. Death rites say, "Don't worry, if you die, I won't leave you to be mauled by wild dogs -- you can be assured you are part of this community to death and beyond." So I think it makes us so universally uneasy not because of beliefs about the afterlife or anything, but because an untended body says, "This person died alone" or "This person was outside their community and not worthy of death rites." It say, "This person was -- deliberately or accidentally -- cut off from the tribe of humanity." That is literally the most dangerous thing that can happen to a human person, both physically (we are not self-sufficient creatures; we are community-sufficient; a human alone is a human who's gonna die) and emotionally (highly social creatures who need their tribe to survive do not do well emotionally without one). A body left untended after death is a physical sign of our most existential threat. Something has gone horribly wrong. The community has, in some fashion, broken down -- maybe everyone else is dead of disease and he was going for help. Maybe they all fled and he couldn't keep up. Maybe this guy was a murderer and expelled. Maybe he got lost and couldn't be found. Every scenario in which a body is just left there is, for humans, existentially terrifying.

So we probably can't ever get comfortable with just leaving bodies on the mountain, even if we know we should, and the point this compulsion to care for dead bodies serves -- the "why" of it -- is this ritual maintenance of human community, without which we aren't a creature that survives on the earth.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:09 AM on October 10, 2015 [60 favorites]


In my Introduction to Cultural Anthropology class on undergrad, the professor was a demographer and anthropologist who worked with Tibetans in highland Nepal.

GEOFF. he and sienna have done some really interesting stuff in the past few years wrt trying to revitalize rural nepali communities.

posted by poffin boffin at 10:48 AM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


2: According to the second article, someone (possibly the Chinese Mountaineering Association) has removed Green Boots and some of the other bodies from the North side of Everest. ...

When I read this from monotreme I went looking for a particular kind of thing in the BBC article, and I found it:
As the eldest son, Paljor no doubt felt pressured to provide for his family, which was struggling to make ends meet at their modest farm. So after completing 10th grade, he quit school and tried out for the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), whose sprawling campus was located in nearby Leh, Ladakh’s dusty capital. Formed in 1962 in response to increasing hostilities from China, the men who serve in that armed force specialise in high altitude landscapes – a necessity given that India’s border with its domineering neighbour stretches across the Himalayas. To Paljor and his family’s delight, he made the cut.
I think it's highly probable that the Chinese removed Paljor/Green Boots body to forestall or cut short any use of it as a rallying point for the forces arrayed against them.
posted by jamjam at 11:20 AM on October 10, 2015


Re: Eyebrows McGee on "ritual maintenance of community" and superstition.

I think you are mistaking the historical existence of a particular practices with necessity. I don't really buy into these emotional notions of "humanity" or picking out particular practices as "what it means to be human". There is a species of animal, the human, whatever we happen to do is what humans do.

Certainly the ritual focus on death is a good way to instil in the people a certain sense of responsibility to tradition. It's an effective "platonic noble lie" that maintains order, personal responsibility etc... But you would have to be a bit of sucker to go up Everest just to give someone a proper burial.

I suppose its just that I feel there are more rational ways to organise and motivate society. Couldn't we at least try the rational approach for a bit? If it doesn't work -- yeah sure we can go back to myths and ritual.
posted by mary8nne at 12:54 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


One of the more interesting things about this article is that it does not include any photos of corpses.
posted by CCBC at 1:28 PM on October 10, 2015 [4 favorites]


When did it become OK to group all the humans up there into "individuals" and "Sherpas"? [...] I wish journalists would call everyone climbers.

I actually disagree with this in theory, because Sherpas are far more than climbers. They do probably at least 3x more work than climbers do, fixing ropes, carrying gear, guiding climbers and providing for their basic needs, acting as rescue teams, and considering the risk of being in certain areas like the Khumbu Icefall, they are putting themselves in far more danger when they go there to set up ropes and ladders, both because of the time they spend there and also because they're the first there in the season. All of this opposed to the climbers, who are just trekking through.

So if people actually paid respect to what 'Sherpa' means I'd push pretty hard that we maintain the use of that word. But as it is the current distinction as you see it in most media seems like it only exists to basically dehumanize them and put the climbers in the spotlight. Which is beyond upsetting.
posted by nogoodverybad at 1:40 PM on October 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


Oh. Meant also to mention regarding the trash mentioned upthread, this year was meant to be the start of the Indian army's initiative to clean up Mt. Everest, but the Nepalese earthquake shut the mountain down for the season. I'm not sure if they're planning to just pick up on it next season.

The Nepalese government had vague plans to work on the Nepalese side as well, but most people were blaming government corruption on why nothing solid has happened on that front for a few years. Who knows when/if it'll happen now.
posted by nogoodverybad at 1:52 PM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


> I suppose its just that I feel there are more rational ways to organise and motivate society.

People who "feel there are more rational ways to organise and motivate society" have perpetrated more horrors in the last century than all the religious fanatics combined. I'm not saying that's on you, just saying you might want to rethink the value of (your idea of ) rationality as some kind of magic trump card.
posted by languagehat at 2:04 PM on October 10, 2015 [15 favorites]


I've been addicted to climbing novels since Into Thin Air as well

I know! It is soooo much easier than climbing mountains, this afternoon I clambered onto a David Mitchell and if I can summon up the energy tomorrow I may well get on to a couple of Martin Amis's and get something off the high shelf while I am up there.
posted by biffa at 2:10 PM on October 10, 2015 [11 favorites]


The gigapixel image of Everest in part two of the BBC story is pretty staggering when you start panning and zooming.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:13 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


I suppose its just that I feel there are more rational ways to organise and motivate society. Couldn't we at least try the rational approach for a bit?

Rational being defined, I suppose, as what YOU think is an appropriate sense of priorities, rather than what the rest of humanity thinks.
posted by KathrynT at 2:26 PM on October 10, 2015 [6 favorites]


So if people actually paid respect to what 'Sherpa' means I'd push pretty hard that we maintain the use of that word. But as it is the current distinction as you see it in most media seems like it only exists to basically dehumanize them and put the climbers in the spotlight. Which is beyond upsetting.

I completely agree.
posted by schroedinger at 3:34 PM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


instead of climbing everest, just do this instead.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:20 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


I would love to just be in visual range of the mountain sometime. I'm wowed by the average big city skyline. Looking at a natural wonder 29,029 feet in the air has to be awe inspiring. There is no way a picture or a book can even take you anywhere close to appreciating it. I'll skip the walk up though.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:58 PM on October 10, 2015


When did it become OK to group all the humans up there into "individuals" and "Sherpas"?

When, in the context of mountaineering at least, it also became the name for a full-time profession with a high level of expertise, like, say, flying instructor. In fact, even more - like nogoodverybad says above, they do a lot more than climbers and know the mountains a lot better. They're better than climbers. It would be very disrespectful to erase that distinction (and nevermind the fact they are a distinct ethnic group in Nepal).
posted by bitteschoen at 12:17 AM on October 11, 2015 [4 favorites]


Probably the ideal solution would be to give the names of the professional mountain climbers (which is to say, the Sherpas) and withhold the names of their amateur clients.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:37 AM on October 11, 2015 [2 favorites]


and to then get back to jumping wallpaper Everest with a browser-window motorcycle.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:37 AM on October 11, 2015


Knowing all that, I still haven't found a better model for a lot of their behavior than to view it as a specialized form of suicidal ideation.

I can understand that impression about modern mountain climbing, especially as portrayed in the general media which obviously focuses more on tragic cases and especially as it's become associated to the category of "extreme sports", but I find that characterization unfair to the entire history of mountaineering in the world.

Maybe it's just my background, I grew up in Northern Italy and was often in the Dolomite mountains as a kid, and my parents both did a lot of trekking when they were younger, and there is such a huge respect there for the tradition of mountain climbing. We all grew up knowing the names of people like Reinhold Messner and Walter Bonatti, who both did the kind of feats that you may associate with that impression of craziness but still, one is very much alive and and the other died of old age. It's not people I'd ever think of even slightly as irresponsible and driven by ego and narcissism and suicidal traits or anything like that, they belong to a tradition of love and passion and respect for the mountains and local environment and culture.
(Add to that the association of those areas and of mountain climbing to the role of the Alpini corps, that also makes mountaineering something sort of sacred in Italian history.)

I've read Krakauer's books and lots of articles about the whole development of Everest climbing in recent decades, and that in my mind has little to do with all that history, it's become such a massive commercial enterprise. It's put a bad name on it and unfairly so. There isn't just Everest, there are so many people going climbing all over the world out of that same old-school approach, who we may have never heard of. I've never did more than all-day trekking in the Dolomites on safe paths accessible to everyone, but once you've been up there right below the highest peaks and you've been going non stop for hours and you look around and actually see people doing rock climbing on the summit it's just amazing, you totally get it, you know why they're doing it and call me a romantic but I think of it as one of the highest noblest pursuits of humankind, even as it seems to fulfil no purpose, maybe because of it, but the purpose is in doing it, it's almost a religious experience. It's just beautiful.

It's nice when the media still gives us a reminder of that spirit and beauty of climbing instead of focusing entirely on the tragedies and exploitation of Everest.
posted by bitteschoen at 1:25 AM on October 11, 2015 [24 favorites]


You put that really well, bitteschoen, thank you.
posted by daisyk at 4:40 AM on October 11, 2015


From the second article linked:

“I just pray that my mom will never know about the Green Boots thing,” Thinley [Tsewang Paljor's brother] says. “She would be very, very, very upset. I can’t even imagine.”

Holy shit this gave me absolute chills. To not know that your son's dead body was lying up there for years, exposed to the elements, used as a marker for Everest climbers. The thought of that poor woman accidentally finding that out was probably the most disturbing thing in this very fascinating and disturbing pair of articles. I pray she never finds out, either.
posted by Ziggy500 at 2:45 AM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


PS: Fantastic comment, bitteschoen.
posted by Ziggy500 at 2:48 AM on October 13, 2015


I've never did more than all-day trekking in the Dolomites on safe paths accessible to everyone, but once you've been up there right below the highest peaks and you've been going non stop for hours and you look around and actually see people doing rock climbing on the summit it's just amazing, you totally get it, you know why they're doing it and call me a romantic but I think of it as one of the highest noblest pursuits of humankind, even as it seems to fulfil no purpose, maybe because of it, but the purpose is in doing it, it's almost a religious experience. It's just beautiful.

This is a good comment.

I hope what I said above didn't convey a dismissal of climbing. I'm no climber and I almost certainly never will be. I'm more or less a lazy hiker at best. But I've done a handful of 14ers, and hope to do more, and I have seldom felt more completely alive than during my time in the mountains. After a decade in proximity to the Colorado Rockies, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people with the skill and courage to explore the ends of that environment.

I am just conscious that the mountains will kill you, if you let them, or if you get unlucky enough, and there is an undeniable aspect of riding the edge of a readily available mortality in the course of exploring the ends of that environment. Without reference to Everest, that's still true, and still part of the dynamic as far as I can tell for all sorts of people who are I'm sure aware of the tradition they're participating in.

I won't deny its beauty for an instant, but of course it's crazy. Lots of beautiful things are at least a little crazy.
posted by brennen at 9:00 AM on October 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


« Older Judgemental Reviews Of Common Pasta Shapes   |   Corner coup Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments