Take a photo of a barcode or cover
chrysemys 's review for:
I never read Mortenson's books and I don't think I will. Reader reviews of Three Cups of Tea have convinced me that it is severely lacking as a literary work. Krakauer has convinced me that Mortenson is, at best, a massively self-deluded attention seeker and at worst, an egomaniacal con artist. Reading this in October, 2020, he reminds me of a certain prominent figure.
I really would have liked to have learned a bit more about Mortenson's earlier years from friends, classmates, teachers, but I suppose that's beyond the scope of Krakauer's piece.
A few thoughts I had reading this book and criticisms of it:
-It's a hit piece and was absolutely written by a person with an ax to grind. But although anger is not the best place from which to start a journalistic project, Krakauer's book was not meant to be the definitive history of the subject. It was supposed to draw attention to a problem. It did.
-I am so glad we are becoming more savvy about the charities to which we donate, although people are still conned with depressing frequency. I hope nonprofits are also becoming better at transparency and planning, although I imagine this will remain hit and miss.
-If Mortenson's primary goal had been to help educate kids in rural Pakistan, he would not have fabricated all this bullshit to help sell his story. To be perfectly clear--a lot of the stories were not embellishment, they were complete bullshit. I have a real problem with blurring the lines between autobiography and fiction to use as a fucking fundraising tool. That's what charlatans do. "They never claimed it was true" is the most weak-sauce argument you could come up with. They also never revealed it was propaganda. If your own truth isn't interesting or exciting enough to sell books and raise money, well, find a partner whose story is compelling enough. Especially for a charity... if you're tapping into people's earnest desires to do good, they deserve the truth, not a novel... and they'll turn on you if they realize you've been recounting a fiction designed to manipulate them. How could a person not realize this tactic is not sustainable? One deliberate "fiction" casts doubt on everything else you say, and worse, everything every other charity says. Worst of all, people on the ground in Pakistan were negatively affected by some of his claims.
-Furthermore, if helping people had been his primary objective--even if he had been a complete dumbass about money--he wouldn't have enriched himself to the tune of millions of dollars. It's right in the title: "nonprofit organization." He's entitled to a salary, but if you go into charity to get rich, it isn't a charity.
-Some people have said that his lies got people to donate to a good cause, so they were, on balance, okay. It makes me think of all the counterfeit relics of medieval Christendom. The thought among a lot of learned and devout people in those times was that if it makes believers feel all spiritual, it doesn't matter if it is a finger of a dead farmer from a couple towns over or if it's the digit of one of the apostles. I disagree with this point of view. When holy people lie to you--then tell you lying is a sin--what conclusion can you come to other than religion is a crock?
-We also don't know how good this cause actually was from this text: alas, Krakauer didn't/couldn't provide statistics about how many of these schools were in operation, how many students they served, etc. Hopefully CAI has cleaned up its act since Mortenson's departure.
-It seems quite clear that this was a poorly conceived operation and Mortenson never should have been the boss of anything.
I really would have liked to have learned a bit more about Mortenson's earlier years from friends, classmates, teachers, but I suppose that's beyond the scope of Krakauer's piece.
A few thoughts I had reading this book and criticisms of it:
-It's a hit piece and was absolutely written by a person with an ax to grind. But although anger is not the best place from which to start a journalistic project, Krakauer's book was not meant to be the definitive history of the subject. It was supposed to draw attention to a problem. It did.
-I am so glad we are becoming more savvy about the charities to which we donate, although people are still conned with depressing frequency. I hope nonprofits are also becoming better at transparency and planning, although I imagine this will remain hit and miss.
-If Mortenson's primary goal had been to help educate kids in rural Pakistan, he would not have fabricated all this bullshit to help sell his story. To be perfectly clear--a lot of the stories were not embellishment, they were complete bullshit. I have a real problem with blurring the lines between autobiography and fiction to use as a fucking fundraising tool. That's what charlatans do. "They never claimed it was true" is the most weak-sauce argument you could come up with. They also never revealed it was propaganda. If your own truth isn't interesting or exciting enough to sell books and raise money, well, find a partner whose story is compelling enough. Especially for a charity... if you're tapping into people's earnest desires to do good, they deserve the truth, not a novel... and they'll turn on you if they realize you've been recounting a fiction designed to manipulate them. How could a person not realize this tactic is not sustainable? One deliberate "fiction" casts doubt on everything else you say, and worse, everything every other charity says. Worst of all, people on the ground in Pakistan were negatively affected by some of his claims.
-Furthermore, if helping people had been his primary objective--even if he had been a complete dumbass about money--he wouldn't have enriched himself to the tune of millions of dollars. It's right in the title: "nonprofit organization." He's entitled to a salary, but if you go into charity to get rich, it isn't a charity.
-Some people have said that his lies got people to donate to a good cause, so they were, on balance, okay. It makes me think of all the counterfeit relics of medieval Christendom. The thought among a lot of learned and devout people in those times was that if it makes believers feel all spiritual, it doesn't matter if it is a finger of a dead farmer from a couple towns over or if it's the digit of one of the apostles. I disagree with this point of view. When holy people lie to you--then tell you lying is a sin--what conclusion can you come to other than religion is a crock?
-We also don't know how good this cause actually was from this text: alas, Krakauer didn't/couldn't provide statistics about how many of these schools were in operation, how many students they served, etc. Hopefully CAI has cleaned up its act since Mortenson's departure.
-It seems quite clear that this was a poorly conceived operation and Mortenson never should have been the boss of anything.