Re[2]: [at-l] Boredom (was Bryson's bookl)

[rafe.bustin@verizon.net (Raphael Bustin)]

--
At 08:53 PM 9/14/2002 -0400, Weary wrote:

[Clark:]
"...when  you  hear someone who has hiked the entire AT talk about how much
they
were into the plants, animals, scenery, etc., and how much that kept them
going,
ask yourself this, simple question ...." says cynic Clark.


 > Hmmm.  I find it most fascinating that hikers who enjoy the trail are
considered
 > fibbers or worse.


That's an unnecessarily harsh interpretation of Clarks' post,
doncha think?  I suspect everyone on this list -- myself included --
enjoys the trail, to some extent.  But not all of us claim to have
enjoyed "every moment."


 > DEspite  all  the  talk  on  this  list  about loving the outdoors and
hiking, I
 > suspect  the  criticism  confirms  my  suspicion  that most do the trail
for the
 > purpose  of conquering the trail -- of achieving a challenge. It may
also be the
 > reason why only a handful participate in the advocacy list. If the trail
is only
 > a challenge to be achieved, aside from complaints about PUDS, there is
no reason
 > to worry about preserving wildness or trail buffers.


You're onto something here, for sure.  Is a through hike a
quest, or a conquest?

There is no question that when I started in Springer, it was
at least in part to "achieving a challenge."  If it weren't for
that, I could have stuck to my usual short jaunts in the White
Mountains or the Adirondacks.

I have often said, on this list and back on ATML, that the
"aberration" is through-hiking -- not the Trail itself.  We
all know that through-hiking was far, far from the minds
of either Avery or MacKaye.   Through-hiking had nothing
to do with the original mission of the AT.

And I still agree with Clark's point.  If it were the simple
love of nature that turns you on, why bother building and
maintaining a 2168 mile long trail?

Why not just support the Nature Conservancy, instead of
the ATC?

And while we're at it...  is the Trail about wildness, or is it
about recreation?  Clearly, some feel it would be a lot more
pleasant if it were a bit less wild.


 > I  was  surprised  in '93 about the great number of hikers who hated
their daily
 > regime  --  who  just  wanted  to get to Katahdin -- or Springer -- so
the agony
 > would end.


Indeed.  As Bryson says, hiking the AT is a voluntary
activity -- so why do it if it isn't fun, eh?

But seriously..  consider the irony of the title of Bryson's
book (A Walk In The Woods).  Used in the common sense,
it denotes recreation and the enjoyment of nature at a pleasant,
leisurely pace.  But a thru-hike is something else again.


 > No,  I  didn't hike every inch of the trail. I was several hundred miles
into my
 > walk  before  it  dawned on me that some hikers considered white blazes
-- those
 > things  I  had  spent  a  lifetime locating, painting and relocating --
had some
 > special mystique about them.


Why would that mystify you?  The AT *is* very special --
it is such an intensely grand and ambitious concept.
Skeptic that I am, I still find myself reverently touching
blazes now and then, as I hike.  I feel like I'm part of
something very noble and very grand.

When I stood on Whitecap Mountain, I knew that what I
was doing, seeing, and feeling was unique in the extreme.
It made me feel very special, and very privileged -- and
humble.  It was damn nigh religious, I tell you.


 > Could  I  have  found more enjoyment hiking elsewhere, as Clark
suggests? I have
 > hiked  elsewhere and enjoyed those walks also. But the six months I
spent on the
 > AT  was  just  an  incredible fun experience, one I never for a moment
regretted
 > attempting.


Even I, skeptic and curmudgeon, never for one millisecond
regretted my thru-hike attempt.  It was the quitting that I regret.


rafe b.
aka terrapin
--

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 9/4/2002