Re[8]: [at-l] Speed Hiking

[spiriteagle99@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

>Jim: This is getting absurd. I quoted MacKaye. You said I "did misquote
>Mackaye," but you also say no one disagrees that he said what I quoted him
>as saying.

LOL!!  Yup - I told you it was absurd a couple posts ago.  But let's see if
we can clarify a few things and finish this up.  OTOH - the discussion is
directly related to the history of the Trail rather than Trail politics and
therefore should be on-topic for this list.
As for "misquoting" - it's as much a "misquote" to use words in the wrong
context with the wrong references as it is to use the wrong words.  Either
one conveys the wrong meaning.

>You now say, "There were no speed hikers until 1973 - at least." And that
>"MacKaye, therefore, did NOT have an opinion about speed hikers."

Yup - told you that almost 2 years ago.  My story hasn't changed.  But he
had an opinion about thruhikers - that we're ALL goats. <VBG>

Uh - while we're here - note the concept that "speed hikers" are
thruhikers - but not all thruhikers are  "speed hikers".  Go back to Logic
101 and remember Venn diagrams.


>Yet somehow MacKaye's biographer reports that in the mid 60s MacKaye
> >became "worried that certain trends -- especially the single-minded
>quests for speed and distance -- violated his vision of the trail's
> >purpose."

Yup - but it had nothing to do with "speed hikers".  He was concerend with
the "explosion" in the number of thruhikers - which was taking place at that
particular time.  First step here is to remember his "purpose".  The main
purpose wasn't hiking - and certainly not thruhiking.  His original vision
was largely concerned with mental health, the substitution of slow-paced
rural life for the perceived madness of the ever-increasing pace of the
urban rat-race.  That was the purpose of the camps - the Trail was to have
been simply a connector between the camps.


>Unless you have evidence that Larry Anderson was in error, and the letter
>to Wirth with the disputed quote doesn't exist, I think it >clear that
>MacKaye had opinions about "speed" hiking at least as he >defined speed
>hiking.

Yes - and no.  The term "speed hiking" has a specific meaning - it was
coined, I believe by HWMNBN, as a pejorative with respect to the 1991 record
attempts.  It applies specifically to those who run or otherwise attempt to
set new records.  Using it to define hikers in MacKaye's lifetime perverts
the meaning of the term, confuses the issue and simply doesn't make sense.
Warren Doyle set a "record" in 1973, but that was not his basic - or
announced - purpose at the time.  He was out there to challenge himself and
he set a "record" in the process. Do we call him a "speed hiker"?  That
would be a stretch but I suppose some might do so.

I have not said Larry Anderson was in error.  What I said was in error was
the application of the term "speed hiking" to the pre-1991 era (or possibly
the pre-1973 era if you want to strech it) and the implication that the
longer the thruhike, the more MacKaye would have approved of it.  I was told
by someone who knew both MacKaye and the history of the matter that MacKaye
considered thruhiking to be a form of "racing through the Trail".  I've
wondered if he'd have felt the same way about a 12 or 18 month thruhike?
But I don't have an answer for that.  Read on ----


>You seem to be arguing that your definition of speed hiking differs from
>that of Benton MacKaye and that your definition is the right one.

I think we just covered some of that, but let's finish it.  MacKaye was a
walker, a hiker.  He was also of much the same attitude as you - he was a
naturalist, a wanderer, curious and inquisitive.  In your words:
"I like to examine each kind of flower I see and identify it if
possible...."  "I like to take photos of bugs, salamanders, strange patterns
of moss on rocks and trees, gnarled trees, photogenic overlooks..."  "I take
time to explore all side trails to scenic overlooks, waterfalls, historic
places, etc."  "I like to explore historic places along the trail and ponder
the lives of those
who once lived in these hills."

And MacKaye would have highly approved of that attitude.  Unfortunately,
being of that state of mind, the "explosion" of thruhiking also bothered him
because thruhiking requires a preoccupation with time and distance that
could - and generally, but not always, does - interfere with the leisurely
examination of the minute detail along the Trail, and therefore with the
slow-paced rural life that MacKaye envisioned for the Trail. Thruhiking, to
his mind, would have equated to, in your own words - "anathema to really
understanding the trail."

You said:  MacKaye became "worried that certain trends -- especially the
single-minded quests for speed and distance -- violated his vision of the
trail's purpose."

Cool - but the extrapolation of that thought into "speed hiking" is
illogical.  MacKaye was "worried that certain trends --".  But there was no
"trend" with regard to "speed hiking" at that time.  Nor is there one today.
  But there was most certainly a "trend" with regard to "thruhiking".
MacKaye was not thinking in terms of "speed hiking" - he was thinking in
terms of the trend at the time which was - thruhiking.  Which he would
therefore have considered "racing."

My belief - and there is no direct and obvious proof in the book that it's
either true or false - is that MacKaye's praise (i.e.- the prize would be
given to the slowest..... ) was directed at the multiple year section
hikers.  Like OB, B&B and others.  And possibly (probably) you.  And that to
confine his displeasure to "speed hikers" would be an illogical
interpretation of his words.  Keeping in mind, of course, the specific
definition of "speed hikers."  YMMV


Previously you wrote:
>The surprise would have been had he offered them in sarcasm and disdain.

The surprise to me would be if MacKaye did not express some opinions "in
sarcasm and disdain."  That would be inconsistent with some of the stories
about MacKaye - and it would diminish his humanity.  While I might not agree
entirely with some of MacKaye's views and ideas, neither would I voluntarily
denigrate him as a human being by denying his memory the full range of human
emotions.  That  would be like denying Grant's alcoholic tendencies - it
would make a full understanding of the man impossible.

Nor would that disdain necessarily translate into enmity between MacKaye and
Earl.  To the best of my knowledge, Warren Doyle and WF are still friends,
as they have been for many years - in spite of Warren's support of "speed
hiking" and the pursuit of records - and WF's disdain for those activities.
The extrapolation from "disdain" for the activity to enmity for the person
does not always follow.

Incidentally - I should correct my own words - in several places in the
past, I have indicated that the person was the object of disdain.  That is
not necessarily universally true.


>Perhaps we can agree that MacKaye had no opinion of speed hiking as you
>define it, though he did have an opinion about speed hiking as he >defined
>the practice.

We can most certainly agree as long as the term "speed hiking" is confined
to the specific activity that it was coined to describe.  And IF we can
agree that MacKaye's concern was - as his own words logically indicate -
with thruhiking and not with activities that didn't even occur in his
lifetime.

As a sidebar - one of the bones I'd pick with Larry Anderson's book is his
use of the word "prescient".  True prescience is a strange and frightening
experience - and MacKaye never at any time showed any tendency toward
developing the curse.  What MacKaye did do was to "predict" - which is just
as chancy but a lot safer to ones mental health.  And like some astrologers,
enough of his predictions came to pass that he developed a reputation. And,
like those astrologers, his advocates conveniently forget the failed
predictions.  C'est la vie.  <VBG>

The MAJOR problem in this whole discussion has been simply the lack of
definition of basic terminology and the confusion generated by that lack -
as is nearly always the case in these difficulties.  Email is an extremely
difficult medium for meaningful discussion - fuzzy terminology and "assumed"
meanings simply compound the difficulty.


>BTW, the list, or at least my messages to the list, seem to be doing
>strange
>things. I get responses from you, but none of my original messages have
>come
>back to me since about 11:30 this morning. If past practice is followed
>when
>this happened, this debate may show up in a day or so in a somewhat more
>coherent fashion.

Yup - the operation of the list is sometimes strange and unpredictable  for
me as well.

Walk softly,
Jim


************************************************************************
"For every complex question there is a simple answer.  And it's wrong."  -
HL Mencken


_________________________________________________________________