Review about Once A Runner on Amazon

The barefoot running fad is over, with the exception of the few who actually run barefoot. Extra cushioning is in.

One of the most entertaining things about OAR was its references to runners of the 70s. It also had a lot of "Inside jokes" that I thought were really entertaining. Maybe it's because I felt in the loop. I'm sure the fact that it is one of few decent running books has a lot to do with my appreciation for it.

It went out of print about ten years ago and I sold it on Amazon back in 2006 or 2007 for $300 on Amazon. Unbelievable. Then they rereleased it in 2009 and now it's worth nothing again lol.

This thread started with a quote comparing OAR unfavorably to Born to Run. The latter book is definitely worth reading, but beware. At one point he describes the famous '52 Olympic marathon in which Zatopek dusted the favorite Jim Peters of England. And he says that at the halfway point Peters was 10 minutes under world record pace. Peters record was 2:20:42 so halfway pace was 1:10:21. So Chris McDougall claims Peters hit halfway in sub-1:00:21. Yes, beware of any author who writes such absurdities.

As for Once a Runner, I still believe it captures the world of the really serious distance runner better than anything else I have read. As well as evoking Gainesville and the Florida Track Club guys and UF perfectly.

And there is this, on p. 104:

"Running to him was real, the way he did it the realest thing he knew. It was all joy and woe, hard as a diamond; it made him weary beyond comprehension. But it also made him free."

Born to Run is garbage. OAR is a poorly written novel, but it doesn't pretend to be anything it's not.

If we're comparing the two, OAR is the better book by far.

Not a Coach wrote:

The barefoot running fad is over, with the exception of the few who actually run barefoot. Extra cushioning is in.

Thanks, that's what I thought. Born to Run just reeks of the whole anti-cushioning movement. I doubt I can finish it.

I got anterior tibial tendonitis from going low cushion. Now I'm running in NB1080's and loving it. Never had knee problems with cushioned shoes and try to have good technique too. With concrete roads, you need the shoe cushioning for your feet.

As for OAR, sounds like I should rent it from the library instead of buying it. I'll buy "The Purple Runner" since it is hard to find.

go on wrote:

Explain how any of the comments on this thread demonstrate self-loathing.

I suppose self-loathing might be the wrong way to describe it. A lot of people will say that they liked OAR, despite it being "poorly written." That sounds to me like they think it's a good book but don't want their friends to find out they like it because it isn't the sort of fiction that's in the New Yorker. You get this from literary types who like genre fiction a lot.

It's a good book. Sure it's not the greatest novel of all time, but neither is anything other than "Don Quixote".

Mark Slouka's excellent "Brewster" (http://www.amazon.com/Brewster-A-Novel-Mark-Slouka/dp/0393239756) isn't about running per se. But the protagonist is a high school MD guy, and Slouka's descriptions of his development into the team's #2, and of meets in the Armory in the late 60s/early 70s, are realistic and insightful. Plus, IMHO, the writing is infinitely better than in OAR.

Like all OaR on Letsrun, this thread contains the two staple personalities you'd expect to find: literature majors and college also-rans that think that anyone who doesn't like the book didn't train at a high level.

I have always known that OaR is not a piece of literature, but it is one of my favorite books that I have ever read. I find it to be entertaining and contain many incisive truths about running that I have not found in any other books.

Also, OaR helped me bounce back from many different rough patches over my running career. I find that many of the random thoughts that are dispersed throughout the book helped me to put words to what I was feeling and helped me to realize that many of the challenges I had were common enough to write a book about (this was before I discovered the LRC forums). The book really helped me get my head in the right place for high intensity training. Even if I didn't find the book entertaining, it would be valuable in this regard.

book review wrote:

Not a Coach wrote:

The barefoot running fad is over, with the exception of the few who actually run barefoot. Extra cushioning is in.

Thanks, that's what I thought. Born to Run just reeks of the whole anti-cushioning movement. I doubt I can finish it.

I got anterior tibial tendonitis from going low cushion. Now I'm running in NB1080's and loving it. Never had knee problems with cushioned shoes and try to have good technique too. With concrete roads, you need the shoe cushioning for your feet.

As for OAR, sounds like I should rent it from the library instead of buying it. I'll buy "The Purple Runner" since it is hard to find.

Born to Run basically started the whole recent barefoot fad. Everyone and their mom was like "I read this great book Born to Run and it says if I eat chia seeds and put my shoes away I can run forever and never get hurt" and so they all did that and got stress fractures.

True.

Born to Run also seems to have an unhealthy obsession of ultra-runners. Kind of like The Lore of Running, which blends anecdotes and observations with pseudo-science.

Hmmm....ever hear of Murakami?

I read the Murakami book - didn't like it very much. Not enough happened, and enough 'yes, yes yes' sort of moments. a few, but not enough. but murakami's book is non fiction so teh comparison is not fair.

jamaine wrote:

Born to Run basically started the whole recent barefoot fad. Everyone and their mom was like "I read this great book Born to Run and it says if I eat chia seeds and put my shoes away I can run forever and never get hurt" and so they all did that and got stress fractures.

Born to Run also seems to have an unhealthy obsession of ultra-runners. .[/quote]

Do people still run in vibrams or go barefoot? Has that fad finally run it course?

Now I'm waiting for ultra running to do the same. Also, why do ultra runners were trucker hats?

agip wrote:

I'm as literary as the next overeducated upper west sider...I loved OAR.

the writing has a simple honesty that works. It isn't fancy literary writing - it is slightly elevated straight talk. Which fits the story.

Parker gets a little fancy with the girl-boy stuff and the metaphysical running scenes, but only a little.

The 60 x 400 scene is just right, the time he runs to the next town to see the girl is moving an perfect, when Denton touches his achilles and it dents is very well done.

it's not a joke book. I think it sits up with other respected sports fiction.

Not high art - but a simple story simply told with a little more grace than you'd expect.

+1

I stumbled on this old(er) post. I agree with you.

I thought it was overrated, but I am obviously in the minority.

Any piece of art will invariably be interpreted differently by different people. I am glad people do enjoy it; even though I am not one of them the book has earned it's way into the discussion of the top running books out---and may even beat all the others to the tape!

Completely disagree about his writing style. His goddamn prose is nearly poetic! Who says one should write rudimentarily? Kudos to him for sounding (being) intelligent. And talk about a vocabulary builder...

"The distance runners were serene messengers. Gliding along wooded trails and mountain paths, their spiritual ancestors kept their own solitary counsel for long hours while carrying some message the import of which was only one corner of their considerable speculation. They lived within themselves; long ago they did so, and they do today."

"In the world of the runner, as in the ocean, there is a hierarchy of ferocity. In the sea the swift blue runner is eaten by the slashing barracuda, which is eaten by the awesome mako shark. In track, such relative positions are fixed more or less in black and white and are altered only at great and telling expense."

I don't know man, but these 2 paragraphs alone, (not to mention more throughout the book, that I could showcase if necessary) just seem so insightful and thought provoking and also undulate quite nicely. Nothing awkward about them.

In your opinion, BTR was "garbage". I however loved it. Everyone I loaned the book to lived it as well. Like OAR a lit. Same foe ATC. These however weren't really running books. I would have enjoyed them as much if it was about a college tennis player. I think people they to sound lime they are more of a serious runner than the next huy by saying the cult books suck while hyping some other obscure book no one ever heard of. BTR is a huge seller because it was good.

battonwedgie wrote:

Born to Run is garbage. OAR is a poorly written novel, but it doesn't pretend to be anything it's not.

If we're comparing the two, OAR is the better book by far.