Professor. Thanks for your post. You make an interesting point about Moore's target audience. I can see how someone who knows nothing about the sport might be interested in a poetic and philosophical treatment of Viren. I was more interested in Viren's biographical details and his rise as a runner. That's what I cared about as a young runner.
When did Viren realize that he had the gift? How did he respond emotionally? Those kinds of detail can be very revealing about the "emotional and philosophical significance of competitive running." We know that for Sebastian Coe his schoolboy championships were more exciting for him than his later success. That's a simple detail that contains powerful poetry for anyone who tried to be the best runner he could be.
I enjoyed Cordner Nelson's book "The Jim Ryun Story" because Nelson was able to give a detailed treatment of Ryun's career and provide insights into the man and the formative people in his life. I came away feeling that I had received an intimate portrait of a guy whom I had bonded with by reading the book.
Moore's article about Viren left me colder than a Finnish winter. Viren is a mysterious character, and unfortunately, he remained just as deep a mystery after I finished reading the article. I did know Ken Moore better than ever, though.
Some people liked George Sheehan--others found him to be self-indulgent. I think the same thing applies to Moore.