Gifted Writers

poors in the miles to become a 2 x OG marathoner. Now that's a story worth writing & reading!

On topic - you're spot on there. Physiologists can measure this and measure that, but from where does the tenacity, the pure mental force that wills the runner on? There's a physical componenet to running, for sure. There are measures of intelligence. Then, there is an irrational, emotional, over-the-top, run-to-death, balls-to-the-wall component, without which no great performance occurs.

Off topic - I once saw on line Greg Meyer's training leading up to his 2.09. Would you know where that might be?

Regards.

Perspective- Cybernetics and testing models in social science is a developing field. Ex. The drive of Michael Jordan and his zone. He credits his success to repetition(practicing more and more focused than others) and drive. Sport psychologists call it flow. The mental/physical/emotional all come together. Believe it or not it can be tested also.

Your admonition to posters is good -- bios are the most instructive and inspirational gifts to the running community.

I think the Buddy Edelen bio Clear Cold Day is a good example to follow. Kenny Moore's stuff from SI is good too, though I don't know of any full length bios by him.

It is emotion that makes all sports. People outside running circles don't see the emotion of runners because, unlike in say basketball where Magic Johnson always showed a big smile, runners show little emotion during the race.

Michael Johnson's tear flowing down his face during the awards ceremony for his gold medal was about as much emotion as runners show.

Most people don't understand that emotions distance runners feel - they might understand the feeling of accomplishment of finishing a marathon so that is what is often sold to the mainstream - and that gets thousands to run/walk a marathon.

But very few people know anything about the feelings and experiences of top level runners. They seem to internalize their emotions a lot more than other sports.

Yes. Edelen's was the last great running Bio.

Jesus Christ! All right then! You tell me what you want to have written, and I will write it!

It was up on the Runwiththebuffs site, not sure what became of that. I may try and get it up on my own site if Greg will send it to me.

It's true that there aren't many good bio's out there. Or the one's there are, are out of print. So people from my generation don't get to read them. Buddy Edelens was pretty good. Beardsley's was weak. He made it seem like running a 2:08 marathon was easy. He just kept dropping time, but never got into the specifics of his training and what not. He also was a little to upbeat with how much he just loved to run and how much he just loved to hurt. It got a little repetitive. The Jim Ryun bio I read was okay. Except the last half of it just pertained to him and his wife finding god. Bob Schul's was pretty slow. Not too bad though. Steve

Scott's wasn't bad b/c he talked about a lot of his races, so it was somewhat exciting/interesting. I'd personally like to see one that is more indepth about what type of training the runner did, and how he progressed, and also more about their races. Personally I think Bill Rodgers would be a great person to do one about. Or maybe Salazar, or Virgin. Heck why not Bob Hodge. Well who knows, but hopefully we'll be graced with a awesome biography sometime in the near future.

Someone should do Frank Shorter.

Bill did have a bio . . . it was an awful mess. Very general . . . very tangential . . . full of details that had little bearing on how he found his running success. I tried to push through it several times. But it just doesn't satisfy.

And on the subject of running literature . . . am I the only one who thinks that Once a Runner is a disappointment? I hate to say it, but come on, people. The prose is rotten.

Regarding "Once A Runner" I agree. Some of my picks:

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/bibliography.htm

Hodgie-san wrote:

I believe that this emotional side is what makes great athletes.

The Beardsley book is "saccharine" as is Joan Benoit's biography and so many others.

I think the fact that it is "saccharine" has more to do with Beardsley's personality than anything else. His emotional side was completely different from Salazar's. He really is just an "aw shucks", straighforward kind of guy. I've met him. He's like that in person too. I think that's what made him great. Doesn't make for very epic reading, though.

Still, I have to admit: Reading the section in which he spoke about how much he loved to just go out and do training really got me jazzed up to go out and do some more of my own.

It seems to me that the heading for this topic -- "Gifted Writers" -- puts the emphasis where it belongs. Most people, including world-class runners, are actually pretty interesting subjects, but only if you can get beyond the superficial stuff and look at what makes them tick. Most biographies of athletes fail miserably in that regard. The "autobiographies" of Rodgers, Shorter, Benoit, and others have been major disappointments to me -- bland accounts of people who have run fast and won races. On the other hand, I found Liquori's "autobiography" (I think it was called "On the Run") to be engaging, even though I never really had much interest in his athletic career.

Kenny Moore remains my gold standard for writers on runners. And if I had to choose one particular runner as the subject of a well-written biography, it would probably be Emil Zatopek.

Regarding Kenny Moore,

I'm not sure who is actually responsible for Bowerman's speech in Without Limits, when he says (something to the effect of),

, but they are bang on, in this great camus/henry miller sense of absurdity and lucidity (if that makes sense, hopefully to someone, hodgie?)I sorta agree on Once a Runner as well, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the prose is terrible, just, er, technically misdirected? Like too much telling, not enough showing, as they say, in fiction writing class. Hard to really criticize something without putting something better in its place, or even trying to do so.

I've written this every chance that this comes up on the boards. You may not agree, but Parker tried to too hard to add language that made the reading difficult. PAIN by Middleman is one of the best novels written.

sealpuppet wrote:

And on the subject of running literature . . . am I the only one who thinks that Once a Runner is a disappointment? I hate to say it, but come on, people. The prose is rotten.

Any comments on In Quest of Gold: The Jim Ryun Story? Did Ryun have a ghostwriter? Are there any other books that cover the later part of Ryun's career?

Mr Jozast wrote:

Parker tried to too hard to add language that made the reading difficult. PAIN by Middleman is one of the best novels written.

What you're effectively saying here is that Parker's writing was over your head.

Folks, "PAIN" was a good read, but Middleman is simply not in the same literary class as John Parker (who in turn will probably never be confused with Tolstoy or even Ayn Rand). The bombastic, testosterone-laced tone of "PAIN" adds vigor to the story, but does not ably compensate for Parker's much-more-subtle delivery and overall better story line.

I think I've probably read every running novel & bio & autobiography in English -- even Ron Hill's 2 volume number.

Brian Glanville's "The Olympian" I think is the best fiction. It's still in print.

Glanville made some stylistic choices that were a bit odd even for 1969, but the guy can write and he clearly knows the sport. That's a good combination.