- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
McClelland appreciates the difficulty not of simply running in a race, but of racing in a race. Sure, anyone can run a given distance. Whether they run it quickly is another story. For someone who runs with a decent finishing time in mind, this elitist opinion clouds all others.
McClelland's disdain for the emergence of the "self-improvement" mentality (versus the "need-for-speed" mindset) is understandable given the attitude toward marathoning that existed when he ran in high school. However, it makes me wonder at what pace is someone "allowed" to participate in this daunting race? Obviously, he doesn't think it's good enough to simply beat Oprah's time (I notice he barely squeaked by in his own attempt). Clearly, one is not a "real" marathoner if they skip the competitive training regimen and don their cushiony running shoes (which, I also notice, McClelland seems to have done in the past).
The moral of McClelland's marathon ranting is that if you can't take the marathon as seriously as he does, don't bother to run it. Which, incidentally, doesn't seem to be all that serious when until now. The acceptably decent 5K runner admitted failing to devote appropriate training to the marathon, and compared to Oprah he narrowly escape his own criticism. He did exactly then what he criticizes now: the marathon amateur who simply wants to put 26.2 behind him without striving for a commendable race time.
It's not as though the marathon is easy to run, no matter how much one has trained. But, according to McClelland, if you're doing it for that "feel-good" sense of achievement, don't waste time on "real" runners' courses. Behind excusing himself for knee problems, I wonder if McClelland thinks he's exempt from his own pessimistic attitude toward the wanna-be marathoners out there.
