Daring to Dare

What is it with people?

I’m pretty sure there was a time not too long ago when people admired other people who dared to live. (Cue Paula Cole’s “Where have all the cowboys gone?”) People who braved the peaks of Everest, dodged icebergs in a stout little vessel while sailing around the treacherous Cape Horn, journeyed deep into the jungle or into the vast, inhospitable desert.

Now, the best people can do is wonder what kind of stupidity, greed, or ignorance prompts a person to do such a ridiculous thing.

Where has people’s sense of adventure gone? Have men become metrosexuals every one, trading in wrenches for iPhones and Blackberries, and hiking boots for Kenneth Coles? Have women so completely committed themselves to degrees and jobs and yoga and latte that the rubber mats at the gym have more appeal than real earth beneath their feet?

Recently two teenage boys completed solo circumnavigations. Zac Sunderland, a resident of Marina del Ray, California, and Mike Perham, a Brit, set off on their separate courses for a trip around the world on a 36 and 50 foot sailboat, respectively. Although both boys developed a faithful internet following thanks to the blogosphere, both received plenty of criticism – again, thanks to the blogosphere (and no, the blogosphere has nothing to do with the former Illinois governor Blagojevich).

Among their venomous attacks, Zac’s critics said that he was being forced to live his father’s dream rather than following a dream of his own, and how sad it was that his parents didn’t care about him (after all, only parents who don’t care support their child’s dream).

When misfortune struck (as it has almost every person brave enough to challenge the ocean), readers of Zac’s blog suddenly became expert seamen, meteorologists, survivalists, and crystal ball readers, explaining Zac’s obvious error and his foolish decisions. With the benefit of hindsight, they mounted their soapboxes, enlightening the masses about the proper course of action – i.e., what they most certainly would have done had they been in that situation. Their vitriolic language oozed contempt and reveled in his bad luck as everyone issued a collective (and no doubt cathartic) I-told-you-so, like so many kindergartners.

Now, Jessica Watson, a sixteen year old from Australia, has begun a solo circumnavigation. Soon after her departure, she collided with a cargo ship in the night, damaging her boat and destroying her rigging. Intrepid armchair sailors around the world have leveled their sights at young Jessica. One reader’s comment about her describes her adventure as parents “sacrificing their daughter to make a buck – disgusting.” Other comments are perhaps more predictable, claiming that the accident was “reckless” and proof that she is incompetent. Such comments prompt one to wonder about the brave feats and breath-taking adventures the contributors of such criticism have ever achieved.

In the Netherlands, a court has assumed the responsibility of deciding whether or not a thirteen-year-old girl should embark on a solo circumnavigation. An August 29 headline read: “Court: Seize 13-year-old Dutch Girl Before She Sails Around the World.” The reason? As the judge put it, “She would be confronted with difficult situations that will challenge her mentally and physically.” Uh-oh. Difficulty? Challenge? Mental and physical? Ironically, the primary objection raised by the courts was that being away from “normal” society for a prolonged period might have damaging effects. Really?! And peer pressure and drugs and sex and movies and crime aren’t damaging? I suppose one should be encouraged that society holds itself in such high regard, unfortunately the perception borders on the delusional.

Societies around the world need to take a good close look in the mirror and confront what they see: an anemic, pasty lump of humanity more accustomed to the flicker of fluorescent lights and the cacophony of an urban jungle than the freshness of an ocean breeze or the solitude of the wilderness; wanna-be adventurers who count themselves tough because they watch Man vs Wild; people who have bought into the commercial side of adventure – North Face, Columbia, Mountain Hardware clothes and personal GPS units. If society is interested in growing spiritless and lifeless people, then by all means eliminate challenge and difficulty.

The lunacy here is that every one of the naysayers is operating under the assumption that sailing around the world isn’t much different than splashing about with bath toys in the tub. But that isn't why people embark on such voyages and adventures. They do it because nothing is guaranteed. Isn’t that the idea? The individual pits him or herself against nature, doing whatever to stack the cards in his favor but recognizing full well that sometimes that’s just not enough. Where did we get the crazy idea that danger and risk are tantamount to stupidity?

Theodore Roosevelt understood the need to live boldly, to sweat and bleed and fight, to try bravely. And he knew the critic's proper place in relation to those who dare to dare:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”