bare yellow bulb, vol 1 is supper ready yet?
there is a recurring discussion in the running community about rewards such as medals and "plastic trophies", and it's a bit of a point of honor to say that the measly trophies from local road races are unimportant. maybe not so much with marathon medals, but even those aren't generally esteemed highly. at least, not out loud.
as is so often the case with recognition, those who are vocal about dissing the trophies are the folks who have quite a few of them. it's easy to say something is meaningless when it's meaningless to you, and i'm certain i am not the only one to whom the plastic trophies are NOT meaningless. i worked, i achieved, i earned, i succeeded. and, i keep quiet for fear of looking the fool.
trophies in general are devalued these days because too friggin many have been handed out to this generation of kids. i came up in the last generation not to get trophies for every freaking thing and as a consequence, trophies are both meaningful and rare to me. so rare that of all the tokens of recognition that i have, i do not have a single trophy, and so meaningful that i still covet the little golden plastic statues. yeah, i have $5. i can go buy me one. but, that's not the POINT, is it now?
there's really nothing about my running that could be attributed to talent. not to say that i work particularly hard or that i do not enjoy running. no. that's not it at all. it's mostly the opposite - i flitter around, just playing not working, and i enjoy the hell out of it. but when i do decide to set my sights, then i have to work harder to achieve a lesser goal than would someone with talent.
my talent is brains and my academic medals are for actual achievement where my running medals are frequently mere tokens of participation, but my academic medals are not displayed alongside my running medals. i'm not sure i can explain the dynamic. it's not that i didn't work hard for the academic wins. i worked very hard, harder than folks would like to believe. people like to think all those As come easy, that i'm just naturally smart, that i am doing something they could never do because i have this gift.
it's not that i didn't work hard - it's that i would have worked hard anyway. i worked hard in order to win, and the reward for the win was the winning itself, not the medal. it's a bit like that with running, too, i'd wager. sure, that fast guy works hard, but it comes easy for him. not that the work isn't hard, but it's work he would have done anyway because that is where his talent lies. it's like having a calling or a true love. and, so, to the fast guy the reward for the win is the winning itself, not the medal.
the trick in our own lives is to recognize our talents, cherish and not squander them, work hard to develop them, but all the while remain open to the extra patches of joy that are available in the things that we're not particularly talented in.
posted by ace @ 18:17
3 comments
3 Comments:
I like your last comment. Part of the reason I run is because I am talented. Or maybe the reason I started running was because I was talented. I think I continue for that reason and many others that have appeared along the way.
I actually kinda felt bad about the whole plastic trophies comment, but I guess I was just trying to make the point that talented people continue running for the same reasons that less talented folks do--not just because they like to win.
That's part of what I liked about abe_mend's post--how he feels awkward accepting awards and mostly does it because it is part of the ritual of racing. You accept the award because the community expects you to; that's part of the deal. And it is a cool way to participate.
I know that whenever I am at a race where super-fast people are there, I love watching the awards because I want to see those guys and girls who have done something that seems special to me. I like watching that more than I like getting the awards.
Weird, huh?
we'd naturally be attracted to activities we're talented in, don't you think? putting aside for the minute the question of who's "working hard" and who's not, or how to even define work, the thing about a talent is that it's a propensity, a latent ability if you will. so when you ignite the ability, the point is that you're immediately Good At It, whatever "it" is. you might be rough around the edges, but you're clearly good. you're good at it, and it comes easy because of the talent -- instant positive feedback and wah-lah, you're interested. success follows because talent goes a long way at first and by the time you need to work, you're hooked, you love running or cooking or swimming or party planning or chess. you work at it, sure, but you enjoy the work in a way that an less talented person would (probably) not because it's your talent that feeds you and calls you and drives you and rewards you.
maybe?
I like the way you put that because I think at some level it is impersonal. Talent drives you and rewards you and feeds you (and sometimes frustrates you.) There is less choice involved than it seems. Sometimes we talk about "our" talents as if we own them. We do not own them--we ARE them. We are the sum, the pluses and minuses of our capacities, our talents.
Post a Comment
<< Home