An Open Letter to Kevin Maher, on the matter of charity and marathons

This letter is written in response to Kevin Maher’s article in this Monday’s Times2. You can read Kevin’s article here.

Dear Kevin,

Ah, marathon season. Always fun, no? As someone who lives with a marathon addict, I can sympathise with the endless drag of people asking for donations. I do think, however, that if you tried things on the other side, you’d feel a little differently. The endless emails and letters you send out, organising raffles and buffet dinners and other events to try and create a sense of fair exchange, and, worst of all, the fruitless chasing of sponsors who have promised you a fiver and yet, somehow, never get round to putting it in the post. My personal favourite was one individual who suggested that he would support my mother if she supported him. The idea that it would be a good idea for both of us to sponsor each other for exactly the same amount was an act in redundancy that I simply couldn’t shake. And yet, your attack on individuals who use physical activity as a means of raising money for charity, and who seek help from those around them, struck me as a little more than a little bit unfair.

Those who run marathons, or do triathlons, or fun runs, or swim the channel, usually divide into two categories. There are the midlife crisis-sufferers to which you allude; vapid, self-obsessed individuals who . But this group is, by far, outweighed by the other group. Men and women who get up at six o’clock on a November morning to get in their eight mile training run before dropping the kids off at school. Most people who run marathons don’t do it for the glory. They do it because the charity they are running for- be it cancer, dementia, mental health, or any of the other countless charities who gain massive boosts from this kind of fundraising every year- means something to them. They’ve lost parents, or friends, or children, or lovers. They’ve suffered themselves. They want to do something good, to make the world maybe a little bit better. And if they become a bit fitter, lose a little bit of weight, and get to feel good about themselves, well, that’s fair, right?

Training for a marathon isn’t glamorous. You have to deal with blisters, pulled muscles, grazed knees. You get up and run, or cycle, or whatever in the pouring rain, in sleet and snow and endless, dripping fog. You deal with ice baths. Most people who run marathons can’t afford they;’re own personal trainers, or nutritionists and they do their practice runs in local parks and along the edge of B roads, dodging out of the way of oncoming cyclists and cars.

The other runners, the ones who do it for the glory, are what most of us call ‘Fair weather runners.’  They’re the same group you see in the first few weeks of January, in box fresh shoes and head-to-toe matching gear. ‘Real’ runners tend to use the expression ‘All the gear, no idea’ to dismiss this lot.

Your article targets, quite reasonably, these runners. The ones who pop up out of the past with open arms, provided that you fill said arms with your hard-earned cash. I would argue that it is indicative of the company you keep. Or rather, kept. We all have people in our pasts who exist solely to interrupt our regular lives with requests for money, or support, etc. I suggest that, if you genuinely haven’t spoken to these people in five years, then just ignore them.

Why do runners ask others to support their charity work? Because one person could maybe raise £100 for their chosen charity on their own. But if they ask thirty of their friends, or a hundred of their friends’ friends, they could raise £3000. If I were running a marathon for charity, I could maybe afford to give £50 out of my own pocket (unemployed graduate here). If everyone on my friends list on facebook gave me £5, I’d raise over two grand. Do I really, then, need to explain the difference between funding a charity run yourself, and asking for a little help from your friends?

And as for all this oneupmanship you mentioned. Well. Might I suggest the traditional pissing contest would be a more effective means of competition with your fellow downers?

Sincerely,

Freddie

PS If you did want to donate to someone who’s run thirteen marathons in the last ten years, trained in all weathers, and raised of £19k for the Alzheimer’s Society, have a look at my Mum’s Just Giving page… https://www.justgiving.com/Hazel-Rochez/

Teasing the Teasers: Marvel’s Age of Ultron

Yesterday, the teaser trailer for Marvel’s next Avengers film, ‘Age of Ultron,’ was leaked ahead of schedule. Marvel responded to the leak by… releasing the exact same trailer a few hours later. They also blamed the leak on Hydra, the fictional terrorist organisation featured in Agents of SHIELD and the first Captain America film. The latter move was actually quite funny. The former was… kind of pointless.

In a review of the trailer, The Times 2 highlighted the sheer number of stars featured in the advert. This shouldn’t be a surprise; the film is based on an ensemble comic book. The average team roster in comics is between six and eight. Marvel’s business plan with the films is to introduce individual characters in their own films (Captain America 1 and 2, Iron Man 1-3, Hulk, etc) and then bring them all together for great big showdowns in their blockbuster films. The whole premise of the film is that it ties early appearances together. So no wonder that there are so many actors and characters featured.

More surprising was the admonition of the lack of a plot. Excuse me? It’s a teaser trailer. It runs for exactly two minutes and seventeen seconds. I’ve had sneezing fits that have lasted longer. How much plot do you want? The idea that the film has ‘explosions and robots’ means that it doesn’t have a plot is nonsense.

For those who don’t know, Ultron’s story is actually quite an interesting one. Ultron first appeared as a villain in the Avengers comic book in 1968. In an attempt to keep the earth safe from harm, and aid the Avengers in their missions, super-genius Hank Pym (aka Ant-man, aka Giant-man, briefly the Wasp, occasionally Goliath) creates a super-powered robot and names it Ultron. And then, with all the predictability we expect from sci-fi, Ultron turns on his creators. Chaos ensues.

The title, ‘Age of Ultron,’ comes from 2013’s summer comic book event of the same name. The story features a lot of time travel, with Wolverine (because it has to be Wolverine, doesn’t it? Because no other superhero is capable of being centre stage for more than five minutes if Wolverine is in any way available to growl and cut things up) eventually saving the day by travelling back in time and convincing a younger Hank Pym to program in a fail-safe program which allows them to destroy the dastardly villain in the present. Meanwhile, another group of heroes travel into the future to… you know what? Never mind…

Both the original Ultron storyline and last year’s big event can hardly be called plotless, as The Times seems to think. Ok, so the plots may not stand up too well to a close examination, but that’s a separate issue. Ultron’s story draws heavily on classic tales such as Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ with its ideas of science gone wrong and a creature turning on its creator. The idea of technology rebelling against humanity is a stalwart of the sci-fi genre, and remains a hot topic in a world where fashion designers are creating jewelry that turns the blood in our veins into a power source.

So yes, of course the trailer features explosions and robots. Film, and particularly when based on comic books, is primarily a visual medium. Teaser trailers give away just enough to hook the audience’s interest, not divulge the entire story in one go. ‘You didn’t really expect a plot, did you?’ No, no we didn’t. Your condescending tone? We definitely saw that coming.