Friends, it can’t be easy being a reviewer for Runner’s World, I think you might agree – and most especially not if the world in question appears these days to possess all the gravity of an annual Las Vegas porn convention, pre-silicon. In the March 2009 issue, editor Andy Dixon suggests that love and running share certain characteristics that are equivalent to the highs and lows of hot-blooded romance – think Tristan and Isolde; Napoleon and Josephine; Coe and Ovett. Beginning with the hormonal disposition of young love, the comparison caters to all tastes, including a profile of Zola Budd (for those with a foot fetish, presumably), before culminating in the warm rinse to be had from putting the ‘washing machine on overdrive’! The Sidewinder, clearly, is much less given to experimentation than Mr Dixon. So it’s all the more pity therefore that in this month’s Spring and Summer Shoe Guide, the sex should hardly be on fire. Indeed, the lack of any penetrating insight in the criticism leaves it all a little unrequited.
Although today I tend only to buy Runner’s World occasionally, Carl has seen fit to direct my inimitable prose style towards a review of its latest shoe buying guide, an undertaking in which I cannot help but recall a comment attributed to Oscar Wilde. At a swanky London party (the kind of nineteenth century bash for which you simply must have had your haberdasher re-crush your velvet slippers), Wilde appears to have been asked by the hostess if he was enjoying himself; surveying the guests, the poet and dramatist is said to have replied, ‘Madam, there is nobody I could enjoy more’.
While it is ever the responsibility of writers to challenge the establishment, it would be absurd of course to read Runner’s World and expect William Burroughs (or Edgar Rice, even); nevertheless, the good journal might occasionally aspire to the fibre, say, of a naked brunch. Of course, being entirely serious about sarcasm (as we are at Ransacker), one might actually think the reviews are somewhat Pinteresque. In an aside that he later came to regret, Pinter described his work as being about the ‘weasel under the cocktail cabinet’, a remark to which the Sidewinder was bound to sidle up, and which hints at the idea that monotony speaks ‘of a language locked beneath it’. To put it another way, if the opposite is hilarious, mischievous, voluble and entertaining, then insofar as you can tell that something is being said by Runner’s World, it’s not clear what.
You may, for example, be familiar with the Under Armour Illusion, a stability shoe which Runner’s World says is a ‘decent everyday trainer’. Of course the Reebok Premier Road Plus KFS VI, being a ‘decent high-mileage shoe’, might better reflect your style. Then again, the Pearl Izumi Syncropace III is an ‘easy-going everyday trainer’, whereas the Avia Avi-Lite Guide is a ‘decent, if pretty standard’ product. Those who tested Asics’ GT-2140 were ‘expecting a “decent” shoe’ however, and found that the 2140 was ‘just that’. The Nike Zoom Equalon 3, mind you, is ‘interesting’, but for those who prefer a ‘decent workhorse’, there’s always the Etonic Praya 2. Equally, the Brooks Glycerin 7 is ‘at best, a pleasant ride and, at worst, inoffensive’. If only someone could come up with a superlative of ‘average’.
Reading such opinion, well, it’s as if Cupid’s arrows were made of spaghetti. Less the stuff of David and Victoria, this is Ron Jeremy meets Jenna Jameson but without the broken down washing machine or the VHS crackle. However, just as my days of not taking Runner’s World seriously were drawing to a middle, an antidote of sorts from Kirstin Baker, wear tester of the Brooks Ghost 2: ‘The tread was not very grippy, but they were comfy straight out of the box and the snazzy colour scheme got some admiring comments’. Regular visitors to this column will perhaps by now have realised that the Sidewinder is a vainglorious sort of chap, and likely given to wearing snazzy-coloured trainers; also, Kirstin’s opinion struck me as being just a little mischievous, and certainly more entertaining that the journalists choice of words.
Perhaps the fault is not entirely with Runner’s World however. To wit, let me rephrase an argument once applied to science fiction publishing by the literary critic John Clute. Perhaps in 2009 there are just too many shoes to review. Before this point, somewhere in the world, someone was keeping up with everything that was manufactured, and the knowledge that he or she was out there keeping an eye on all the big names and on all the strays was oddly reassuring to the rest of us, because we knew that an industry that was small enough to critique in meaningful terms was an industry small enough to understand.
Today, however, there’s no one to defend our rear. An industry too big is an industry whose edges we cannot see. As runners and writers and reviewers and editors we become at last victims of the dehumanising scale of the twenty-first century. In an environment of media packaging that treats all runners as consumers, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to get the feel of new trainers, which more and more take on the aspect of products assembled for consumption. Who can really judge for us the quality, say, of the relatively inexpensive Reebok Premier Road Plus KFS VI when set against an array of products, some of which may have been put together to fill the stability shoe marketing slot? Not Runner’s World apparently, if the ‘Editor’s Choice’ is simply, indifferently, unproblematically, the most expensive shoe in the guide. The Kayano 15 (excellent shoe, though I imagine it is), I couldn’t help thinking you might be better buying 2 pairs of the Reebok at almost half the price (each) and keeping them for half as long as you would the Kayano 15? But given the vague nature of the shoe guide, who could be sure of that?
Perhaps in their next review, Runners World could actually make reference to the price, the materials and the countries of origin (and perhaps therefore the associated environmental, carbon, and human costs – too polemical, maybe?). Also, I quite liked their use of wear testers so it would be nice for them to be given much greater licence to comment/review. If anyone from Runners World happens to read this post, I am available for testing at anytime.
On different note entirely, Carl informs me that a number of readers have been kind enough to enquire about the unusually long delay in the appearance of these latest thoughts (the demands of the day job kept the poison from the paper, I’m afraid). Many thanks indeed to all who email, to all who read, and to all who simply tolerate.
