An article appeared in The Times on Saturday that mentioned me and The Next Challenge Grant. You can read it here.
At first, I was excited. It’s not every day that you get mentioned in a national paper and, even better, it plugged my grant.
Then I got a bit annoyed. I thought the article implied that, by encouraging people to have adventures, I was being reckless. It even questioned whether this ethos might be partly to blame for the recent death of a canoeist on the Amazon.
However, I eventually concluded that the idea of my grant being ‘dangerous’ is daft and that anyone who reads about it will see that it is an entirely positive initiative.
Nonetheless, I thought I would respond to the various points raised in the article, one at a time…
Photo by grant winner Dylan Haskin
The Next Challenge Grant vs The Ice Warrior Project
Most of the article is about Ice Warrior: a polar expedition company run by Jim McNeill.
I have met Jim a few times. He’s a charming man with a vast amount of polar experience and thus a good choice for inclusion in the article.
However, the article’s author chose to compare Ice Warrior and The Next Challenge Grant. That is comparing apples with oranges.
Ice Warrior, as I understand, is a commercial operation and limited company that organises polar training and expeditions.
In contrast, The Next Challenge Grant:
- is not a commercial entity or a company (it’s a grant run by me)
- does not take money from clients (it gives money away)
- does not organise any expeditions (winners organise their own trips)
- is not involved with polar travel or any similarly extreme expeditions (trips tend to be smaller, local and require much less experience)
As such, comparing the two is a bit silly. Of course Jim has a higher bar for risk management: he has to take his clients to the Arctic, and look after them and himself in a dangerous environment.
I, however, just give small amount of money to people I may never meet, who will go on their own, small adventures (like sleeping in some bothies or cycling across Europe).
Safety in numbers
The article seems to imply that I encourage riskier behaviour because I am happy to give my grant to hundreds of people:
The Next Challenge project … is the opposite to Mr McNeill’s recruitment process … [for which] only 25 of the 200 who initially applied have been accepted.”
I don’t think that this is a very meaningful safety measure. But, for the record, in The Next Challenge Grant’s first year, I only accepted 8 out of 1,300 applications.
That’s an even smaller percentage (0.6% vs 12.5%).
Toxic, delusionary nonsense
Part of the article suggests that the message of ‘anyone can have an adventure’ might be dangerous:
There’s a prevailing wind, that if you want to go out and do something, ‘just do it’. It is toxic, delusionary nonsense.”
That quote is from Jim McNeill. The article then links what Jim said, with what The Next Challenge Grant does.
This was perhaps a little sneaky of the author. Whereas Jim organises polar expeditions, The Next Challenge Grant just funds small adventures.
I would never suggest that someone ‘just does’ a North Pole expedition. That would be dangerous. Equally, I doubt that Jim has a problem with comparative novices cycling the Berlin Wall or walking England’s National Trails, as recent grant winners have done.
The article suggests that there is a conflict here when I don’t think there is.
Are TV shows to blame?
The finger of blame is also pointed at documentaries:
…slickly edited adventures of presenters such as Ben Fogle and Bear Grylls … are making risk-taking look dangerously easy”
This is an interesting idea. I have always thought the opposite: that TV shows tend to make things look harder than they actually are. They deliberately dramatise everything, with hyperbolic voiceovers and stirring music.
Many years ago, I wrote the following:
If a television programme in high definition featuring presenters with mud splattered faces talking in superlatives about the severity of the situation and the extremity of their environment gives you the impression that an expedition is a terrifying experience requiring you to risk life and limb then you have been misinformed.
Similarly, I think that ‘adventurers’ are often guilty of exaggerating the difficulties they face because they want to show off how tough they are and impress their audiences. I used to do that when describing my own trips but soon realised that it ran contrary to my stated aim: encouraging others to undertake adventures.
(I detailed this argument in my article If you aim to motivate then stop exaggerating).
However, I could certainly imagine that slick TV shows may indeed gloss over some inconvenient realities of an expedition and sensationalise them in a misleading way.
Is social media the problem?
The article contains several swipes at adventurers using social media e.g.:
the Instagram feeds of a new breed of full-time thrill seekers are making risk-taking look dangerously easy.”
This is an easy dig to make but I am not sure what specific point is being made.
It can’t be a contrast between Jim and the ‘new generation’ of adventurers, because Jim has Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts, just like everyone else in the aricle.
Blaming social media feels a bit like blaming books or radio. They are just platforms. Users can say things that are helpful or that are unhelpful. The medium is not the problem.
In conclusion
The anodyne summary is that encouraging people to go out and have an adventure is fine but that some things require lots of experience and training.
As an aside, I am proud to support the ethos of ‘anyone can have an adventure’ and, when it comes to the less extreme trips, will keep encouraging people to ‘just do it’.
The 2018 Next Challenge Grant opens for applications – and donations – before the end of the year.
6 Comments
richard
Everything good eventually gets sh*tcanned by journalist hack one day. Don’t worry about it. A regular look at the news shows that we can die a thousand deaths just living a normal life in the city. With that in mind, everyone should try a little adventure here and there, before they get hit by a bus checking Facebook on their phone while crossing the street or driving their car, succumb to heart disease from their work-hours related poor diet, or simply fade away from boredom.
I reckon your grant is great, and I am still planning to finish my trek you kindly sponsored a while ago after I didn’t succeed the first time.
Tim Moss
Thanks Richard. I hope you didn’t write that while crossing the road.
(Richard won an award from the 2015 Next Challenge Grant for a winter trek along the Great Wall of China).
Jon Stacey
Tim – what a lot of tosh they write when they have too much space to fill. They would be better turning off the PC and going out for a bloody walk…but we mustn’t encourage that because then they might have a good time rather than writing “toxic, delusionary nonsense.”
Honestly, for anyone who knows anything about either of the businesses that’s really cheap, shoddy journalism.
Keep on keeping on mate.
Kerry-Anne Martin
Well I’ve not read the article you mention (just your blog post) but I want to thank you for inspiring and encouraging me to go on an adventure with my young son last year! Risk is something we all need to take responsibility for our individual selves. And everyone needs some exposure to risk so they can assess what they’re capable of and don’t take too big a risk, including children… Extreme polar travel would be out of my league but I was so excited to receive a grant that would give some money to a lowly, very small time adventurer like me :-) Keep up the good work!
Linda Hutchinson
I consider myself to be quite adventurous but would never be viewed as a thrill seeker or risk taker. It is all relative and each to their own and any support, ideas or encouragement should be welcomed. After 35 years behind a desk when I started setting off on my wee cycles many of my friends were shocked as they couldn’t even imagine going for a weekend City break alone and without firm plans never mind solo cycling across Scotland or England for a few weeks. It was just not something women in their late 50’s were thought of as doing. But what an amazing new world of adventure it has opened up for me. As Dr Seuss says “You have brains in your head, you have feet in your shoes, steer yourself any direction you choose”. Old Biddy on a Bike
Dosh
Well said Tim. It sounds like the author of the article was exploiting the nebulousness of the word ‘adventure’ in order to create controversy where there really isn’t any. For some people, talking to a stranger on the way to the shop is an adventure; for others, leading a team up Everest is all in a day’s work.
Generally, I think the balance in our sanitized, risk-averse, overly fearful and inhibited society is all wrong. Most people can achieve more and are more resourceful than they think. They understandably feel smaller than they are, because they’ve never put themselves to the test to find out otherwise. Most people think the world is a more dangerous place than it is because they haven’t unyoked themselves from media sensationalism and distortions long enough to get out there and find out to the contrary.
I applaud your efforts in advocating “the anyone can have an adventure” ethos. Of course one shouldn’t encourage people to take reckless or uninformed risks, but it would be tragic to withhold help from people fulfilling their potential in a vain effort to protect every fool from their foolishness. Nor do I think it desirable to discourage people from taking well-calculated risks because occasionally the worst will happen, which in most cases is actually far less disastrous than people fear.