PDA

View Full Version : Define Purist/Purism



TJ aka Teej
04-12-2005, 22:59
What's an AT purist?

What's AT purism?

Please answer as though you were writing an entry for an AT glossary:D

owl
04-12-2005, 23:19
Noun

<DL><DT>1. purist, pedant, bookworm, scholastic <DD>usage: someone who insists on great precision and correctness (especially in the use of words) </DD><DD>Noun

<DL><DT>1. purist, pedant, bookworm, scholastic <DD>usage: someone who insists on great precision and correctness (especially in the use of words) </DD><DD>pur•ism

Pronunciation: (pyoor'iz-um), [key] (http://www.infoplease.com/pronkey.html)
—n.
1. strict observance of or insistence on purity in language, style, etc.
2. an instance of this.
3. (often cap.) Fine Arts.a style of art developed in France in the early 20th century, characterized by the use of simple geometric forms and images evocative of objects produced by machine.
</DD></DL>
</DD><DD>(Hiking the AT as a purist I don't know sounds to strict for me)
</DD></DL>

hikerjohnd
04-12-2005, 23:20
Gee - what sparked this thread? :D

Purist: An AT hiker who believes that one must pass all the white blazes, not missing an inch of the trail between Georgia and Maine. This is a pact usually made with one's self.

Purism: Strict observance of or insistence on traditional correctness (from dictionary.com)

MedicineMan
04-12-2005, 23:28
anybody got an applicatoin for the blue blaze society?
well i've only strayed once and that was to humback rocks, didnt loose any sleep over it either.

Whistler
04-12-2005, 23:42
Here's a guess:

Purist - One who hikes his own hike in strict accordance with a set of highly personal expectations or limitations. This could include but is not limited to: passing every white blaze; never blue-blazing; never yellow-blazing; never slack-packing; only sleeping outdoors; etc.

Youngblood
04-13-2005, 08:08
From ALDHA (again :datz ):

Purist—A hiker who makes a covenant with him- or herself
prior to the hike and then keeps the covenant during the
entire hike. Most commonly, the covenant is to hike past
every white blaze or to carry a backpack for the entire distance,
or both.

Tramper Al
04-13-2005, 08:32
I think 'purist' in the context of the AT sometimes carries a somewhat derogatory connotation. It may used to label someone whose personal choice of how to hike is different from one's own, and one is not quite content to 'hike one's own hike'.

My style (for NE AT sections) is always northbound, past every blaze. I rejoin the AT exactly where I left it, for the night or for several months. If I realize I have missed one or two blazes by stepping the wrong way around of blowdown or whatever, and it was in no way shorter or easier, then I don't go back. I carry the pack (day or multiday) for that hike, no more.

I'm just saying it's all relative. I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone who hiked in any way less compulsively than I do to be a slacker, and everyone who does so more compulsively to be a purist. Let's all be pure about hiking our own hike, yes?

Pencil Pusher
04-13-2005, 09:00
AT purist: super anal

hikerjohnd
04-13-2005, 09:19
AT purist: super anal
Not necessarily... I hope to hike past every white blaze - to me, that will bring me a personal sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. Will it happen - I hope so, but if it doesn't then, so be it.

Do I expect others to follow my example - not in this lifetime! It is all about HYOH and let others hike theirs. :sun

Footslogger
04-13-2005, 09:22
Something I'm not ...

'Slogger

Mags
04-13-2005, 11:32
Purist: One who is hiking the official Appalachian Trail, attempting to follow all the white blazes. Alternate bad weather routes can substituted if following the official trail is not safe (e.g flooding, bad weather above treeline, etc.). These bad weather routes become the official trail during unsafe condtions. Some people will extend the pursit definition to include no slackpacking (i.e. carrying a pack the whole way).

Purism: Following the ideas behind being a purist

Jack Tarlin
04-13-2005, 11:49
I think Whistler has said it best.

And Pencil Pusher, who seems awfully judgmental about what other hikers are doing......as a matter of pure curiousity, how much of the Trail have you actually hiked?

neo
04-13-2005, 20:12
the only blue blazing i do is to the shelters,some shelters only a few have two blue blaze trails,one in each direction,if i am going north i take the 1st blue blaze in,then i take the other blue blaze out,to avoid doubling back on a blue blaze exit trail,so i have missed a few white blazes,i also did the approch trail from amicola,a blue blaze trail a lot of people skip,but i am glad i did it.i belive it is up to everybody to pick and chooes how they hike,i am doing this hike for me
and no one else:cool: neo

Pencil Pusher
04-13-2005, 20:40
And Pencil Pusher, who seems awfully judgmental about what other hikers are doing......as a matter of pure curiousity, how much of the Trail have you actually hiked?
Jack, are you being judgemental about me being judgemental?:D So that would be one of those questions where no answer is good enough for the person asking:rolleyes:

ed bell
04-13-2005, 21:17
Just a question here, since I am not currently, nor have been a thru-hiker. Can a successful GA>ME or ME>GA hiker not be a purist? This may seem like semantics, but it may be at the crux of what people are having trouble with in regards to this glossary tift.:-?

ed bell
04-13-2005, 21:24
By successful I mean followed the white blazes from one end to the other. Forget the loop to a shelter, bad weather routes , trail splitting, did you walk across the road nittpickin.

saimyoji
04-13-2005, 21:49
I agreed, whistler is right on.

The negative feelings some people have with purists should be left out of the definition. Though some purists may shove it in your face, that is not part of the definition.

By that defn., though, could someone who makes the covenant: "I will enjoy myself by not defining my hike by any rules." be a purist if? :-?

fiddlehead
04-13-2005, 22:20
I don't care what others do but did run into a problem that has to do with someone's idea of a thru-hike.
On our last Nepal trip, we were contacted via email from someone who said they hiked the AT in 99 and would really like to join us as they too were going to be in Asia at the time and didn't want to go to Nepal alone with all the trouble going on there right now. (this was last year, 2004 and a war has been going on there) So, we talked a bit about hiking via email and met up with this guy in Thailand. We went to northern Thailand together for a week of getting ready and checking out his skills, while we waited for the rest of our group to arrive. He went on a day hike thru the jungle and over a small mt. with our slowest experienced hiker. The trip should've taken about 4 hours. It ended up taking about 11 hours because this guy: 1/didn't carry enough water, and we had to give him some of ours, 2/got heat exhaustion because he didn't carry a hat or bandana and wasn't hydrated to begin with. 3/ Couldn't keep up with our slowest experienced thruhiker, 4/ complained the whole time. 5/ wouldn't drink water even after we found it because no one carried a water filter, 6/ flagged down the 1st vehicle he saw and paid them for a ride.7/lost the hiking stick he borrowed and never has returned it!
Turns out that after discussing all of this after the day hike, we found out he didn't really hike the whole AT. He skipped the whites, most of Maine, hitchiked through southern New England, skipped the Shenendoahs because he stayed at Rusty's too long and then hitchiked ahead to catch up with his friends. you get the point. He claimed he hiked the AT but what would've happened if we would've taken him for his word and allowed him to join us on an expedition to set up a base camp at 15,000' and climb to 17,500' and some of us even 20,000' far from help. Luckily someone here was smart enough to test his skills.
So please people, if you are going to claim to have hiked the AT, be honest when lives could be at stake. Again, i don't care how you hike your hike, i even met a guy who bragged about his sky blaze (hitchiked parts of the trail on an airplane) but don't use this accomplishment as a ticket to someone elses safety. fh

TJ aka Teej
04-13-2005, 23:36
You guys are great, thanks very much. Right now it looks like young Whistler's & Mag's offering should be combined to replace the Purist def currently in the WB Glossary.

zephyr1034
04-14-2005, 00:38
Here's a guess:

Purist - One who hikes his own hike in strict accordance with a set of highly personal expectations or limitations. This could include but is not limited to: passing every white blaze; never blue-blazing; never yellow-blazing; never slack-packing; only sleeping outdoors; etc.============================================== ==============
You want a purist?

I have the two-volume hardback set of AT stories. One of the tales therein is about this guy who starts out from Springer in 1972. He's somewhere in New England when he hears on a radio that his home town has been flooded out by Hurricane Agnes. So he abandons his hike and goes home to take care of things.

The next year, he started over from Springer, rather than pick up where he left off the year before. On both hikes, he repeatedly declined offers to sleep in people's houses. This was when thru-hiking was still a novelty. He insisted on sleeping in a shelter or tent every night.

Or how about this: You get to a road crossing. Town is five miles to the right. You hitch in and then hitch back to the trail. When you get out of the car, do you first cross the road in order to cover the portion of the trail that is on the road?

Youngblood
04-14-2005, 08:08
You guys are great, thanks very much. Right now it looks like young Whistler's & Mag's offering should be combined to replace the Purist def currently in the WB Glossary.
Teej,

You're bound and determined not to use ALDHA's definitions... I suspect there's a story there somewhere, but I don't know it. I feel with that attitude you are going to have difficult time coming up with definitions that the members of WhiteBlaze will accept in mass. I for one, feel that not using ALDHA's definintions as a foundation is fundamentally wrong in light of ALDHA's position within the hiking community-- the Companion is recommended by the ATC for prospective thru-hikers and the Companion is indeed carried in the backpacks of many thru-hikers as a trail guide and reference.

Having gotten that off my chest, I do have the following comments: I understand the intent of Whistler's definition, but I would caution using the phrases "never blue-blazing; never yellow-blazing" as white-blaze purist can (and do) blue-blaze and yellow-blaze; they just go back and hike all of the 'official' white-blazed path. They are not excluded from blue-blazing and yellow-blazing... I suspect everybody hitches rides and takes blue-blazed side trails to water, shelters, etc. There is no point in using phrases that petty people can use for nonsensical arguments... and that is pretty much what this particular thread is all about.

Youngblood

Youngblood
04-14-2005, 08:14
Just a question here, since I am not currently, nor have been a thru-hiker. Can a successful GA>ME or ME>GA hiker not be a purist? This may seem like semantics, but it may be at the crux of what people are having trouble with in regards to this glossary tift.:-?
Ed,

I think you have it pretty much figured out.

Youngblood

SGT Rock
04-14-2005, 08:33
Anyone seen Appalachian Impressions? The guy in the video defines a purist as someone that can't read a map. :sun

Just poking fun at the purists, step away from the flame key on your computer.

MOWGLI
04-14-2005, 09:18
There is no point in using phrases that petty people can use for nonsensical arguments... and that is pretty much what this particular thread is all about.



Well, I'm so glad we've finally arrived at a definition that all of the purists among us are happy with. Time for a group hug! :banana

Now that this is done, I'm sure we'll never have another instance where a purist will seek to define another hiker who doesn't follow their "way." :D

Little Bear (who simply couldn't resist)

Youngblood
04-14-2005, 09:49
...Or how about this: You get to a road crossing. Town is five miles to the right. You hitch in and then hitch back to the trail. When you get out of the car, do you first cross the road in order to cover the portion of the trail that is on the road?
I've asked this question before. I don't recall a direct answer from any of the more out spoken white-blaze purist, I think they feel they cover that with "entire trail where ENTIRE MEANS ENTIRE" requirement. The next question is: if you don't walk across that road, either intentional or you just forget to, does that mean you are now labeled a yellow blazer and are not a thru-hiker? How about a 2,000-Miler? This is the so-called 'slippery slope' zone. Because while that little road crossing sounds ricidulous, just how far can you yellow blaze before it matters... the whole state of Virginia was once offered as an example of an extreme case in the other direction.

I am hoping that clear definitions of relevent terms will resolve these 'slippery slopes' in a manner that is fair and equitable to all parties. I believe it can be done but we should learn by past history what terms and phrases to avoid.

Youngblood

Footslogger
04-14-2005, 10:08
Maybe the trail community could take a lesson from the field of medicine when it comes to naming, labeling things that are a bit difficult to define. In medicine ...those things are called "Syndromes". The thought being that if you can name it you can deal with it.

'Slogger

SGT Rock
04-14-2005, 10:22
So then it would be like a phobia or something?

Footslogger
04-14-2005, 10:26
So then it would be like a phobia or something?===================================
Yeah ...like thruhikaphobia ??

'Slogger

Rain Man
04-14-2005, 13:55
Would a purist (or a Mainer) ever say "Mt." Katahdin???
:jump
Rain:sunMan

.

TJ aka Teej
04-14-2005, 21:28
Teej,

You're bound and determined not to use ALDHA's definitions... I suspect there's a story there somewhere, but I don't know it.Not for purist. "Covenant" seems too pertentious, and it doesn't reflect today's usuage. And naught for nothing, but it's not accurate to call them "ALDHA's definitions", they were composed by the at-l (albeit the majority of at-lers are ALDHA members and long distance hikers) and not produced by/with official ALDHA input. It was offered to ALDHA for the newsletter, the ATC liked it, and it was included in the Companion. Here we're constructing a WhiteBlaze Glossary, one that should be current, interactive, and web based. We old timers on the at-l had great fun compiling the old list, and that fun was evident in the end result, so I attempted to clean out the humor and editorial comments and to compose with neutrality as a guide. There's still over 30 suggested inclusions in the mill.
So - here's the deal, everyone - to add to or to change what's in the glossary, please submit an entry for WBers to consider.

TJ aka Teej
04-14-2005, 21:30
"Would a purist (or a Mainer) ever say "Mt." Katahdin???"

Nevah! :D

Youngblood
04-15-2005, 06:58
... but it's not accurate to call them "ALDHA's definitions" ... It was offered to ALDHA for the newsletter, the ATC liked it, and it was included in the Companion. ...
So, what would you call them and what should the thru-hikers on the trail that are carrying the Companion do with them?

Pretentious? I know what it means...

Youngblood

The Old Fhart
04-15-2005, 08:30
PURIST – A person who embraces the concept that they should hike the Appalachian Trail a certain prescribed way. In its simplest form this means legally following all of the approximately 80,000 white blazes that mark the trail from one end to the other end without missing any of the official trail. Sections of the trail closed by fire, flood, or for public safety, are exempt.

However, there seems to be as many definitions of “purist” as there are hikers. Some purists feel that making a good faith effort to stay on the official A.T. and avoid taking any short-cuts or alternate routes is sufficient. Some feel that if there is a shelter loop that they should go in and out the same way so they don’t miss a few feet or a few tenths of a mile of the trail that the loop would bypass, others don’t care. There are purists who do not go around blow-downs because this would cause them to miss a few feet of the trail. A very few advocate illegal activities to hike the trail their way. Some purist who get rides to town feel that when they get back to the trail they must touch the same spot they left and not start on the other side of the road, while others feel you shouldn’t get rides to town at all. There are those that feel it is alright to take a few days off in town or go home for a week to visit friends or family while others believe they should hike every single day. Others feel they must hike at least a certain number of miles per day or not stay in shelters. Some feel they can’t slackpack or they must always go in the same direction without flip-flopping. Others feel they can’t section hike the trail and still be a purist, the list of imagined and self-imposed requirements goes on and on and on……

An aberration of “purist” (which is slightly aberrant anyway) are those hikers who not only feel they must hike the trail in a certain way because their way is the only true way, but that everyone else is either cheating or below them for hiking the trail differently. These so-called “purist” quite often will let other hikers know that they are hiking the trail the wrong way. They often refer to other hikers as “cheaters” or “frauds” and suggest reporting them to the ATC for reprimands, or posting their names in shelter registers or on hiking sites to let others know of the transgression.

Lastly, there is the internet purist who hasn’t hiked the trail but has definite ideas about how others should hike the trail and will go on and on correcting other posters for hiking their own hike.

Rain Man
04-15-2005, 08:46
However, there seems to be as many definitions of “purist” as there are hikers. Some purists feel that making a good faith effort to stay on the official A.T. and avoid taking any short-cuts or alternate routes is sufficient. Some feel that if there is a shelter loop that they should go in and out the same way so they don’t miss a few feet or a few tenths of a mile of the trail that the loop would bypass, others don’t care. There are purists who do not go around blow-downs because this would cause them to miss a few feet of the trail. A very few advocate illegal activities to hike the trail their way. Some purist who get rides to town feel that when they get back to the trail they must touch the same spot they left and not start on the other side of the road, while others feel you shouldn’t get rides to town at all. There are those that feel it is alright to take a few days off in town or go home for a week to visit friends or family while others believe they should hike every single day. Others feel they must hike at least a certain number of miles per day or not stay in shelters. Some feel they can’t slackpack or they must always go in the same direction without flip-flopping. Others feel they can’t section hike the trail and still be a purist, the list of imagined and self-imposed requirements goes on and on and on……

An aberration of “purist” (which is slightly aberrant anyway)....

Does it seem to anyone else that we almost are discussing degrees of a mental illness of some sort?

Rain:sunMan

.

Tramper Al
04-15-2005, 08:48
Hah, well done, OF!

I particularly appreciate your designations of what I might call the elitist purist and the poseur purist. These are the forms of 'purism' which result in negativity, clearly.

Everything else is just HYOH.

The Old Fhart
04-15-2005, 08:53
Rain Man-"Does it seem to anyone else that we almost are discussing degrees of a mental illness of some sort?"Speaking as an inmate, yes! :D

SGT Rock
04-15-2005, 09:34
Internet Purist LOL. Sort of like the definition of a Soldier and a Wannabe.