We'll rant and we'll roar, like
true British sailors,
We'll rant and we'll roar, all
across the salt sea...
-- British Sea
Chanty
Rant
and Roar: The Problem of Purity
Jerome
'Jay' FitzGerald is one of the sailors I very much respect, albeit
across quite a gulf of attitude and approach.
Jay
makes a case for 'pure' sailing vessels in fierce terms. While some
are affronted, I confess to enjoying a passionate and provocative
rant. He challenges me to review my own choices, ever a worthwhile
venture.
For
him, a vessel with a motor is not a sailboat,
but rather a sail
assisted powerboat.
In
his Wind and Tide: An
Introduction to Cruising in Pure Sailing Craft,
he writes (his
emphasis):
...Without the engine, had they encountered [a] hundred feet of contrary current and not been able to deal with it – even after a thousand miles, they still would have failed to make port. Properly, then, their [dependence on power] ratio should be expressed as 100% power-assisted sail, as they would have been helpless without the engine. It is important to note that in any activity that is judged by its completion, a 1% failure means a 100% failure... Let us be 100% sailors...
Strong
words, and a stirring call to develop the full range of a sailor's
skills for the safety and sheer joy they afford. In his writings, he
shares many of those skills, and further elaborates on his themes.
I
find it instructive to examine why it is that his position is not my
own, despite that I'm a passionate advocate of wind-and-muscle
cruising.
There
is the matter of purity.
I'm allergic to the notion. Purity seems to me a questionable
gradient.
Which
is more pure? A fiberglass or plywood hull? How about one made of
timbers 'harvested' from a forest? A sail of dacron or of Egyptian
cotton? How about if I grow, spin and weave the cloth? A bronze or
galvanized fitting? How 'bout I make my own from drift teak? Am I
pure,
yet?
I'm
unlikely to personally participate in any production aspect of the
wholesale form of these items. None come without environmental cost.
Sure, some more than others, but purity is hardly the standard in
cost/benefit analysis.
In
Jay's argument, “a hundred feet of contrary current”,
insurmountable
to the impure sailor absent engine assist, marks a 'failed voyage'.
Thing
is, being thwarted within spitting distance of harbor happens
frequently to us 'pure sailors'. It happens to Jay. More skill and a
more able boat, the less often is all. The voyage takes another turn
and takes a while longer... it may not end until that port is
eventually made, but neither has it failed.
If ya
survive, ya think ya had a good time!
Similarly,
where Jay argues the superior aesthetics of engine-free sailing, I
sympathize, but recognize personal preferences. He argues the
character building virtues of adversity. Me? I go out of my way to
avoid 'em!
Jay
eloquently argues that pure sail is cheaper, simpler, and safer
than having a motor. Now
he's talkin'! Here I
have no qualms or quibbles. It's not that hundred feet of contrary
current that's the problem; it's the motor quitting in
the jaws at port's entrance, with all sail stowed on a dark and
stormy night. We'd never be there without faith in our engine.
So I
find myself rather pragmatic than pure.
Sifting
through the fun of a good rant, I agree that engines can slow the
learning curve and substitute for skill. I agree that the aesthetic
and challenge of sail can be quashed by the motor. I agree that they
can tempt one into situations beyond our engine-less abilities and
quit, abandoning us to fate.
They
can and often do.
But
we each of us face the sea with our own set of values, abilities,
proclivities and context. One sailor may advise another, but we must
each steer our own course, sailing a thousand choices. Ultimately,
our choices, intersect with the sea and determine the voyage.
Caution's a virtue, no matter how we roll. We learn as we go, usually via whatever set of hard knocks we've arranged for ourselves.
Fair winds and calm seas to us all!