Wild Land News no 56, Winter 2002/2003

In defence of outdoor writing Article

Chris Townsend responds to an article in "Scotland's Wild Land - What Future?"

In his feature "When guidebooks aren't always good books: the dying art of exploration" in the "Scotland's wild land" booklet Dave Hewitt attacks guidebooks, guidebook writers, guidebook publishers, guidebook users, mountain photographers, mountain coffee table books, outdoor writers, outdoor magazine editors and outdoor magazines. This is rather a long list - potential supporters all - for the SWLG to offend so here I'd like to mount a defence and rebut some of Dave Hewitt's points.

I had better declare an interest before I launch into my argument. I have written guidebooks and I write regularly for outdoor magazines, specifically TGO, one of two magazines singled out by Dave Hewitt for criticism. I even write about gear, something he regards as a blight. I've also been a member of SWLG since its early days and I am very concerned about the conservation of our wild lands.

Dave's case is that there is a decline in exploration by hillgoers and that the outdoor publishing industry is at least in part responsible for this. Firstly let me say I don't agree with the basic premise. I don't think that walkers are any less exploration minded than in the past because I don't think that most walkers ever were interested in exploration. I have no statistics to back this up but I doubt Dave has for his view either. I have however been hillwalking since the early 1960s and walking in Scotland since the mid 1970s and in that near enough 40 year period the vast majority of people I've seen on the hills have been on footpaths. And the same hills have retained their popularity during that time. I learnt many, many years ago that it was easy to find solitude on even the most popular hills simply by leaving the paths or choosing ones not marked on the map or listed in guidebooks. I've been using guidebooks to decide where not to go for a long time.

I see no reason though why walkers should feel exploratory. I like venturing onto rough terrain and finding my own way round the hills but I have no objection to people who prefer to stick to footpaths or like walking in popular places. Yes, this can lead to erosion and unscrupulous landowners may try to keep people from venturing off corridor routes (though I see few signs that this is a problem) but it's not a reason for encouraging people to leave the popular paths or denigrating those who don't. Many people don't want an adventure; they just want an enjoyable walk in fine scenery.

Guidebooks are, as Dave says, everywhere. With such a vast quantity quality is bound to vary and there are some pretty awful ones and also some excellent ones. Why are there so many guidebooks? Because people buy them. Why do guidebooks usually cover popular areas and often the same routes? Because these are the guidebooks that sell most copies. In other words guidebooks to popular areas are what people want. Most people don't have that much time to go to the hills so when they do go they want to see the well known and famous areas on the basis that these are likely to also be the most attractive. I can sympathise. In the Eastern Highlands, where I live, I often spend time on little visited, little-known hills but when I visit an area unknown to me I want to see the best it has to offer.

At the same time I do think guidebooks should encourage walkers to expand their horizons and visit places they might not have considered otherwise. Many guidebooks do do this. The two I have written, covering the Isle of Skye and Ben Nevis & Glen Coe in the Collins Rambler's Guide series, contain a mix of popular routes up popular hills and far less popular routes to rarely visited places. There are serious scrambles in these books too - Aonach Eagach and Sgurr nan Gillean for example - and the publishers never suggested I should remove any route due to the "liability-fear" Dave mentions. There isn't even a disclaimer in the books.

Many guidebooks also have colour photographs (mine do, as do the SMC Guides and many others) and some merge into coffee table books, which Dave blames for causing people to go to craggy, spectacular hills as these look best in the pictures. He even makes a guess that less shapely hills have suffered a decrease in visits as the amount of glossy photographs has increased. I would be very, very surprised if this was so. I suspect these hills have never had many visits. I also think that the vast majority of walkers are well aware that the weather is often wet and dull. They don't however want to look at pictures of such weather at home. They want to see what the hills would look like if they could see them.

On a more serious environmental point coffee table books play a large part in convincing people that wild areas are worth protecting. A superb photograph of a beautiful place can really be worth a thousand words. I doubt a picture of mist shrouded, rain sodden moorland would persuade anyone to do anything. Books like "The Magic of the Munros" and "The Magic of the Corbetts" are useful and important tools in defence of wild land because of the stunning photography.

Of magazines Dave says there is a "dearth of intelligent, enthusiastic, hands-on editorship". I think he is completely wrong. I've been reading outdoor magazines for thirty years and writing for them for over twenty and I think we have as good or better magazines now than we have ever had, mostly edited by keen, knowledgeable outdoors people who do a good job. Dave suggests digging out a magazine from 15 years ago and making a comparison. A few years ago I actually did this, looking through copies of The Great Outdoors (as TGO was then known) from 1981-85 as research for an article. I was astonished at how much space was given over to gear reviews and route descriptions, far more than in TGO today. There was also a far higher proportion of pages given over to advertisements. Commercial magazines were just as market driven then as they are now but today there is more not less of the "genuine writing" Dave wants to see. Take the November 2002 TGO. It contains well-written, interesting features on Mount Olympus (by noted mountaineer Stephen Venables), on Drove Roads, on night hiking and on the Loch Treig Munros. Of the regular columnists Jim Perrin writes on the Dyfi Hills, which he describes as neglected by walkers, Mike Harding has a humorous piece on OS maps on CD-ROM and Dave Key discusses the difference between travel through and within wilderness, the latest in a wilderness philosophy series called Wild At Heart. Cut-out-and-keep walks? There are four pieces that could just about be described thus though they're not step by step route descriptions. They include a feature on crossing passes while avoiding summits in the English Lake District and another on walking on Unst in Shetland. Only a description of a round of the Carneddau hills in Snowdonia could be regarded as covering a popular walk. The gear reviews Dave abhors are there - written by me as usual - but there are no product placements in editorial, something I have never seen in TGO or any other outdoor magazine. Of course there are pictures of walkers wearing or using identifiable gear. That has always been the case. The first issue of TGO had a well-known tent on the cover. Products are unavoidable if people are to appear in photographs.

TGO heavily promoted the International Year of the Mountains and has a strong environmental and pro wild land ethic. Other magazines are similarly committed. Climber is especially noteworthy here with a regular column from Bill Wright of the Cairngorms Campaign and frequent pieces from Alan Blackshaw. To say the outdoor magazines have abdicated from their responsibilities and no longer lead is simply untrue.

The enemies of wild land are the people who want to dig quarries, bulldoze tracks, build funicular railways and otherwise develop the hills. To protect wild land requires the support of many people, including guidebook writers and outdoor magazine editors. SWLG should be encouraging them to support conservation not publishing pieces attacking them. We need to be united.