But Mom, he got to sail around the world!

There was a really good NYTimes Magazine article on the Ajax youth program last week a few days after the paper ran a story on an 11 (?) year old boy and 15 year old girl moving to Russia to train with the Bolshoi Ballet, and it got me thinking about the hypocrisy involved with "child prodigies."

In academics and the 'high arts' like classical music, ballet, painting and whatnot, freakishly skilled prodigies are celebrated, and no one questions if they're being exploited by being forced to study or practice for hours upon hours, if they put out CDs or go on concert tours, if they're packed off to college at 12 years old even when they're clearly not socially ready for it no matter how bright they are.

And the trend isn't new. Hell, it goes back to Mozart and before him. Humans, for whatever reason, have a fascination with young people doing very adult things. And let's be clear here - child prodigies in any art are not as sophisticated or mature as the adults in those fields. You can clearly tell the difference in a 9-year-old pianist and a 40 year old playing the same piece with a similar technical proficiency. What makes the kids notable is usually only the outstanding technical skill level for their age.

The lone exception is dance. Ballet, like most sports, depends on flexibility and muscle strength which only develops at a certain age, so you physically can't do pointe work before a certain age, but SeriousDanceSchools work their younger kids just as hard.

Now, there's obviously less inherent risk in touring as a 12 year old touring violinist, being a 9 year old college freshman and sailing around the world by yourself at 16, though I would love to see long-term studies on the impact being a child prodigy has on social development (I suspect the suicide rate is much, much higher among those who never developed into adult leaders in their field than your general population). Still, if you're saying a 16 year old (who obviously wasn't forced into the boat) is being exploited by the family, don't you have to say the same thing about all families with kids doing freakishly mature things for their age?

After reading both of those stories and the differing reaction to them (a general trend of 'go for your dreams!' to the ballet story and 'the system is exploiting the poor children!' to the soccer one), I'm very hesitant to criticize a family with a 'child prodigy' in sports because we're so quick to celebrate a family with a child prodigy in something else.

 

Good post, Smash.

 

I just don't understand how anyone can defend this. Honestly.
Being passionate about something is one thing. Good for her. She has a hobby. And she's good at it (though not great, apparently) ... but when every sailing expert beign quoted is saying what a bad idea it was ... then you have to ask yourself why was it being done?
For the sheer joy of sailing on the open seas? Sure. Whatever.
Or for the notoriety that would come with having two teenage children both sail around the world? She has plenty of years left to live, we hope, why did she have to accomplish this feat as a fucking 16-year-old? If it wasn't for the notoriety?

At any rate ... I'm glad she's alive. And I'm sure her parents had more than a few "what the fuck have we done" thoughts when they lost radio contact with her. I have to imagine those moments --- the sheer horror of thinking about their teenager daughter in the middle of the ocean, scared and alone ---- were a far greater punishment than any criminal charge could ever be.

Or maybe not. Apparently, they're not typical parents. So who knows?

 

Why do kids do anything? Hell, why do we do anything? We have plenty of years left to live to accomplish whatever we want.

I mean, I can understand discussion about danger/consequence vs. reward (though "you could die" is really a risk of doing anything. It just likely gets higher with something like this).

But the question of "what's the point?" rings hollow because what's the point of climbing mountains? What's the point of walking the Appalachian trail or betting your buddy that you can eat a bratwurst per inning at a baseball game? To experience it, and oftentimes to prove you can do it. That's no less true at 6 and 16 than it is at 26 and 46 and 66 and 86.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the actual, quantifiable danger involved here? How many people get lost at sea in the Indian Ocean at this time of year, and are most of those on similarly well equipped boats? Are we talking 10 percent of people die or 1 percent or .001 percent?

 

Smash. I didn't ask "what's the point?" I understand why people want to climb Mt. Everest and sail around the world and eat 50 eggs. I get that.

I was more concerned with the parents. What is the point of ALLOWING/ENCOURAGING your teenage daughter to sail around the world? Or your teenage son to climb the world's tallest mountain? What's wrong with getting them more experience? What's wrong with waiting until they're more mature? What was the rush? If not for the notoreity --- then what? That's the real question in my mind. Or questions, I guess.

 

Again, you're thinking of and speaking of these kids and their families as typical, average, everyday people -- which they are not.

Have you spent time with these kids? Have you seen how composed, how poised, how charismatic, how at ease in their own skins, how mature, they often already are?

These types of experiences are exactly the things that help make them that way, much more quickly than would usually occur if you just followed a normal average path in life.

You've heard of high risk, high reward? Well, done consistently and well, that concept can apply just as much to growth and development as it does to stocks/money.

These kids obviously have not lived average lives. They are not average people. We can't, or at least, we shouldn't, regard them as such.

As for the Sunderlands, in particular, the city they live in is generally considered to be upper-middle class suburbia if considered from a nationwide viewpoint. But, the area they live in is among the oldest, most-average ones in the town. Not poor (mostly because of property value, more than anything else) but it is certainly not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm sure the Sunderlands could use some money. I would guess that a lot of people in their neighborhood (including my brother's family) could some. And the Sunderlands may even end up getting some via story rights or some such thing, maybe. But I doubt it. Any income as a result of this is likely to be very short-term and insubstantial.

(Heck, Zac Sunderland was actually successful in his round-the-world sail, and he was in a media for a while and got to go to the White House, and all that. But now, it's over, and, as far as I know, he's living much the same life as he did before he went on his trip).

I believe these trips have been the kids' ideas, and that the parents have not necessarily encouraged them, per se. I do think the parents have not totally discouraged or discounted them, though.

That's the way people who home-school their kids and otherwise live atypical lives tend to be wired, and how they live life.

They are open- and broad-minded, seek out atypical "teachable moments" and topics and experiences, etc. for their kids, and they don't necessarily march to the beat of society's drum, especially when it comes to the subject of the family's passion or their "thing."

The same can be said of all the tennis parents who send their kids off to tennis academies/boarding schools for months and years at a time, or young actors who are taught on sets, or all the independent-study kids who do it because, for some reasons (their individualized reasons, of course), they're never home, or have never attended regular school.

Anyway, would it be so surprising if, over time, the kids who live these kinds of lives tend to become the very same kind of thinkers (and doers), and start coming up with their own ideas, and having the same sorts of approaches to life?

And, given parents' philosophies that resulted in that, why, then, would the parents necessarily totally discount something, even if it may seem to more typical people to be stupid, dangerous or wrong?

 

The fact that "they're better/smarter/more mature than my Johnny" really seems to scare or offend some people. Thus, the need to demonize the parents for producing/developing better than average kids.

"But kids don't die at those academies!!!!!!!!!!"

Because God knows, "existing" is all that matters. Wake up. Play softball. Do your chores. Eat. Watch TV. Go to bed. Existing on a higher level should not be encouraged if there's a chance you might cease to exist when all is said and done.

 

Personally, I feel that anyone who sails around the world by themselves is stupid. Many people have completed it, but honestly, it's so selfish.
It's extremely dangerous at any age. Sixteen or 60 -- you're still going to get rescued by someone, and cause that someone a whole bunch a money.

 

This represents the worst in human thinking, or lack thereof.

 

Seriously, what do you mean by that? Curious.

 

Write,
What makes these kids so exceptional? Because they were introduced to sailing at an early age? I'm curious as to why you and BT seem to think these kids are so utterly fucking special.
Look, I hope they go on to cure cancer AND win the America's Cup. I hope they do great things with their lives. But presuming, because their parents introduced them to a sport when they were wee little toddlers - and they had a passion for it - makes them extraordinary just seems like a stretch.

Have they accomplished things in their lives that I'm not aware of? IQ's in the 170s? Pulitzers? Nobel Prizes?

They're teenagers on a boat. Yay.
And one of the two had to be rescued at sea. So they're hitting .500 as a family.

And out of curiosity, what was your take on the 10-year-old four or five years ago (maybe he was younger than that? --- I can't remember) that was trying to become the youngest solo pilot in history. And he was. For about a minute. Until his plane crashed and he died.

Cool with that? I mean what's the line? And more importantly, what is a parent's role in encouraging a hobby/passion? Just get out of the way and let Johnny do whatever he wants ... whenever he wants?

Either way. I don't blame the girl for wanting to do it. It's great to have goals. Great to have ambition. I blame the parents for encouraging the journey when ... as has been stated by SAILING EXPERTS .... it was a bad, bad idea. And she, apparently, wasn't ready for it.

But she's alive. And I'm sure she'll try it again in a few months.

 

Aside from the random smiley faces (pet peeve), that's a great post.