Saturday, September 1, 2018

Questions

Some questions may be hard to answer, yet they must be asked. And answering is not enough: they must , when answered, also be acted upon. They are like potholes on the roads, so numerous that it would take a lot of effort to correct them, but we must at least try. This may be quixotic, but then isn’t Don Quixote a lovable figure? Isn’t his maladroit meliorism as touching as it is misguided?

So here are some of my urgent questions—urgent seeming at least to me--yet highly unlikely to be acted upon, given the effort that would require. But let it not be said of me that I never asked.

How many more intolerables are we to tolerate from Donald Trump before we take some kind of punitive action? As my friend Kevin Filipski remarked, just one of them from Obama would have landed him in serious trouble; from Trump, they may not go unimpugned, but they clearly remain unacted upon. Why?

The answer is: because the Republicans, even when they disapprove--rarely enough—have nobody better to put forward as a surefire replacement. There are some perfectly good Republicans, but they lack the kind of following to surely beat the Democrats with. (Please note the split infinitive, which, like the sentence-ending preposition, is perfectly all right, yet constantly put forward as pedantry by ignorant foes unaware of what linguists are really about.) In this case, too, as in so many others, it is the ignoramuses who prevail in society,

What could make an intellectual candidate succeed? Better education, i.e., better schools.
But how are we going to get those? It would require more respect and better salaries for teachers on all levels. Teachers, even most professors, are unlikely beneficiaries. Why is that?

There are several reasons. There is, first of all envy: because teachers get longer vacations than most, teaching is assumed to be a cushy job, being its own reward. Teaching the numerous dunderheads, however, is no easy job; rather one demanding indefatigable effort and the patience of saints. Qualifiers for all that may well have a preference for easier, better paid and more prestigious jobs, such as writing potboilers for television or hugging microphones as singers or rappers.
Which is not to say that most pop singers and rappers are really slumming talents.

To be sure, there are sufficient millionaires and billionaires who could spend some of their munificence on education, but, as far as I can tell, that is not a favorite endowment, though, granted, not quite the least favored either. But the problem is that, let us say, if this or that college or university gets a grant, it is more likely to be put to uses other than better teaching. And, sure enough, money for cancer research or victorious football teams, even with pedophile coaches, have to be prioritized.

This said, it must be reckoned with that the United States is a country in which intellectuals are less respected than in many others. Minorities may be favored, as are radicals. Just think who gets to be a MacArthur fellow. In the arts, anyway, it is radicals first. Now I have nothing against women, blacks or lesbians, especially all three together, getting their fair share, but need they be so obviously preferred? George Soros may be more evenhanded, but of how many others can this be even suspected?
                                                                                                                                                             Now, however, to a different, major question. Why are here so few female tennis champions? Actually, more than one, Serena Williams? In male singles, there are a major four—just as there used to be in Chinese politics, a very different field.

In male singles, it was a possible for Djokovic, Federer and Nadal, and somewhat less even Andy Murray, to be steadily, unswervingly at the top of the game. You could count on one of them to win and be for a good while number one in the world. The others might not even bother to compete—they might as well not be there, although very occasionally an anomalous Cilic, Wawrinka, Kyrgios, or Del Potro could horn in.

You may ask what’s so good about that, why shouldn’t some others get a fair chance? The Zwerews, Thiems, Dimitrovs, or Fogninis? Well, because for us spectators it was very comforting to be rooting for a winner, to have our boy be a champion. There was enough variety among those four, and a relaxing sense that even if one of them lost, there was a good chance he might recoup the next time. Only on clay was there a monotony of Rafa Nadal winning over and over again, a real surfeit. If none of them won, one was at a loss about whom to vote for, even if a Raonic or Goffin might be a temporary winner. The Americans especially were a disappointing lot.

But now look at the women: almost every other month there was a different number one. That is when Serena chose to be a devoted mother to a newborn, and perhaps not even then. There was no getting around the fact that Serena could beat them all without being especially likable. Likable? What does that have to do with it? Quite a bit. Without wishing to take away from his glory, a Federer owes at least some of his successes to his charm, to the love of his numerous international supporters. All the more remarkable that the egregiously charmless Nadal should still so consistently excel. To be sure, he too has the most devoted fans in Hispanics, of whom there seems to be no end whenever and wherever he is playing. Let us look at him for a moment.

Nadal seems to be the only crazy champion. Whenever he serves and almost equally when he receives, he exhibits traits that are at best extremely eccentric, if not totally non compos menti. He performs a serving and also receiving ritual that consists  of touching—or tweaking—one ear, then the nose, then the other ear and back again and sometimes even, unsavorily, the back of his pants, which elicits curious interpretations from his ill wishers, of whom there are not a few. Even the containers of the liquids he consumes have to be lined up in a certain order, and he is inclined to take more time than allowed between points. He also has an unappealingly cutthroat look when playing, as if he liked nothing better than cut his opponents’ throats. On the other hand, he seems to be reasonably normal the rest of the time, and is said to be quite charming. Indeed he has a nice smile and a bald patch on the back of his head that humanize him.

Federer, Djokovic and Murray come across perfectly normal, and even at what is in tennis an advanced age, steadily at or near the top. There are, however, newcomers who occasionally win out. But with women players, it is otherwise: there is a new number one every few months, and with the exception of Serena Williams, no steady champion. In a typical match, the temporary favorite will win one set rather easily, then lose the next set just as easily. The third set then becomes the real battle, and can sometimes be very long. This is what makes women’s tennis so frustrating: you really don’t know whom to root for, and even Serena Williams, the only longtime number one, can be dramatically off her game. Her powerful serve can sometimes be missing, which is how a lesser player can—rarely—beat her.

I myself like women players whom I find both talented and attractive, like Julia Goerges  and Garbine Muguruza, and dislike the unsightly ones, like Svetlana Kuznetsova, Carla Suarez Navarro, Ashleigh Barty, Naomi Osaka and a few others in both categories. Many women players have an innate elegance that makes watching them a kind of balletic experience. Among the men, only Federer has that quality, though Djokovic dazzles us with the ability to retrieve seemingly unanswerable shots, turning defense into offence. Also his sense of humor.

I spend many hours watching tennis on TV. My question is will I ever get bored with it? I hope not, even if among the upcoming players there seems to be no one as interesting as the elite four. Along with reading and classical music, it is one of my chief pleasures. I only wish I could share it with my good wife, who, however, does not care for sports.

P.S.: I realize full well that matches are not won on looks, but that does not prevent a fan from watching with greater pleasure a point won by the appealing Camila Giorgi than by the unappealing Madison Keys. However, if I were an umpire or referee (whatever the difference is), I would not allow myself to be swayed by looks.

20 comments:

  1. THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND:
    “Contrary to the popular prejudice that America is the nation of unintellectual and anti-intellectual people, where ideas are at best means to ends, America is actually nothing but a great stage on which theories have been played as tragedy and comedy. This is a regime founded by philosophers and their students. All the recalcitrant matter of the historical ‘is’ gave way here before the practical and philosophical ‘ought to be,’ as the raw natural givens of this wild continent meekly submitted to the yoke of theoretical science. Other people were autochthonous, deriving guidance from the gods of their various places. When they too decided to follow the principles we pioneered, they hobbled along awkwardly, unable to extricate themselves gracefully from their pasts. Our story is the majestic and triumphant march of principles of freedom and equality, giving meaning to all that we have done or are doing. There are almost no accidents; everything that happens among us is a consequence of one or both of our principles - a triumph over some opposition to them, a discovery of a fresh meaning in them, a dispute about which of the two has primacy, etc.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, if your quotation says so, but the real-world reality outside your front door, stipulates a land of Main Street book-burners and clock-stoppers from Zenith, USA.

      Delete
  2. As a Canadian I hope that my government will stand up to Trump in the current NAFTA negotiations. If Republicans are unwilling to stand up to his bullying and lying I would like to think we will defend ourselves against his ridiculous tariffs and attempts to browbeat us into submission.
    As for education - teachers complain that they have to buy school supplies like paper or crayons out of their own pocket but Betsy DeVos has made sure they will be supplied with their own AK-47s at taxpayer expense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Simon, please allow one of us to copyedit your text before you post. It would be an honor and a privilege.
    There are half a dozen glaring error this time around. Who is looking at your work -- besides yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Proposed answer as to why the US citizenry is not better educated:
    It seems that "they" don't want Americans to be educated. It's so much more convenient for everyone to be dumb, ignorant, and in debt. Then we will all be scared and worried and timid.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My father played tennis for St.Louis university in the mid-50's. Only one year, and he walked on. He made the JV team. He was 5-7 and 125 pounds. He was known for his quickness. His serve was average, though. He told me they used to kill his serve, but he could always return the return. He could get to anything. Anything. The guy would gun it to the corner, and Dad would be there, hitting it back. Not hard, but he'd get it over the net. He'd always get it back over. Dad would drive you crazy because no matter what you did, he'd get there and hit it back. Over the net. Eventually, you'd make a mistake.

    Fast forward 25 years. I had been a very good athlete in high school. I played football, baseball, and golf in high school. I played a little basketball in my junior year, as well. I asked Dad if he wanted to play some tennis one day. I told him I wouldn't go 100 %. I told him, "don't worry," I'd take it easy at first. We played three sets. I had an excellent service.

    My father beat me in straight sets. I didn't win a point. He was 45 and I was 20. From that point on, we played tennis about three times a month for 15 years. I never beat my dad in a match. I got close a couple of times when he was in his late 50's, but I never beat him. Not once.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Uncle Kirky became Pop Leibel. BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Camila Giorgi? She's ranked 45 in the world! She's never gotten past the quarters of a major. She's not on the frickin' map, John!

    If you care to talk about looks, one must consider the strange case of Maria Sharapova, perhaps the most beautiful elite athlete since Diana the Huntress. Absolutely gorgeous woman, with a long, lithe figure, broad but fine shoulders, and a mesmerizing face. Of course it's all marred once she begins squealing and caterwauling, but still. And her seeming arrogance and vanity, humbled perhaps by her doping humiliation, doesn't help things -- that Slavic fascination with America's money-money-money clothes and perfume careerism stuff, but Maria has a career slam, two Frenches and I don't know how many finals and semifinals. Now that is a tennis player.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharapova has more of a screaming yelp than a grunt.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMgN71DrQus

      My top 3 women's tennis players I'd like to sleep with:
      3) Jennifer Capriati
      2) Maria Sharapova
      1) Anna Kournikova


      Bottom 3
      3) Althea Gibson
      2) Martina Navratilova
      1) Billie Jean King

      Delete
    2. Mine was written before I saw yours, Pop, but we are obviously on the same page!

      Delete
    3. Yours is a poem. Much better. :)

      Delete
    4. Stay dry and safe, Pop, stay dry and safe.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Joe. Cant get in there yet. Fingers crossed.

      Delete
  8. Don't even go there

    Questions about Trump's intolerables,
    I counter with Hillary's deplorables,
    And wonder if her champions brood
    O'er Choom's "government is good."

    And is gal tennis for fantasists,
    Those big paddles in their fists?
    The simultaneous grunt and whack,
    A something with which off to jack?

    No question Simon's one smart gent.
    A beauty critic quite competent!
    Yet aware when not the fates to tempt,
    In the looks department who's exempt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Speaking of men's pro tennis, I can't imagine anyone more charming and likable as a person than Del Potro, the gentle giant. As for grace of individual body movements, I always enjoy watching Wawrinka's serving motion as he starts and then culminates with standing on his toes. Also, the exciting young newcomer Denis Shapovolov when he does those two little hops just before he starts his service motion. There's just something about the rhythm of those particular movements that gets me every time! lol

    ReplyDelete
  10. There he goes again. "The Aesthetics of the Actor's Appearance" redux, with topspin. Ah, the gleeful meanness of petty intellectuals.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What a delicious delight to discover that a favored writer and oneself share the same obsession! Mr. Simon you are mostly spot on with regards to tennis. Its drama and pageantry seem to demand an aptly enlarged cast of dominant characters. The Big Four of the current male game meet this criterion perfectly, just as the struggles between Borg, Connors, and McEnroe (later added to with Lendl) made what we still call tennis's Golden Age. Even two antagonists feels somewhat inadequate: cf our easy forgetting of Sampras v Agassi or the slight boredom we always got when Martina and Chrissie dominated women's tennis. The most compelling era recently has been the late nineties and early aughts, when Capriati, Davenport, Hingis, Justine Henin, and the Williams sisters were all equally battling each other for the game's top spot. And Mr. Walden is correct that any discussion of women's tennis, especially one concerned with players' looks, is incomplete without an analysis of the phenomenon which is Maria Sharapova.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kiss me hard & fuck me harder! Hey, i am looking for an online sexual partner ;) Click on my boobs if you are interested (. )( .)

    ReplyDelete