Spence Green

The other day I read a blog sent to me by a romantic colleague. Described in the posts were dating successes and failures, along with “lessons learned” and “advice.” I laughed. We all laugh when we overhear things that most people are too bashful to admit. My initial reaction to the author was: I like this guy, he seems playful, like the gregarious, Judd Apatow-esque drinking buddy archetypes in films. Affable people like this always seem to land on their feet, if not first in the drunk tank.

Judd Apatow-esque drinking buddies are likable because they are indulgent. They drink too much; they sleep around too much; they talk and yell too much. They are known for a mode of behavior that timid people envy, but later consign to a juvenile fantasy. In my experience, Americans are on the mean more conservative—some might say puritanical—than those from other Western societies, so flamboyance is somehow more exceptional. It is a flame that burns brightly in youth and is idolized by those too young to participate or too old to regress. A “goofball” is a good thing to have around.

I guess my question is: how do you want to be known? For example, I’ve long daydreamed about having long hair. Long hair symbolizes a freedom from convention, and it looks damn good when you’re slinging a six-string and raging at the moon. But I don’t play the guitar, and I’m fairly conventional. For me long hair would be an act, and not necessarily one that I would want to be known by. Perhaps my reluctance is an indication of restraint, or maybe just the indulgence of an alternate fantasy.

While in Atlanta last week I was digging through the magazines that tend to wash up at my family’s house. We’ve lived there for 25 years, and my dad never seems to cancel subscriptions. In Sports Illustrated I found this historical article from 16 August 1954:

The art of running the mile consists, in essence, of reaching the threshold of unconsciousness at the instant of breasting the tape. It is not an easy process, for the body rebels against such agonizing usage and must be disciplined by the spirit and the mind. It is infinitely more difficult in the amphitheater of competition, for then the runner must remain alert and cunning despite the fogs of fatigue and pain; his instinctive calculation of pace must encompass maneuvers for position, and he must harbor strength to answer the moves of other men before expending his last reserves. Few events in sport offer so ultimate a test, and the world of track has never seen anything equal to the “Mile of the Century,” which England’s Dr. Roger Gilbert Bannister–the tall, pale-skinned explorer of human exhaustion who first crashed the four-minute barrier–won last Saturday from Australia’s world-record holder, John Michael Landy.

Here is the difference between describing and articulating. Good writers describe what they see, but in an artful manner that informs the reader. Thus fatigue becomes “agonizing usage,” and we grasp the difference between running as exercise and the very different requirements of competition.  This kind of writing is increasingly hard to find in the popular press.

Cynthia Tucker’s opinion piece “Unhealthy tone to Obama opposition” (16 Sept.) was not helpful. It is clear to nearly everyone irrespective of political persuasion that President Obama’s election was a crucial moment in this country’s history. What saddens me is that Ms. Tucker sees Mr. Obama in much the same way as the “fervid right” that she so vigorously attacks: as a black man. But Mr. Obama’s genius is his ability to harmonize interests that have until now remained divided along racial lines. One way that he does so is to present skin color as an incidental matter. It is discouraging that Ms. Tucker has not learned from his example, preferring instead to argue that the presence of a vocal, bigoted minority is broadly instructive.

For example, Ms. Tucker cites defamatory faxes sent to Rep. David Scott as evidence of a pervasive racial undercurrent in the conversation on healthcare. But if we are to take informal sampling of one politician’s fax machine as useful analysis, then I suggest a review of Mr. Bush’s inbox over the past few years. It is likely that several unkind messages would be found. As for demonstrations, Ms. Tucker has forgotten the placards that greeted Mr. Bush in all the world’s cities.

Considering the AJC’s status as a progressive voice in these matters, one feels that an opportunity is lost when unsophisticated remarks like Ms. Tucker’s are entertained.