Skip to main content

The wimp Bob Costas shows us how it's done

Concerning Bob Costas's pull-out from the Olympics, Daniel D'Addario wrote this: 
Costas had spent the early days of the Olympics sick in a manner that was particularly visible. Were he ill with bronchitis, say, he might have soldiered through, waiting for a commercial break to stick his head in a humidifier but with no visible signs of distress the audience could notice. With his eye infection, his malady was written across his face. Surely I’m not the only audience member who grabbed at my own eye in painful recognition. 
And yet, until now, Costas has gone through with a job he’s both contractually bound to and, more notably, one he seems to enjoy. […] But he’s also a testament to the very sort of fortitude we celebrate in Olympic athletes. […] 
Those who are sick in their workaday lives shouldn’t feel bad about taking days off, of course. But the biennal spotlight of the Olympic games is different than an office job; just like the athletes, Costas has only so many Olympics in which he’ll be able to participate, and he clearly wants to take part in as many as possible. […] 
So much of NBC’s Olympics coverage is about constructing narratives around victory that often ring false. One gets the sense that Costas’s producers won’t be satisfied until they cover every bad thing that’s happened in an athlete’s life — and not every athlete, frankly, has overcome that much! There’s not always a redemption narrative that actually works. But Costas’s illness has cut through the Olympics cant. In persevering on-air and reserving comment on the matter until it was absolutely necessary, the anchor showed he’s actually learned from the champions he covers. ("Bob Costas's Red Scare," Salon)
-----
Do guys really need to know that not complaining "until absolutely necessary," being warriors, persevering, soldiering through, is the model still to emulate? Because what? Without asking for it people will then attend to them, give them mothering love?
Maybe he is usefully cutting through all the cant -- however much this is still warrior imagery. But what I know him for is being "soft" -- easy-going, amiable, a good, respectful listener, excitable as a kid, exposed -- over time and accumulation teaching guys it's okay to be this way. Personally, I'm almost inclined to edit out this "rehabilitation," like I did when Andrew O'Hehir tried to prove that President Carter could also be warrior "strong."
What we need to know is that you can be a great Olympic athlete, without actually having had to overcome that much -- for a lot of us, if that's not new it's something we're hesitating to acknowledge, and perhaps becoming more inclined to just expunge/expel. More evidence of people volunteering to sacrifice their lives for the games, if you please! 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more