The first piece I read was called "The End of Practice" by Rodney Jones. It chronicles one mans struggle to reach the complete "male dream" while explaining his surroundings in gory yet in depth detail. The piece begins with Jones stating that he, as a man dreams, of "harnessing and exacting irrevocable power over others", a dream desired by most men in the world, but lacks that same power in the present and faces the fact that another man holds the power he yearns for the most. And in this case of the poem, that man is his coach. His coach is the one that controls his team, making them run laps, race to the death, and compete like their lives depended on it. The author longs for this power but throughout the poem he realizes that the gap between his hand and his grasp on it slowly, but surely, gets larger and larger; restricting him from reaching the ultimate male dream that's surrounded by a need for supremacy in the present world. One thing I found quite interesting in the poem is the way Jones tells this story and depicts the characters attempts to reach their goals but all in separate ways. Yet, only one, yes only one of these men can ultimately win at this game and/or sport of life. The one thing that puzzles me is the last line of the poem which read, "and, while this came pass, monks in Asia soaked their robes in gasoline and burned alive for peace." I don't understand while this relates back to the big picture of the poem. Does it relate because those monks reached the complete control and power of themselves in which contrasts with the fact that the author and generally most men don't reach that ultimate control and power. Is it suppose to contrast these ideas? Or, does it mean something different? I'm not sure and it's truthfully bugging me how I cant grasp the concept of this closing line.
Klosterman's "33" is the piece I read next. On the surface, this essay depicts the general idea as the conflict between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics throughout the 1980's and the strong following it brought on. On a much deeper level, this essay equates the rivalry between the Lakers and the Celtics as a reflection on the 80's culture and ideas; stating the fact that the true reason behind him favoring the Celtics is because he liked "his dad team" in which he discovered he was actually "rooting for the Republican Party". Klosterman truly believed that through the way the basketball players played (with their heart and not their minds) and the influence of their coaches that each teams ideal trickled down into their present day culture and debates. Yet only this theory can be applied to 80's basketball and not to present day's basketball based on the fact that today players play as if they're robots focusing on 3 goals, and three goals only; money, fame, and success. Whereas in the past, players based their performances on their passion for the sport and their desire to win the game for the sake of their team and fans. It wasn't based on economic success as it is today. Therefore, the ability for culture to trickle into basketball, and vice versa, is based on the players, along with their coaches, subconscious intentions.
The idea of the combination of sport and community, to me, does in fact create a culture based on the simple fact that once a major sporting event is hosted or widely celebrated in your town the whole community gathers together to form a connection among the community which leads to a defining culture. It is this culture that is highly influenced by sports and the community that follows it because of the politics along with the entertainment associated with it. In regards to the poem, this combination defiantly defines the community in which the men surround their lives with the dream of reaching ultimate power and in an attempt to reach it they turn to sports as their outlet, yet once (or if) they fail their attitudes change and their outlook on life and personal preferences change and in response to this the culture alters to the building and ever changing views of the men of society. Culture defines us because we define culture. When we make our decisions on who we support or on any other major question, it builds our culture as a whole and consequently affects others personal culture as well. We also base our decisions, morals, and ideals on whats accepted as well as what is not accepted by our culture. We form a culture based on the foundation of each individuals thought process. I highly believe that it's the way that we define ourselves and how others define us that greatly affects the meaning of our culture and the backbone to the combination of sports and community. I also believe it defines us more as a whole rather than in certain parts. This is because the way we view ourselves usually deals with the bigger picture rather than our individual flaws or perfections. As humans, we both actively try to accept and escape from these definitions we put ourselves in and what others place us in. It is the natural order of things and in turn this affects the creation of our culture and the meaning behind it. In my personal experiences, the way others define me affects the way I define myself. When others inform me on how they view me, I take those opinions to heart and then look into myself to figure if its true; whether it be bad or good.
Overall, I found both articles interesting yet I still faced some questions that myself, and a few of my friends, fail to answer. Therefore, I plan on asking these questions during my next ENC1145 class with the intentions of being faced with the answer I desperately want answered. But for now I guess I will close up shop and end this blog entry in the hopes of reaching a complete understanding of these two articles and the relation between the,
No comments:
Post a Comment