August 19, 2006
David Foster Wallace on Roger Federer
From the New York Times:
Beauty is not the goal of competitive sports, but high-level sports are a prime venue for the expression of human beauty. The relation is roughly that of courage to war.
The human beauty we’re talking about here is beauty of a particular type; it might be called kinetic beauty. Its power and appeal are universal. It has nothing to do with sex or cultural norms. What it seems to have to do with, really, is human beings’ reconciliation with the fact of having a body.
Of course, in men’s sports no one ever talks about beauty or grace or the body. Men may profess their “love” of sports, but that love must always be cast and enacted in the symbology of war: elimination vs. advance, hierarchy of rank and standing, obsessive statistics, technical analysis, tribal and/or nationalist fervor, uniforms, mass noise, banners, chest-thumping, face-painting, etc. For reasons that are not well understood, war’s codes are safer for most of us than love’s. You too may find them so, in which case Spain’s mesomorphic and totally martial Rafael Nadal is the man’s man for you — he of the unsleeved biceps and Kabuki self-exhortations. Plus Nadal is also Federer’s nemesis and the big surprise of this year’s Wimbledon, since he’s a clay-court specialist and no one expected him to make it past the first few rounds here. Whereas Federer, through the semifinals, has provided no surprise or competitive drama at all. He’s outplayed each opponent so completely that the TV and print press are worried his matches are dull and can’t compete effectively with the nationalist fervor of the World Cup.
More here. [Thanks, of course, to Asad Raza.]
Posted by Abbas Raza at 02:15 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d834aa883e53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference David Foster Wallace on Roger Federer:
Comments
This article is composed of a little bit of novelistic sentimentality, and a much, much greater portion of pure descriptive genius.
Many, many times I have wondered at the verbal dexterity that would be needed to document the nuances of even one point of professional tennis. It takes an incredibly long sentence, but DFW does it admirably.
It was with some self-pride that I noted that DFW's ultimate gist in this piece is the same as mine in the US Open piece I wrote here a year ago: Federer is divine.
Posted by: Asad | Aug 19, 2006 10:24:19 AM
Asad,
I went and looked at your tennis piece from last year, and actually it is quite uncanny how many of the same points that DFW makes in this NYT article were made by you a year ago. Could he have read your piece? HMMM...
(If he writes an Affronter Nadal piece next, we'll know!)
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Aug 19, 2006 12:52:45 PM
Asad, I am curious to know what your thoughts are on Ivan Lendl. He got his share of bad press during his time but I think he was never forgiven for his French Open victory over McEnroe.
Posted by: krusty | Aug 19, 2006 9:53:06 PM
You're too kind, A Double B.
krusty, that's a big question. I think beating McEnroe at RG 1984 had less to do with Lendl's lack of popularity than his bludgeoning game and his general indifference to his image in the press (unlike with close friends, like Tony Roche). He'll always be remembered for reaching eight straight U.S. Open finals, and for his persistence in quixotic pursuit of the Wimbledon title. And he does have many fans who remember him fondly, including myself and Snoop Dogg, who once remarked, "Ivan was the truth."
Posted by: Asad | Aug 20, 2006 1:06:21 AM
Post a comment