Sporting Rhetorics

(Pretty soon someone’s going to call me out on my clichéd titles-that-say-two-things-at-once bit, but for now I find them amusing.)

I haven’t watched basketball in the last few years, but now my team is in the finals — and I am officially suffering from Lakers fever.

It’s interesting to return to the NBA scene after having submerged myself in studies of rhetoric for a good chunk of time. It’s not that I’ve knowingly studied anything specific to the rhetoric of sports or suddenly acquired x-ray vision, but I’m back with fresh eyes at least. I’ve been away long enough to begin to notice what’s different or just simply notice more of what is. I even began taking notes during tonight’s Game 2 of the championship series (which may have been a self-protective device to help me get through the 22-point lead the Celtics had over the Lakers for a painful while there).

I’m struck by the layers upon layers of rhetorical activity, layers that can be applied to any televised sport I’d expect. There’s something of a formula followed by these sporting events: the pre-game show, the coach pep talk, the opening ceremony, the timeouts and commercial breaks, the half-time show and accompanying athlete-of-the-day feature story (not to diminish Leon Powe’s very touching narrative), the 30-second post-game interviews, and the post-game highlights and reflections on the 12 o’clock news. And let’s not forget the actors (I mean “agents,” and, no, I’m not about to perform a Burkian pentadic analysis even if this situation is begging for it): the referees, the athletes, the coaches and support staff, the crowd, the camera people who get knocked over by flying athletes, the behind-the-scenes folk who run the media on the big screens and play the Harlem Globetrotters-esque music whenever the home team has the ball.

So what did I learn? Kobe Bryant has matured since I last watched him. Derek Fisher is back, and I don’t remember whether I already knew it or not. Kurt Rambis is still an assistant coach. And Kevin Garnett is still one heck of a player, is on the opposing team, and is still recognizable to me (I really should stop gloating). I also realize I don’t know the jersey numbers of even a handful of players on the Lakers. And I should consider glasses. Or a bigger tv.

But before all that, there was the opening ceremony. I’m not just thinking about the performing of the national anthem or the introduction of the starting players. I’m thinking of the sounds of hip-hop. It’s more NBA than tennis shoes named after basketball stars. At first I wondered what song had been adopted, but then I realized it sounded like a score (I really didn’t intend that pun) but produced specifically for NBA games rather than a movie (which I could be wrong about, but I don’t think so. It sounded too smooth and much too long to be the introduction to a song). I’m also thinking of the ceremonial mashup of some of the best-remembered moments and players in NBA history. It evoked a euphoric feeling. I was proud for having watched some of them myself. It was epideictic. The game is something greater than a mere game. Heroes are involved, and great things happen.

And then we get the commercials. But we’ve all seen the craziness that is the Superbowl. This occasion doesn’t compare, but I hope the allusion says enough. They add to the excitement and to the rivalry. If we didn’t realize “there could be only one,” the half-faces of star athletes competing for the screen is enough to remind us. In fact, the ad series is fascinating within itself, and someone needs to write about it.

Let’s not forget the pep talks. All the good sports movies have ‘em. So do the war movies. They do their own magic: The coaches know the players, they know the situation, and from the soundbites played tonight, they apparently don’t talk strategy at that point. It’s all motivational. The Celtics coach invoked an athlete who said his team won a championship because they “played normal really well” (or something to that effect). The Lakers’ coach, on the other hand, prepared his team for the Boston crowd: “Don’t let the crowd sway you,” he said (or something like that). Interestingly, they both seem to be saying the same thing: Calm and easy does it. Don’t be affected by circumstances. (These thoughts, of course, got me to thinking about audience. To what extent do they shape events? Hm.)

We can also look at eras in terms of technique. Aside from the scratchy video footage, the tucked-in shirts and shorter shorts, the leaner bodies, and the different hairstyles, the playing of the game happened differently in the past (that must be one of the most enlightened statements I’ve ever written). Obviously, I don’t know enough about sports to explain this idea coherently, but I noticed, for example, that free throws were happening with rarely a player lifting his feet off the floor. I remember most players giving a little hop and some jumping perhaps a foot or more forward. Maybe trainers believe there’s more stability in feet that don’t leave the floor. I wonder. But the feel was certainly different. That much I can say.

(Postscript: A friend just corrected me about free-throw techniques. Apparently no players usually jump forward, but I remember there being jumping of some sort. Perhaps I’ve only imagined it, but at the least it seems like players now barely let their heels leave the floor.)

The last point I want to make has to do with interpretation. Early on in this game Kobe earned two fouls. They were pretty surprising calls. After the coach took Kobe out of the game, one of the commentators said, “How can two questionable calls change the course of the game?” Interesting. The commentators began arguing about what the rulebook says about certain calls, and eventually one of them said that if the refs were to call everything by the book, the game would be interrupted with calls of traveling during every possession. More allowances should be made for championship games, and the players who brought the team to the finals should be allowed to play in them, he argued. I can sketch out this conversation further, but I’ll just add that it was interesting when one of the commentators (perhaps the same one who wanted the foul-out rule abolished) complimented Kobe for his technical foul — he was making a point, the commentator thought. “You’ve got to appreciate the fire,” he said.

I’ll stop here because it’s kind of embarrassing that I’m trying to talk sports. To this day I still don’t know what the difference is between a team foul and a personal foul. I need to Google that one. . . .

I’ll call you back at the second blue light

twe009_m.jpg

Who needs a watch with numbers on it anyway? I mean, OMG that’s so analogue.

Credit must be given to popgadget, for this blog post about Tokyoflash, a company making watches that are more artistic in nature and less function oriented. Well, not so much less function oriented, but more function for a specific audience.

I’m thinking of this in terms of technological literacy. I, personally, have a tough time reading the ye-olde circular clock with hour, minute, and second hands. (I always miss by about an hour; and, really, should anything have 3 hands?). And, I don’t even wear a watch–it’s the digital readout on my cell phone for me. The thing is, I can read the LED readouts on these watches. Is this a generational thing? Since I’ve grown up around more microchips than gears, is this merely a comfort level?

tok007_l1.jpg

Or would this be an interest thing? Will only the geeky people be willing to wear something like this? It’d either be really cool or really dorky (ie the calculator watch. Nerdville for sure. It just screams Dungeons & Dragons and living in your parents’ basement at 35). And then who would teach the non-techno forward people this kinda gear and would they really care to learn? Are these the watches of the future? Would we all need to learn how to read these specific displays? Mmm, probably not, but who knows, it could happen.

I’m just curious about how my mother would handle something like this. Well, I suppose I don’t have to wonder; she wouldn’t handle it very well. She’d take one look at it and say that the lights are pretty, but it’s a bracelet–not a watch. So, now that brings in the artistic side of things, doesn’t it. It’s visually pleasing–to me, at least–but I’m all about the modern avant-garde mish-mash. I do like the way this brings function into beauty though. It serves a purpose while being a vehicle for visual expression and design. I could live in a future like that. A future that compresses the usefulness of something with artistic vision and, honestly, if I had $200 to drop on a watch, I’d go for one of these.

obr002_l2.jpg

Your Dog Says A Lot About You

I made a trip to Boston this past weekend for my brother’s commencement, which means leaving my lovely rottweiler in the care of the veterinarian’s office. It doesn’t always hit you what you’re really like until someone else takes care of something you find so precious.

(Yes, I’m one of those people who worship their dog. She has her very own facebook page. Feel free to friend her. And this is not to be confused with my dog being spoiled or pampered–she’s a good dog and fairly well trained. Although, I will admit that she doesn’t listen quite as well when there are other dogs around….aaand this is getting way off topic.)

Daisy

Anyway, on returning to Columbus and picking up Daisy, there were two things askew.
1. She had a scarf on. Well, it more like a handkerchief thing, but it was pink and flowery and ridiculous. No rottweiler of mine will be cast down with the lowly chihuahuas that wear sweaters and faux diamond collars. Daisy is a big, slobbery, sometimes smelly dog, and I like her that way. Even the smelly part.
2. They graded her. My DOG got a Report Card! It included things like “your dog enjoyed . . . being pet, playing outside,” but apparently my dog did not enjoy “receiving treats.” Now, I find that highly suspicious. My dog didn’t like getting treats? Daisy? Who drools so much I think she should wear one of those bibs from Red Lobster when she sees that little bone shaped biscuit?

Also, apparently my dog “had a good bath.” Well, I know that she hates getting baths–I mean, she’ll stand there and take it, because she knows that it’s going to happen whether she likes it or not, but it’s not an especially joyful thing for her. So, what constitutes a “good bath.” I’m sure it was good for the groomer, but I’m fairly sure Daisy would’ve taken exception to it. Especially if they used a dryer. My dog runs away from the vacuum cleaner, so a dryer tends to be out of the question–we towel dry and she seems to like it, because it means I’m sitting there for a good hour petting her, which the vet and I agree she quite enjoys.

Anyway, the point in all this is that I find it hard to believe that they could think for an instant that I would leave a well adjusted, happy dog in their care and that they might know my dog better than I do. And then on the other hand, I realize that it says far too much about my own personality. I don’t do the cutesy thing when it comes to animals–babies, yes; dogs, no. I don’t want to see bubbly letters by “Mandy” (please giggle in a high-pitched voice when you read that) about how well behaved my dog is. Well, uh, duh, I wouldn’t allow an ill-behaved dog in my house.

So, I suppose that says something about me, doesn’t it? That my tolerance for what I would consider misbehavior is fairly low, but what constitutes “misbehavior?” That’s probably getting way too much in social set ups and how we treat each other, etc etc, but perhaps I’m just reinforcing what I’ve been taught in this particular social structure. I won’t allow my own pet to act in a particular manner that I was never allowed to act in. So, I’m just continuing this cycle.

Still, though, when she was home, I kept eyeing that handkerchief and preparing to take that ridiculous thing off; however, Daisy didn’t seem to mind and, well, it made a good bib when she ate her treat.

Ringing in Rhetoric

Writes Tom Maurstad of The Dallas Morning News,

It’s the nature of both pop culture and people that we reveal ourselves and offer insights into our ever-changing media environment in the small, incidental choices we make as consumers and users of technology.

That’s a great first line and a pretty insightful article on “futurism and nostalgia.” Read on to see what he has to say about the rhetoric of cell ringtones.

What’s in a Name?

Being someone whose name is butchered on more than one occasion, I can tell you a whole lot. MSNBC.com reports on some of the all time worst baby names.

Just recently, I went on a job interview where one of the interviewers made a comment that he hadn’t seen my name spelled like that before (Kaitlin) and I responded that I’d seen it all my life. He didn’t find that funny.

It does beg the question, though. How much are you rewarded or punished based on your name? My grandfather was named after the steel mill his father worked in (being child number 13, we like to joke that they just ran out of names by the time he came along). There was an article written about him in the local newspaper when he was born and he even went on to work in that mill himself, but now that that particular company has since been bought out, walking around with the name Armco just seems a bit odd.

Well, I’m sure it’s odd no matter what, but think about it like this. Let’s say a kid was named Coke after Coca-Cola, but then Coca-Cola goes out of business (hey, suspend your disbelief, this is a hypothetical). Mr. Coke Smith would then sound a bit, well, stupid. Not to mention reminiscent of drug terminology.

So, is it that because my name is a bit more on the normal side, I’m not allowed to be a bit quirky? Strangers have already placed me in a category restricted to the Micheals and Michelles of the world? If I were named Sunshine would that interviewer have been expecting someone a bit different right off the bat?

Mmm, perhaps I think about this far too much, but from my days of being a file clerk I can tell you my two favorite names: Muhammed Mohammed and Cocoa Hershey. Oh yes, they really exist. And I remember them; I appreciate those names more than the James Smith III files.

Presidential Race . . . and Alcohol

If I didn’t see this story with my own eyes, I’d believe it came out of The Onion, but sometimes we actually manage to recognize ridiculousness in real life without the help of satire: CNN has a head start on predicting our 44th President.

According to the logic behind a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, “a voter’s drinking preferences may also reveal their political preferences.” Check out the short article for more details.

On a side note, I’m surprised CNN dismantled the comments feature for this story. I had loaded the page earlier in the day, and the comments at the top of the page were humorously negative. I refreshed the page just now, and they’ve all disappeared (before I actually read all of them. Darn). I guess CNN got the point.

“Growing Up Online”

And we’re back to my love of PBS, Frontline this time, with a special about technology’s effect on teenagers. Especially interesting is chapter two, “A Revolution in Classrooms and Social Life.” I have to admit to being a little miffed at “everybody uses Sparknotes” or “nobody reads books” concepts as a technologically advanced young person who does indeed do her own reading. (Though, I will admit to being overly excited at such available online books services such as DailyLit.com, which sends a user multiple easily consumptive sections of books for free by email or RSS feed if they’re in the public domain and for a minimal fee if they’re a contemporary work.) Sure, it’s been a few years since I’ve been in high school (thank god), but it’s extremely disconcerting to me to think that the advance of technology has left someone in English studies thinking that they don’t have a place anymore. I mean, did mathematicians freak out at the advent of the calculator? I think not. They used that tool to their benefit (even those in love with the abacus), as other technologies can be used to benefit other areas as well.

It is ironic that I watched this online though, no?

Ze link…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/

New Country, New Flag

Today, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia — the two remaining states of what was once Yugoslavia. Although secession has been expected, this declaration may turn less than pretty as Serbia and Russia promise to deny acknowledgment of the new country.

As I was reading up on the happenings, I came across an article written a week ago on Kosovo’s plan to adopt a new flag. Until now, every celebration and every funeral was marked with the Albanian flag — a rich red background with a black two-headed eagle. Albanians far and near, in the motherland (Albania) or not, have identified with that flag and those colors.

What happens now as a new country tries to identify itself? The writers at The Christian Science Monitor have an idea. See this article, “With Independence Looming, Kosovo to Pick New Flag,” by Andrew Wander for more info. I’ll be very curious to see what happens. . . .

Reasoning with Culture

( . . . in both sentences of the word.)

In “The Science of Fairy Tales,” Chris Gorski takes on the issue of reality and fantasy. Or, well, sort of. The author writes about what possible truths may exist in fairy tales and selects three popular stories with elements that seem to have a basis in reality. She/he asks,

[A]re the most magical moments from some of our favorite stories actually possible? Basic physical principles and recent scientific research suggest that what readers might mistake for fantasies and exaggeration could be rooted in reality.

At first I took this comment to mean a girl named Rapunzel, a mermaid named Ariel, and a young man named Aladdin did indeed, respectively, let down her hair, have stolen her voice, and make fly his carpet — feats that bend our perceptions of the tangible world. But, then, I gave the article a second read and realized this final line is vague enough to mean just about anything. Once “could,” “may,” or “suggest” hedges an argument, what follows could be any bit as hyperbolic as the speaker/writer wants, for better or for worse.

I’ll try not to ruin the surprise of what’s contained in the article — I’m already plenty amused and even appreciative that a science news researcher would attempt to unite folklore and “hard-core” reason. I may never have tied a strand of my hair around candy bars to gauge the strength of my locks, attempted to bend sound waves like light, or released a rug in midair like the napkin that never fails to fly off the picnic table, but, sure, I see these insights have some basis. (I think I’m entirely failing at not giving away the details of the article.)

And, yet, I can’t help but spend a little time with the following line, which is Gorski’s segue into the body of the article and which uses language that initially made me feel as if I’m being beckoned into a funhouse:

So suspend your imagination for a moment, and look at the following fairy tales as a hard-core scientist might.

But, it’s not a funhouse – or, well, maybe it is. We’re entering the realm of hard-core scientific reasoning. We are asked to suspend our imagination in a clear reversal of the popular attempt to suspend disbelief, which we try to do when, say, we enter a movie theater. We suspend our disbelief so we can enjoy the imagination and creativity brought together for our entertainment, for our temporary relief from the daily grind, and for our currency . . . but I digress. For some moviegoers, we suspend our disbelief in order to open ourselves up to ways of thinking and experiences foreign to us, foreign for any number of reasons. We suspend our disbelief to take in, learn, and appreciate.

This approach is not necessarily our default, however. We doubt until there is reason to believe, or we remain indifferent until we become invested. The Harry Potter generation will tuck away their crimson and gold scarves just as older generations would have done with their ruby-red slippers had the mechanism and culture existed in that age to produce and market such paraphernalia.

Let’s not forget, however, that the author is asking us to look at fairy tales as a scientist would. This writer seems to point to scientific reasoning as having little to no use for the imagination. Yet, in all honesty, I’m wondering who could possibly believe that Ariel losing her voice has to do with an average someone discovering sound waves can be bent. Tell me this thought doesn’t take a little bit of imagination, a slight suspension of judgment and doubt.

By the conclusion of the piece, a slight hope began to build for me:

Perhaps some fairy tales are more grounded in reality than others. Or maybe these precious stories are exactly what we thought they were. An idea is fertilized by the imagination and expanded beyond what seems possible. Or maybe science has come so far over the years that scientists are looking beyond the problems of the physical world and into the imaginations of children for their inspiration.

Again, the “perhaps”s and “maybe”s can be frustrating, or they can be hopeful. And my reading of this final line can similarly be frustrating (moving from the problems of the physical world to the problems of children’s imaginations) or hopeful (moving from the problems of the physical world to the reason-bending imaginations of children . . . um, who aren’t really the authors of these fairy tales). Or perhaps this paragraph finally shows that, indeed, ideas do come out of the imagination, and its direction thereafter is up to the thinker. And I can’t help but think of one such method: the scientific method. First a person posits a hypothesis and then attempts to prove it. And an unproven hypothesis is an educated guess, right? And a guess is an idea, no? And do not even proven hypotheses change in value over time as researchers imagine new ways of approaching knowledge and dissecting our physical world? Will time come, again, when we’re told dark chocolate is not really that good for us after all?

I admit I like the idea of culture and science coming together in newish forms, but if the main reason is to bring reason itself to the imagination, I can’t help but feel somewhat uncomfortable. I believe in the intermingling of ideas (I mean, shoot, I’m helping launch a digital magazine named Harlot precisely because I believe in interdisciplinarity and the value of discussion held beyond the university) but not when one category (especially the one less tied down by rules) becomes stifled.

In the end, though, I sigh and think that if a person refers to these particular moments in our popular fairy tales as “the most magical,” perhaps, maybe, possibly the two of us are on different (bent?) wavelengths after all. But I’m not sure which one of us is trapped within an enclosed and muffled space, perhaps with a bonfire projecting strange shapes and figures onto the walls.