A friend sent me an article from the Wall Street Journal by a very good sportswriter, Rich Cohen, who grew up in Chicago. And who is a a big die-hard Cubs fan.
The premise of the piece is that after 106 years of not winning a World Series, the Chicago Cubs have assembled a very talented group of young players, and even if they win this year (which I don't expect, since they're too young), they are poised to seriously compete soon and for a while. The question That Mr. Cohen ruminates about is how winning a World Series (should it happen...) would impact the aura of the Cubs as "Lovable Losers." You can read the article here, "Please, Cubs, Don't Win!" It's subtitled -- "As the Chicago Cubs climb up in the MLB standings, a fan ponders the price of winning." My friend asked me my reaction to it. I thought the article was well-written and generally thoughtful. But I’d have liked it more if the title was different, which colored the whole theme for me, that Cub fans are hoping the team will lose. They aren’t. I completely understand that the outside world will look at the Cubs differently, and that infectious appreciation will be a shame to lose, but Cubs fans – as Cubs fans, not the outside world looking in – are dying for the team to win. Go back and look at videos of the crowds in 1984 and 1988 and 1998 and this year whenever the team makes a run at the pennant. The fanbase and almost the entire city of Chicago goes maniacally crazy. And as for how fans will react in subsequent years if the team wins – the author raises the vision of the Boston Red Sox finally winning a World Series after around 90 years. Well, I have friends who are Red Sox fans and they’re just as crazy pulling for their team to win and angst-filled when they lose, especially to the Yankees. The outside world (like the author, as he writes) might see Boston as any-old whiners now, but they themselves don’t see it that way. They LOVE their Red Sox, they suffered for 90 years, and they’re going to keep earning what’s long due them. There's no reason to think Cubs fans would react any differently In part, I think Rich Cohen's reaction is because he’s not as long-time die-hard as his article suggests pm the surface. Doing the math from hints he drops in the article, he was probably born in 1972, so he’s 45. Hardly a kid, and long enough to give weight to his theses, and it's clear that he most certainly is a long-suffering fan -- but in Chicago terms, that’s still almost a green horn. I mean, hey, my dad grew up blocks from Wrigley Field and used to walk to games when a little kid, and he’s now 94. And still waiting on a Cubs World Series win. Seriously, does the author think my dad and people like him hope the Cubs don’t win?? I’d be happy to invite Rich Cohen to watch a game with him one day. I myself almost have a hard time watching games with my dad because he gets SO pissed off when the Cubs screw up. Again. And again. The article, though, as I said, is very well-written and is filled with things that ring spot-on true. For one thing, I actually had the t-shirt he mentions that reads -- “Chicago Cubs. World Champions. 1908.” And I have a story very similar to the one he tells about watching a game with his father. In my case, I remember watching a game at a friend’s house when we were little kids. His mother walked by, stopped for a few moments watching us, and then said in a totally serious voice – “The Cubs ruined my brother’s life, and now they’re ruining my son’s” – and then walked off. It was hilarious, and I’ve always remembered it. While I agree, too, with him that the philosphical lesson the Cubs teach their fans is vastly different from the morose one that the author’s father says, I would suggest that the lesson is nonetheless different from the what the author says, which is itself much too bleak, basically to expect to lose which supports pre-destination. In fact, one of my favorite columns by the great Mike Royko in the Chicago Daily News was about the lessons that the Cubs then-owner ("the Guru P.K. Wrigley" Royko calls him) teaches – to enjoy the small things in life, the simplicity of a bloop hit, the beauty of a mere bunt, the joy of actually catching a pop-up, and that it is from these small things that we get bliss. It's not that we expect to always lose. Sure, some fans do always expect to lose, but that isn’t the lesson, because Cubs fan hope more than anything. Otherwise, they wouldn’t draw 3 million fans a year – after year after year, for decades -- going to the ballpark expecting to lose. At the end of his article, Mr. Cohen writes that if the Cubs lose, “Gone will be the chance to prove the purity of our love for the game.” Again, that’s the outlook of someone who hasn’t been following them quite long enough, but far more to the point, it’s the outside outlook, the view of how other fans will perceive the Cubs and Cubs fans. And ultimately, it’s sort of a stupid comment. After 106 years, Cubs fans have LONG=since earned recognition of the purity of their pure love of the game and don’t have to keep proving it, whether or not the team wins. But if the Cubs do win, that doesn’t wipe out the previous 106 years of support, and the fans – who have followed the team aching in their soul for 40 years, 60 years, 80 years will not suddenly stop loving the team. Yes, there will be some fans who do stop. But honestly, we all know that those people are no different than people who move from Starbucks to the next fad because it’s not cool any more. They’re the vast minority – Boston attendance for the Red Sox hasn’t plummeted – and hardly what one actually considers Cubs fans and the "Please, Cubs, Don't Win!" point of the article. As I said, it was a thoughtful, well-written article – and had a link to Steve Goodman! – but if Rich Cohen had simply addressed the conflict of losing the “Lovable Loser” support of the rest of baseball and made that almost a sidebar aspect of fandom, rather than the core thesis, I think it would have been much better. Because in the end, to think that actual, lifelong die-hard Cubs fans ("Please, Cubs, Don't Win!") don’t want the team to win is idiotic. Without question, if the Chicago Cubs do win a World Series one day, the team will indeed lose some of their aura if they win. But I that’s to the outside world. Why on earth should a Cubs fan – or a fan of anything – care what non-fans think about their own love and appreciation. As a Cubs fan, I love how the outside world looks at the Cubs with endearment. But that has absolutely zero to do with why I – or I’m sure most Cubs fans – love the Cubs. And in the end, the outside world is not what his article is about. The title – written by a Cubs fan – is “Please, Cubs, Don’t Win!” This is a Cubs fan saying he doesn’t want his team to win. I don’t know any other Cubs fans who think that. Maybe there are “some.” (Clearly Rich Cohen does.) And few things in life are 100%. But 99.99% of Cubs fans want the Cubs to win. Not Please, Cubs, Don’t Win! I would also suggest that, while some of that aura will indeed be lost if the Cubs win, it all won’t be lost. When 106 years of losing is part of your history, you don’t lose your history. That will always be part of their eternal mystique. If the Cubs won 10 World Series in a row, it would still be a part of their story, how a team overcame 106 years of failure to finally succeed. I think Rich Cohen -- an excellent writer -- was trying to make an interesting point, and even one that has some validity. But I don’t think he made it in the best way he could, and so – good as much of the article is – in trying to be cute, he got too cute. Others on the outside might want the Cubs to lose, because it will keep them the Lovable Losers. But Cubs fans don’t want the Cubs to lose. And no matter how good a writer Rich Cohen is, I simply don’t agree with him about thinking otherwise. He took a valid issue and phrased it wrong, I believe.
1 Comment
I've been posting a bunch of songs from the truly awful, erotic, semi-autobiographical film that Anthony Newley wrote, starred in and directed, Can Heironymous Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humpe and Find True Happiness? As I've mentioned, the movie is pretty dismal, something even Newley himself said years later is probably should never have made. But -- this was a musical, and most of the songs are not only not bad, but actually pretty good. Newly wrote the music, and the lyrics were by Herbert Kretzmer, who's best known for writing the English lyrics to Les Miserables. Not to mention The Four Musketeers, a British stage show I've written about that starred my fave Harry Secombe. In recent days, I've thought that the score is so enjoyable for the most part (there are a few clunkers) that someone should get the rights, completely thrown out the dreadful script and come up with a new story, and develop it as a stage show. Here's one more song. (If you missed the others and want to hear them, just search for "Merkin.") Alas, I couldn't find any video of it, but this is from the soundtrack album. It's the song, "Oh, What a Son of a Bitch I Am," and it has some extremely clever lyrics. One example -- Kid, if you want to know who your dad is Look at the last of the bigtime baddies. Anthony Newley does most of the singing here, supported by the great Stubby Kaye, along with Ron Rubin. The other day, Sarah Palin (R-Alaska-half-term) was doing an interview with Fox Business. Among other of her pearls of wisdom, she said --
"Those haters out there don't understand that it invigorates me, The more they're pouring on the more I'm gonna bug the crap out of them by being out there with a voice, with a message, hopefully running for office in the future, too." That's great to know. Because Ms. Palin, whose incomprehensible use of the English language has helped give rise to the popularity of the great term, "word salad," would be almost as divisive to the Republican Party as Donald Trump is. After all, you just know a "leader" has oh-so much to offer when their message is not one of vibrant thinking that help advance and enrich society, bur rather to "bug the crap out of them." Just to be clear, being able to "bug the crap out of them" really isn't all that hard to do. Any whining three-year-old child can do that at the drop of a hat. More challenging is to have something of substance to offer. Especially if you want to be seen as a leader -- which tends to suggest you have a direction where you want to go, and a way to get there. Also, it's worth noting that most leaders are invigorated by their ideas to push society forward and upward. Being invigorated by hate seems so small-spirited. Something you'd expect Eric Blofeld or Goldfinger to say in a James Bond novel. Or, for that matter, something we've all come to expect out of Sarah Palin. Mind you, much as I'd love to see her run and drag down the respectability of the GOP, when she talks about "running for office in the future," I'm not quite sure what office she's talking about. While it could be for (sorry, it's hard to type this with a straight face) President of the United States, it's worth knowing that in a Public Policy Poll last year, only 20% of Alaskans said they would like to see her run for the White House, while 74% said no. (Ms. Palin is still viewed favorably among all Republicans nationally, but the GOP is heavily conservative-based, and she polls terribly among GOP moderates. That's the problem to most Republican candidates for the presidency, limiting them too much. You need the whole party's support, and Sarah Palin doesn't even come close to that standard.) So, maybe she's thinking of state office in Alaska. The problem there is that governor is probably out, since voters likely remember that she quit last time. So, maybe the Senate. But there problem there is that in the same PPP poll last years, her favorable rating in her home state is just 36% -- while unfavorable is 55%. Maybe she's talking about trying to become mayor of Wasilla again. Hey, she'd only have to get probably just 616 votes, which is her total the first time she was elected. So, even with a 36% favorability, she should be able to manage that. By the way, my favorite line in the PPP analysis of their polls is -- "There's actually almost as many Democrats -- 17% -- who want Palin to run as there are Republicans -- 23% -- suggesting there are as many Alaskans who want to see her run for the entertainment value as because they actually want her to be President." That's sort of right out of the Donald Trump Playbook. Indeed, it's hard to know whether Sarah Palin is the female Donald Trump, or Donald Trump is the male Sarah Palin. Since she ran for public office first, I guess that gives her squatter's rights. The unfortunate reality is that Sarah Palin isn't going to "run for office in the future." First of all, she doesn't want the job, whatever the job is. She showed that by quitting as governor halfway through. Second, if she ran, the very first question she'd get in a debate would end her candidacy, "Since you quit as governor of Alaska, and because President of the United States is a much harder job, why should any voter believe you'd remain in office for your full-term?" She likes saying that she might run one day because it keeps her name visible and "important" in the party. But she's not going to run. But I hope she does. She provides so much free copy with her woeful ignorance of basic history, current events and facts. Her invigoration by hatred will be all the more pronounced on such a high platform. She'd embarrass the GOP in having to face that they actually nominated this person to be Vice President. She'd continue the spectacle of using her children like circus props. And she still wouldn't likely have an answer to such challenging questions as "What newspapers and magazine do you read," and cry about them being "Gotcha" questions. So, if Sarah Palin views her running for office as a threat -- which is such a great foundation for a campaign -- she's wrong. It's the greatest opportunity imaginable for Democrats. Run, Sarah, run!! Here's another "lost song" by Sheldon Harnick of which I've been posting a few. This one is a treat -- it has music by Jerry Bock and was supposed to be the opening number in Fiddler on the Roof, but got cut.
It's called, "We Haven't Missed a Sabbath Yet," and sets to subject matter of the show wonderfully. The problem for director Jerome Robbins is that it didn't set the theme of the evening. So for a long while, the creators would get together and discuss what the show as about. After a while, someone mentioned that it was about the loss of traditions as life progressed and some of the past got left behind. That's what Robbins was looking for. And Harnick and Bock went back and worked out a new song. It, of course, became the iconic, "Tradition." Most of the original song was jettisoned, but if you listen closely you'll still hear a few music themes that got retained from the first effort. By the way, I should mention that these songs are from a wonderful 2-CD compilation called, Sheldon Harnick: Hidden Treasures, 1949-2013. You can find it here on Amazon. Here's that lost opening song sung by the composers. There's a very funny video from "Fox News" which has their panel of four women hosts talking with Dog the Bounty Hunter about the Republicans running for the presidential nomination, and at one point they ask him for his pick for the White House. Given the topic, and that Dog the Bounty Hunter is a vocal, lifelong Republican, the question seemed a safe one to the ladies on Fox. So, it was to their shock -- no, "utter horror and sadness" is a better term -- when he not only doesn't say a Republican, but...of all people, Hillary Clinton! The reaction from the women is priceless. For all the attention this has gotten for being so funny in regards to how distraught they are by his choice, I think that two other things stand out for me much more.
The first is that if anything gives lie to the long-standing "Fox News" claim that they're "fair-and-balanced" and how they just report, and you decide, and that they're not biased and a wing of the Republican Party, this video is it. After all, here are four Fox "analysts" or hosts or whatever they are...moaning and weeping and crying out "NOOO!!" when a guests calmly mentions that he's supporting a Democrat. Imagine the field day Fox would be having if four news analysts on MSNBC -- or any network -- were so outwardly, vocally and emotionally distraught that a guest said he was for a Republican. (And by the way, they're be right to critical about that.) And the second thing is -- what in the world are they doing asking Dog the Bounty Hunter for his political endorsement?! This week's contestant is Casie Luong from Witchita Falls, Texas. I think the hidden song is pretty easy, and I got it within seconds. The composer style though comes from an era I'm not especially familiar with, and the few I do know didn't seem like this is who it was. As a result, it was stab in the dark time for me. And I missed with the stab.
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|