Thoughts on The String Theory
Jan. 6th, 2024 09:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kdsburneraccount(Wherein I sound pretentious, but am in reality not all that smart)
I read David Foster Wallace's essay about the 1995 Canadian Open, with a primary focus on tennis player Michael Joyce. Since it's now 2024 (almost 29 years after the essay was written), I can confidently say that Wallace's rhetorical questions about Joyce ending up "in the top ten and a name anybody will know" came half true. He never ended up in the top ten, but did go on to be a pretty successful women's tennis coach. So Joyce did become a name that some people would know.
Tbh this uh. Journal is not about Michael Joyce. Sorry. He seems like a nice guy from the journal but didn't really compel me to look much further into his story. I feel like Joyce was kind of a vehicle for Wallace to explore other stuff surrounding the nature of being an athlete. To ruminate, so to speak. Disclaimer I have seen many people talk about his piece on Federer as one of the greatest pieces of sports journalism. I have not read it, to be honest, mostly because I don't really care. Sorry, I'm sure if I read it I will enjoy it because David Foster Wallace got me to read about the Illinois State Fair and I found it a fairly compelling read. But I got into tennis after Federer retired, and his mythos was kind of already established to me so I didn't really care to read about it. Like Federer seems like an alright enough guy to me but I also don't hold any particular kind of affection for him, probably because at this point he's more of a PR image than an actual person whenever he makes an appearance. Sorry.
Anyways I got distracted. Um there's a lot in the Michael Joyce piece about the process of qualifying, which I was vaguely aware of, but didn't really care to learn more about. So I guess I learned more while reading. Honestly when it comes to qualifiers I just kind of skim for a name I've seen before and wonder what becomes of them, I'm more invested in the main draw I fear. But yeah there are a lot of things in the article where it made common sense to me, but at the same time would I have been able to explain it? Probably not. Wallace does the job of putting it into the right words. Like why would qualifiers be compelling to him? "Because they're fighting for their literal livelihood," I say, and then he pretty much says the same thing later. It's sort of common sense, at least to me.
It's interesting to read about Wallace's relative disdain for the "power baseliner" archetype, considering that pretty much most tennis players today also kind of fit into that style. As he posits, it's because of racket technology, which I'm not really well-versed in so I'll just stop to avoid sounding dumb. If Wallace were alive I feel like he would enjoy watching Alcaraz, considering how much he praises Federer, because they have similar-ish styles. Considering his disdain for players like Agassi (and Nadal for some reason), I don't think it would be a stretch to say that he would dislike Djokovic. Especially because Novak gets in the way of his ideal tennis in Roger. Or whatever. I would be interested to hear his thoughts on the current state of American men's tennis, like what he thought of Roddick and Isner and then the later generation of Americans. Probably not the most glowing commentary, but maybe he would like Tommy Paul (saying that bc Tommy kind of reminds me of Michael Joyce vibes wise, but honestly I don't think any of the current American men in tennis would particularly move him. Like he didn't have the nicest things to say about Sebi Korda's dad). I dunno, I just thought Wallace's hatred of Agassi was funny.
Let's just get into his observations of tennis players. The main reason I picked up his anthology to read. Um he was kinda mean about Michael Chang, like wdym he was unhappy... like I guess compared to other observations Wallace made it wasn't that bad but I like Chang so it felt a little personal. Especially with the tennis parent thing but maybe Wallace was just scared of Asian women idk. Also wdym Agassi was as fast as him no the fuck he was not. Wallace I thought you were a hater why would you say that to make Agassi look good. Sigh. I think putting Chang and Sampras's descriptions back to back was meant to juxtapose their differences (Chang has hairless legs while Sampras is "unbelievably hairy"), but sorta made me go "are you trying to emasculate Chang?" Whatever, maybe I'm overthinking it. There's a part where Wallace describes Sampras as "surprisingly childlike and cute on the court" which did make me side-eye but like. Sure I guess. Wallace likes Sampras (well enough), despises Agassi. Me personally I don't like Agassi much because he seemed to be a dick to his ex-wife and generally kind of a mess. But he also seems to be self-aware of that in his autobiography, and mellowed out in old age, so. I dunno. I'm not super consistent with my opinions. I'm curious to see what Wallace would make of Agassi's autobiography, considering it's everything he would want an athlete's autobiography to be. Maybe he'd get some newfound respect for Agassi, idk.
The part where Wallace says Agassi hits balls like Bjorn Borg if Borg was "on a yearlong regimen of both steroids and methamphetamines and was hitting every single fucking ball just as hard as he could" made me lol bc I don't think Wallace knew that Agassi did meth. But Agassi did do crystal meth. That was very much something he did. I wish Wallace was alive to know that. However I kinda didn't vibe w him calling Agassi "faggy" like don't do that to gay people. Or compare Danny DeVito to him. C'mon now man.
Okay last part, that being about the nature of being an athlete. I think a lot has changed since 1995, but a lot still rings true with what Wallace says about being an athlete. People do tend to ignore the consequences of the sacrifices athletes make to become so good. Some of that involves being really uninformed about issues, unfortunately. (Couple that with the demographics of some athletes from some sports and well, it's a whole boiling pot of issues that I can't really get into. Wallace was talking about tennis, which tends to be white and affluent, but I think this part was about sports in general. Anyways.) Nowadays I think athletes do have interests and activities outside of their sport, which is good! Like that definitely benefits their mental health. But the general message about the simple-mindedness athletes choose when they devote their lives to their sport makes me think. Like only people who are outside of that mindset can describe it well, paradoxically enough. Makes me think about how my own writing can romanticize sports, when in reality a lot of athletes probably are just people, and we are just spectators who idolize them. But at the same time I try not to romanticize the nature of playing sports in some writing and to humanize the players, so. It's kind of tricky because in writing, you are kind of describing things in a certain way that makes it appealing. At the end of the day, I'm just writing fanfiction, it's not that deep. Like so what if you make the internal monologue of an NFL player be purple prose when in reality it's more like static? Suspension of disbelief, it's fiction, etc etc. I may be overthinking this. Like it's fine.
I'm not sure where I was going with this, but yeah. Sportswriting can be an exercise in admiring the beauty of people, but also the bad. I guess. Sometimes it's a little unrealistic, but at the same time why not be a little unrealistic? Much to consider.
I read David Foster Wallace's essay about the 1995 Canadian Open, with a primary focus on tennis player Michael Joyce. Since it's now 2024 (almost 29 years after the essay was written), I can confidently say that Wallace's rhetorical questions about Joyce ending up "in the top ten and a name anybody will know" came half true. He never ended up in the top ten, but did go on to be a pretty successful women's tennis coach. So Joyce did become a name that some people would know.
Tbh this uh. Journal is not about Michael Joyce. Sorry. He seems like a nice guy from the journal but didn't really compel me to look much further into his story. I feel like Joyce was kind of a vehicle for Wallace to explore other stuff surrounding the nature of being an athlete. To ruminate, so to speak. Disclaimer I have seen many people talk about his piece on Federer as one of the greatest pieces of sports journalism. I have not read it, to be honest, mostly because I don't really care. Sorry, I'm sure if I read it I will enjoy it because David Foster Wallace got me to read about the Illinois State Fair and I found it a fairly compelling read. But I got into tennis after Federer retired, and his mythos was kind of already established to me so I didn't really care to read about it. Like Federer seems like an alright enough guy to me but I also don't hold any particular kind of affection for him, probably because at this point he's more of a PR image than an actual person whenever he makes an appearance. Sorry.
Anyways I got distracted. Um there's a lot in the Michael Joyce piece about the process of qualifying, which I was vaguely aware of, but didn't really care to learn more about. So I guess I learned more while reading. Honestly when it comes to qualifiers I just kind of skim for a name I've seen before and wonder what becomes of them, I'm more invested in the main draw I fear. But yeah there are a lot of things in the article where it made common sense to me, but at the same time would I have been able to explain it? Probably not. Wallace does the job of putting it into the right words. Like why would qualifiers be compelling to him? "Because they're fighting for their literal livelihood," I say, and then he pretty much says the same thing later. It's sort of common sense, at least to me.
It's interesting to read about Wallace's relative disdain for the "power baseliner" archetype, considering that pretty much most tennis players today also kind of fit into that style. As he posits, it's because of racket technology, which I'm not really well-versed in so I'll just stop to avoid sounding dumb. If Wallace were alive I feel like he would enjoy watching Alcaraz, considering how much he praises Federer, because they have similar-ish styles. Considering his disdain for players like Agassi (and Nadal for some reason), I don't think it would be a stretch to say that he would dislike Djokovic. Especially because Novak gets in the way of his ideal tennis in Roger. Or whatever. I would be interested to hear his thoughts on the current state of American men's tennis, like what he thought of Roddick and Isner and then the later generation of Americans. Probably not the most glowing commentary, but maybe he would like Tommy Paul (saying that bc Tommy kind of reminds me of Michael Joyce vibes wise, but honestly I don't think any of the current American men in tennis would particularly move him. Like he didn't have the nicest things to say about Sebi Korda's dad). I dunno, I just thought Wallace's hatred of Agassi was funny.
Let's just get into his observations of tennis players. The main reason I picked up his anthology to read. Um he was kinda mean about Michael Chang, like wdym he was unhappy... like I guess compared to other observations Wallace made it wasn't that bad but I like Chang so it felt a little personal. Especially with the tennis parent thing but maybe Wallace was just scared of Asian women idk. Also wdym Agassi was as fast as him no the fuck he was not. Wallace I thought you were a hater why would you say that to make Agassi look good. Sigh. I think putting Chang and Sampras's descriptions back to back was meant to juxtapose their differences (Chang has hairless legs while Sampras is "unbelievably hairy"), but sorta made me go "are you trying to emasculate Chang?" Whatever, maybe I'm overthinking it. There's a part where Wallace describes Sampras as "surprisingly childlike and cute on the court" which did make me side-eye but like. Sure I guess. Wallace likes Sampras (well enough), despises Agassi. Me personally I don't like Agassi much because he seemed to be a dick to his ex-wife and generally kind of a mess. But he also seems to be self-aware of that in his autobiography, and mellowed out in old age, so. I dunno. I'm not super consistent with my opinions. I'm curious to see what Wallace would make of Agassi's autobiography, considering it's everything he would want an athlete's autobiography to be. Maybe he'd get some newfound respect for Agassi, idk.
The part where Wallace says Agassi hits balls like Bjorn Borg if Borg was "on a yearlong regimen of both steroids and methamphetamines and was hitting every single fucking ball just as hard as he could" made me lol bc I don't think Wallace knew that Agassi did meth. But Agassi did do crystal meth. That was very much something he did. I wish Wallace was alive to know that. However I kinda didn't vibe w him calling Agassi "faggy" like don't do that to gay people. Or compare Danny DeVito to him. C'mon now man.
Okay last part, that being about the nature of being an athlete. I think a lot has changed since 1995, but a lot still rings true with what Wallace says about being an athlete. People do tend to ignore the consequences of the sacrifices athletes make to become so good. Some of that involves being really uninformed about issues, unfortunately. (Couple that with the demographics of some athletes from some sports and well, it's a whole boiling pot of issues that I can't really get into. Wallace was talking about tennis, which tends to be white and affluent, but I think this part was about sports in general. Anyways.) Nowadays I think athletes do have interests and activities outside of their sport, which is good! Like that definitely benefits their mental health. But the general message about the simple-mindedness athletes choose when they devote their lives to their sport makes me think. Like only people who are outside of that mindset can describe it well, paradoxically enough. Makes me think about how my own writing can romanticize sports, when in reality a lot of athletes probably are just people, and we are just spectators who idolize them. But at the same time I try not to romanticize the nature of playing sports in some writing and to humanize the players, so. It's kind of tricky because in writing, you are kind of describing things in a certain way that makes it appealing. At the end of the day, I'm just writing fanfiction, it's not that deep. Like so what if you make the internal monologue of an NFL player be purple prose when in reality it's more like static? Suspension of disbelief, it's fiction, etc etc. I may be overthinking this. Like it's fine.
I'm not sure where I was going with this, but yeah. Sportswriting can be an exercise in admiring the beauty of people, but also the bad. I guess. Sometimes it's a little unrealistic, but at the same time why not be a little unrealistic? Much to consider.
