So I am reading two different articles in the New York Times “Sunday Review” section –
not at the same time, although that itself
would have been newsworthy – and I notice that both articles seem to be about
the same thing. Making me immediately
wonder it that was just a coincidence or if the New York Times “Sunday Review” section was instead running a “Theme
Issue”, like when the networks, to promote ratings, made us do “Halloween
Thursday” where every show scheduled that evening had to do their own version
of a Halloween story, whether we wanted to or not. (By the way, isn’t that exactly what cable
news is, every show on the schedule covering the same stories, with a barely
perceptibly different spin?)
(Also by the way, the New
York Times articles may not have
been talking about the same thing; both articles may have just rung the same “alarm
bell” in my head. Sometimes that
happens. I’m reading the paper and every
article seems to be about the same subject; the forgotten value of compromise,
science supplanting religion as the “One True Faith”. I am now wondering if the identification of
these underlying themes derives less from the newspaper than from myself,
fueled by the issues regularly occupying my mind. I could, however, be wrong about that and it actually
was the Times’ version of “Halloween Thursday.”)
Anyway…
The first article involved modern fathers and how they spend
more time with their children than the Dads of earlier generations, who devoted
their lives to making a living, and for the lucky ones, making a killing. (Depending on their line of endeavor. You can put in the same punishing number of
hours, but if you own a hardware store, versus working on Wall Street, there
will be a glaring disparity in your net worth.)
The first thought that came to mind reading that “paternal
comparison” article concerned the (strategically) omitted unspoken consequence.
“It’s nice that fathers are spending more time with their
children. But if they’re telling their
boss they have to leave early to catch their son’s or daughter’s performance in
the Chess Club Championship, how does affect that boss’s perception of their
commitment as “all-in” Warriors on the Work Front? Are they impressed by the Dad’s commitment to
balancing family and career? Or are they
thinking, ‘We’re working here! And you’re skipping out to watch chess!?!’”
Then I read a Times
article about kids’ baseball – I will tie this together I promise; I mean come
on, don’t I always? – complaining that striving for excellence, children –
imaginably some of them driven by the
same fathers who left work early to watch them play – are sustaining serious
injuries, due to over-exertion in a year-long protocol focusing on training, practice
and playing actual games.
I throw in – in my head; this was not yet another article – also football – where the problem of
concussions and overall bodily wreckage, especially among school-age
youngsters, is an ever-mounting concern.
And I am wondering, in both cases, acknowledging that the
majority of kids who play sports do it “Just for fun”, “Can you really limit
practice and participation in games and become a standout professional
ballplayer?” Or a virtuoso violinist? Or a prima ballerina?
Or an acknowledged champion at anything?
(Private Confession: I was thinking of writing about this issue,
but now maybe I can’t because, writing about another issue, I have let the cat
inadvertently out of the bag.
Co-starring with the question “Can you be great without being crazy?” is
the equally – at least to me – intriguing question, “Can you be great without an
obsessively, single-minded commitment?”
Who knows? Maybe I will find a
different way of talking about it. Which
will pass today for “generating suspense.”)
A wise man once told me – I believe I have mentioned this before
– “Everything is like something else.
What is this like?” So I started thinking – that’s not exactly
accurate, more accurate is that
reading those articles triggered spontaneous activity in my brain – and this
recollection from my childhood came unexpectedly to mind.
I was five or six years old and my parents had excitedly
introduced me to the wonders of ice cream.
But instead of loving it, I began screaming uncontrollably, having bitten
off too much of the chocolatey confection and as a result sustained an excruciating
“ice cream headache.”
Desperately trying to assuage my affliction, I could hear a
hint of disappointment in my parents’ voices.
“I guess he doesn’t like ice cream.”
To which I immediately replied, reflecting a premature understanding
of the Eternal Dilemma:
“I like ice
cream. But take away the ‘cold’!”
I don’t know, can you actually have both?
Theoretically, I guess so.
But how ultimately satisfying is a bowl of warm ice cream?
2 comments:
Maybe your seeing a "Theme Issue" in the Sunday Review is a case similar to our brain's inclination to see human faces in jumbles of marks, ink blots and lines (like many cultures seeing a human's face in the Moon - or maybe even Ralph Kramden). You see a pattern in the stories because you are focused on one aspect of the stories.
Hopefully it is not like my cousin who is convinced that every story in the newspaper has something to do with UFOs.
Then again, there was a Halloween Thursday on TV. Maybe I'm just not seeing the pattern.
Regards,
Jim Dodd
Warm ice cream: call it creme caramel and...?
wg
Post a Comment