Archive for the ‘Persistence’ Category
Book Reviews: Taking a Second Look
Sometimes it warrants taking a second look at a book; here’s a few books I’ve looked at in the past few years more than once after a review, and why.
First, the only book review I’ve ever had with more than one negative comment at Shiny Book Review was David Drake’s WHAT DISTANT DEEPS (which you can easily find here: http://shinybookreview.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/what-distant-deeps-an-appealing-departure/) I’d said that I didn’t understand why the hero, Captain Daniel Leary, didn’t seem to understand that his best friend and confidante, Adele Mundy, wanted more from him than that and I somewhat took the easy way out in refusing to define what I was talking about. This called many people to tell me, publicly or privately, that I didn’t know what the (bleep) I was talking about . . . anyway, that review requires more explication, which I’m now going to provide.
Adele Mundy is a very complex woman, and I think David Drake has done a great job in adding to her character through eight RCN (Royal Cinnabar Navy) books thus far. But she has a lot of built-in tension, and all of the references back to her family (which were murdered, horribly, by political enemies) make it clear she wants more from Daniel Leary than he’s capable of providing.
My problem was that I’d clearly said at first this was a romantic thing that she wanted. This really wasn’t it, so I went back and softened this slightly — now in the review I say that “Mundy . . . cannot make Move One” due to her own background — but that, too, wasn’t enough.
Several folks who wrote to me pointed to things author Drake pointed out in his personal blog or at the Baen’s Bar Web site (go to www.baen.com and you can find the links from there), but I believe you find what meaning is there from the text alone. And that meaning in this case shows tension for Adele Mundy every time she thinks about Daniel Leary . . . yet the fact is Adele really doesn’t seem interested in romance with Leary or anyone. So then the problem becomes, rather than romantic love, what, truly, is it that Adele wants from Daniel Leary?
The Greeks had three different words for what we’d all lump in as one word — “love.” The closest to what Adele seems to want from Leary is philios, the love of a friend or brother, yet this might not be the true and complete reading (the only thing I am sure of is that Adele does not want eros, or physical love, from Daniel Leary). Philios is a type of intellectual love where a very smart person can appreciate someone else for his intellect or learning or perhaps even for his high compassion for others, but only on the intellectual or friendship planes.
Then there’s agape, which is a deeper love of friendship than philios, though it can have elements of philios in it (and sometimes even eros as well). Agape is more of a spiritual love than philios; it also can be thought of as the love of God or Deity, though to my mind that’s not really what the Greeks were about. (My hunch is that the Greeks didn’t really have a great word for the love of the Deity, so they threw it in with the love one person had for another person that was unconditional — because agape is definitely considered an unconditional love, and aren’t we supposed to love the Deity unconditionally?)
At any rate, Adele clearly wants philios, and probably agape too, from Daniel Mundy. He’s more than a brother, more than a friend, but can never be a lover due to her own background. I did not explain this well in my review and I’m sorry.
The next book that I looked at again, this time at the request of the author in question (Troy CLE), was OLIVION’S FAVORITES (available at Amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/Olivions-Favorites-Marvelous-World-Troy/dp/1416942165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1300240110&sr=8-1 ). This was a book that I’d received through the Amazon Vine program and, quite frankly, did not understand at all the first time I read it. Troy CLE’s universe started with THE MARVELOUS EFFECT (available from Amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/Marvelous-Effect-World/dp/1416942157/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 ), a really fun book about a good African-American kid, Louis Proof, but I hadn’t read that book and had no idea that book even existed when I read OLIVION’S FAVORITES.
Now, here was the deal with OLIVION’S FAVORITES. CLE’s strategy was to write this book — which actually is “part 1 1/2” of the MARVELOUS WORLD series (being the book that in sequence overlapped somewhat with the first book of the series, THE MARVELOUS EFFECT) — because so very much happened to Louis (and his friends Cyndi and Devon) that he couldn’t depict in THE MARVELOUS EFFECT that he really felt it needed to be told as a story by itself. Making things a little more difficult, in the ARC version I got, there was absolutely nothing depicting anything that had happened in THE MARVELOUS EFFECT (nothing before this one section, which CLE had to take out of the previous book, at any rate), so I had to view OLIVION’S FAVORITES only on its own merits. But I still didn’t get it and said so, giving it initially only two stars (though three for kids).
At this point, author CLE asked me to please read THE MARVELOUS EFFECT, because he thought I’d enjoy it and he also thought it would help me understand what was going on with OLIVION’S FAVORITES. Since he asked nicely — and since I really, really don’t like dinging authors for things that they can’t help anyway (it wasn’t his fault there weren’t any explanatory notes in the ARC) — I went to read THE MARVELOUS EFFECT as I felt I could at least do that much.
I was floored.
THE MARVELOUS EFFECT, in short, was a whole lot of fun. I enjoyed it very much, giving it four stars and a strong recommendation at Amazon for both kids and adults.
So at this point, I decided it wouldn’t hurt anything to re-read OLIVION’S FAVORITES and understood it far, far better; I still didn’t like it to the level of THE MARVELOUS EFFECT, but at least it was comprehensible and had some funny moments — I actually revised my review, said why I was revising it, and gave it three stars (and 3.5 for kids) and a qualified recommendation (my qualifier was this: please read the first book before this one or you’ll be like me the first time around — hopelessly lost).
There’s only been two other books I have re-reviewed like this (rather than writing two reviews at different places at the same time, these are reviews written on different days with more depth the second time around), the first being THE CRUCIBLE OF EMPIRE by Eric Flint and K.D. Wentworth (reviewed at SBR, with that review here: http://shinybookreview.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/the-crucible-of-empire-passes-rigid-test-another-outstanding-novel-from-flint-and-wentworth/ ), but the reason for that review was much different. There, I was unhappy with my first review at Amazon.com because I felt I hadn’t sufficient length to discuss the book, nor why I enjoyed it so very much; with Shiny Book Review in existence by then, I was able to take my further insights to SBR and review THE CRUCIBLE OF EMPIRE to my heart’s content.
I also did this with David P. Clark’s GERMS, GENES AND CIVILIZATION, mostly because my first review at Amazon.com was a blurb and I felt I could do far, far better. Clark’s book required more of me than most books (even those on the economy and politics such as the recently-reviewed THE PREDATOR STATE which can be difficult to understand through the first fifteen readings or so), which is why I jumped at the chance to re-review it once I had the chance. Clark’s book is a rarity in that it’s not too technical to understand; the reason I’d wanted to do better is to explain it in a historical context, rather than just blurbing it as I did the first time . . . I was far more pleased with my second effort, which is here at SBR:
So while it doesn’t happen often, sometimes I do indeed have second thoughts about a book I’ve reviewed, and in general I will try to do something about it (whether it’s writing a new blog like this, or writing a whole new review if I think that’s warranted, I’ll try to make things right).
Now for the real question — does anyone else ever do this? (Or is it just another of my random quirks?)
Time to de-stress
After the tumult of the past week, I badly needed a day to get away from it all and de-stress.
You see, I get very worked up about politics. I don’t see it as “political theatre,” or at least not just that . . . I see it as extremely important. And sometimes, the importance of the political moment can crowd out everything else.
I don’t know about anyone else, but what I do to de-stress is to read my favorite “comfort books” (as I discussed a few blogs ago), rest, then meditate after I’m a bit calmer. Because things are usually neither as bad as they first appear, nor as rosy as they can look in our best moments — they’re like people, period, and have elements of both.
That we can have the seed of hope in a truly despairing day is one of those conundrums philosophers have been trying to solve for millenia, and I know I certainly don’t have the answer to it. But that does seem a saving grace, now and again.
Yesterday, the hope I saw despite all the tumult was an unusual picture — on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” starring disc jockey and humanitarian Ed Schultz, he had a member of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (GLBT) community in Madison right alongside a member of the pro-life community in Madison. This is rarely seen; even more rare, they got along, and agreed that what the protestors are fighting about (the right to have their voices be heard through collective bargaining) is extremely important.
But I couldn’t take in that hopeful picture just then; I was too wracked by the suffering I could see, easily, if the current Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, gets his way.
Therefore, what this blog is about is simple: sometimes we need to take a step back when we’re too emotionally involved in something — particularly if it’s an external event. (I’m not saying you should step back from your love relationships; far from it! Though sometimes sleeping on a decision helps you, so the principle does apply somewhat even to this example.) Only when we de-stress a bit can we actually figure out that there are hopeful things going on all around us, big and small . . . and that life isn’t as bad as it first appears.
My late husband Michael often used this axiom — just get through the day, or as he put it, “sufficient unto the day are the needs thereof.” (I know he’s quoting someone but I haven’t been able to figure out who said this first.) It helps to remember that not everything in the world is awful, hopeless, bleak beyond belief or worthless, even though stupid things do keep happening (today, in Madison, some probably well-meaning doctor handed out fake “I am really ill” slips to anyone who asked, including a Fox News producer) that make my teeth grind.
Now, I’m going back and watching some more of “The Maury Show,” which is yet another way to de-stress that I find extremely helpful. I hope you find your way to relax, get away from it all — at least mentally if you can’t physically — and remember to enjoy whatever you can of your life.
Persistence is Key
Nothing gets done in this world without one, simple truth: persistence.
Without persistence, we wouldn’t have one of our greatest American Presidents, Abraham Lincoln — admittedly an exalted example — because what most people fail to remember from the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debates is that Abraham Lincoln was then a candidate for the United States Senate from Illinois. And he lost, which ultimately was a great thing for the country (how could Abraham Lincoln have become President in 1860 if he’d been a sitting Senator?), yet he couldn’t have known this in 1858.
In the writing field, the career path of Sharon Lee and Steve Miller has already been discussed, extensively, by me, as they are shining examples of what persistence, faith in yourself and genuine talent can do to keep dreams alive.
In the music field, the career of Art Pepper (1925-1982), alto saxophonist, is an insightful example. Pepper had major drug problems, and ended up in prison for over ten years in the 1950s, just as he was starting to make a name for himself. He resumed his career after that ten years only after he met his third, and last, wife, Laurie; some of his best work was recorded between 1975 and 1982, the year of his death. In his autobiography (transcribed by Laurie Pepper), STRAIGHT LIFE, Pepper described the difficulty he had in believing he could still make great music, and credited his wife, Laurie, for her faith and belief in him until the end of his life. (Sometimes, behind every great man really is a great woman.)
And not everyone becomes famous or appreciated his or her lifetime; Charles Ives (1874-1954) is a famous example in music (he was a composer, but was known more for being an insurance executive than as a composer or musician). Ives’s best-known composition, “Variations on America,” features bitonality and polyrhythms, and was far ahead of its time in how melody and harmony were conceptualized. Ives, in general, was at least fifty years ahead of his time in how he conceptualized harmony and melody. (This is partly why Ives’s music wasn’t much appreciated until he was near death, and afterward.)
Going on with this theme, Emily Dickinson (1830-1886) was barely-known during her lifetime; she’d written thousands of poems, but only a dozen were published during her lifetime, often altered by publishers to “fit the rules of the times.” (Haven’t we all heard this, writers?) She was known for writing poems without titles; for using “slant rhymes,” or close-to rhymes (like “ill” and “shell”); for short sentences, and for unconventional capitalization and punctuation.
All of these examples — every single last one of them — shows the importance of continuing to do whatever the person (or people) in question was good at, because by doing so, that was eventually what caused the breakthrough in every single life. It wasn’t always noticeable at the time — I’m sure Sharon Lee and Steve Miller had no idea their Liaden Universe (TM) books had become so popular before the advent of the Internet (they’ve said so, in other places) — but that was what did it for them.
In other words, PERSISTENCE IS KEY. Because we cannot force a breakthrough; we might not even recognize a small breakthrough when it happens. But we can persist, and keep on going; we can continue to believe in ourselves, and keep up “the good fight,” while refusing to surrender our creativity to anyone for any reason. And being married to a good person — as Sharon Lee is to Steve Miller, as Charles Ives was, to Harmony Twitchell, as Art Pepper was, to Laurie Pepper — can really and truly help.
It is that last quality that I tend to highlight, being fortunate enough to marry the right man for me, Michael B. Caffrey, and I do my best to remember, every day, how much faith and belief he had in me. But all of the other qualities — talent, self-belief, drive, honest ambition, a willingness to “do your thing” regardless of what anyone else thinks about it — are just as important; in some cases, like Emily Dickinson’s, if a person was relying on finding and marrying the right person to propel him or her to greatness, it just wasn’t going to happen.
So I urge you, once again, to keep on trying. Refuse to give up, no matter how long it takes. Give yourself a chance, even if no one else will . . . and do your best to let your dreams take shape.
My favorite “comfort books”
After several extremely trying days, I read some of my favorite “comfort books” in order to feel better and be able to keep going. And that got me thinking about what, exactly, is a “comfort book?”
To my mind, a “comfort book” is one that will give you a positive feeling time and time again. It’s a book that gets your mind off your troubles, or at least diverts you from them somewhat. And it’s a book that you tend to admire for some reason — maybe due to how well the writer in question uses language, maybe because the characters “speak” to you, maybe because it has a bright and lively feel to it, or maybe just because these characters have survived something terrible but have lived to tell the tale.
These books all inspire me to do more, be more, and to keep trying, no matter how hard it gets and no matter how long it takes. Though the plotlines are disparate, and the situations all over the map, they all have in common one thing — they reach me, no matter how awful I feel, and no matter what sort of chaos is going on all around me.
So in no particular order, here are my favorite books that I turn to again and again when I’m feeling the most down and out:
MIRROR DANCE, Lois McMaster Bujold — Mark Vorkosigan’s story goes from anti-hero to full-fledged hero, has huge peaks and miserable valleys, and contains some of the best writing of Ms. Bujold’s career to date.
CORDELIA’S HONOR (omnibus of SHARDS OF HONOR and BARRAYAR), Bujold — Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan’s story is humane, interesting, revealing, and engaging. Cordelia makes her own life her own way, yet realizes she’s as fragile down-deep as anyone else. Finding a mate as extraordinary as she is in Aral Vorkosigan is half the fun — watching what they accomplish together is the rest. This is my favorite of all Ms. Bujold’s novels/novel compilations; it also was my late husband Michael’s favorite work by Bujold.
Poul Anderson, the “Dominic Flandry” series (two outstanding novels in this series are A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS and A STONE IN HEAVEN) — Flandry is an interstellar secret agent, a literate and erudite man with impeccable taste who still manages to be a flawed human. He’s also a bon vivant with an alien valet and a romantic heart buried beneath his cynical exterior. If you haven’t read any of these stories yet, you should.
André Norton, FORERUNNER FORAY and ICE CROWN — Note that Miss Norton wrote many, many outstanding novels in the science fiction, fantasy, romance and historical romance fields; these are my two favorites. The former novel has a heroine in Ziantha who goes from unwanted child to highly-trained psychic, albeit in thrall to the latter-day version of the Mafia; how she breaks free and finds friends and companions is well worth the read. The latter features Roane Hume, an unwanted cousin forced to do her uncle’s will on a backward planet that knows nothing of space travel or advanced societies; Roane finds her own inner strength and throws off her shackles while finding the right man for her (more alluded to than delineated, but there), proving that knowledge indeed is power. (Note that André Norton was Michael’s all-time favorite SF&F writer. He had good taste.)
Stephen R. Donaldson — A MAN RIDES THROUGH. This is the second book of the “Mordant’s Need” duology and is a rousing tale of romance, mistaken motivations, political intrigue, and contains an unusual magic system dealing with the shaping and control of various mirrors. The two main protagonists, Terisa and Geraden, go from not knowing anything to being supremely powerful and confident in and of themselves while maintaining their fallible, undeniably human nature in a realistic way that reminded me somewhat of medieval epics (albeit with magic). Excellent book that works on all levels, and as always, Donaldson’s command of language is superb and worth many hours of study.
Rosemary Edghill, TWO OF A KIND and THE SHADOW OF ALBION (the latter written with André Norton) — the first is a hysterically funny Regency romance, the second is an “alternate Regency” with magic. Excellent books.
Mercedes Lackey, BY THE SWORD and Vanyel’s trilogy (MAGIC’S PAWN, MAGIC’S PROMISE, MAGIC’S PRICE) — both emotional and well-conceived, these books draw you in and don’t let go. Ms. Lackey is one of the most popular novelists in fantasy literature, and it’s easy to understand why.
KRISTIN HANNAH, WHEN LIGHTNING STRIKES — I go back to this book again and again because of the strength of its romance between contemporary woman Alaina “Lainie” Constanza and the outlaw John Killian in 1896; this is a paranormal, time-traveling romance that gets everything right. The characters are engaging though deeply flawed, and have had terrible things happen to them in the past but manage to overcome all difficulties by believing in the power of their love — but taking time to get there, which makes things far more realistic.
Linnea Sinclair, AN ACCIDENTAL GODDESS. I enjoy all of Ms. Sinclair’s work, but it’s the story about psychic priestess Gillaine “Gillie” Davré in the far future (she’s a Raheiran, is also a soldier and member of the Raheiran Special Forces) that always draws me back. Gillie is a complex heroine that, despite her special abilities (of which she has many), still remains a flawed human being. (The Raheirans think of themselves as human. Other types of humanity, such as the Khalarans Gillie works with, tend to think of them as lesser Gods and Goddesses, which discomfits Gillie no end.) Her love story with Khalaran Admiral Rynan “Make it Right” Makarian, a man as complex and interesting as she is, holds my interest time and time again.
Jane Austen, EMMA and MANSFIELD PARK — these are my two favorite novels of Miss Austen’s output, partly because the first is a biting satire and the second a morality play in addition to the “comedy of manners” Miss Austen seemingly could write in her sleep. I appreciate Miss Austen’s work more and more as I get older; her craftsmanship was outstanding and her eye for detail even better. (Note that Jane Austen, like André Norton, was one of Michael’s favorite writers. It was because of Michael’s insistence that I re-read EMMA and realized the fluffy nature of it concealed biting wit and savage satire, then I went on to re-read everything else.)
Finally, there’s the writing team of Sharon Lee and Steve Miller and their entire “Liaden Universe” series. I can’t say enough how much I admire these two writers, how much I appreciate their fine series of books (twelve or so to date), and how much I’m looking forward to GHOST SHIP, the sequel to both SALTATION and I DARE.
These books are all emotionally honest, they get the issues right, they don’t play games with the reader and the way these writers use the English language is superb. I gain more every time I turn to these authors and their books, and I believe you will, too, if you give them a chance.
Stories at e-Quill Publishing and State of the Elfyverse
Folks, it’s that time of year again . . . time for my periodic “state of the Elfyverse” post, and also a friendly reminder of my stories, and Michael’s, that are available at e-Quill Publishing.
As for the Elfyverse — Part 45 of AN ELFY ABROAD is complete. Parts 43 and 44 have been revised and are complete. Part 46 has been started. Not a bad month’s work.
As for the Elfyverse (new) short story, “Boys Night In,” I have a new beginning that works a little better, but it’s still in progress. I’ve maybe added 500 words, total, since the last time I discussed it . . . more work to go on that one. The story stands, right now, at 8500 words in length.
“Keisha’s Vow,” the ELFY prequel set in 1954 (with dead characters being alive, while others are much younger), remains stalled out. Right now it’s in the novella range, but I think it projects to a full (albeit short) novel . . . I know what comes next but not quite how to get there, as if I’d missed a few steps along the path that is this particular story. Still working on this one.
As for ELFY, I haven’t found an agent yet, nor have I found a publisher for it, but I remain hopeful.
Now, as for the stories at e-Quill Publishing? One is mine alone, a short story satire about friendship, aliens, and unemployment called “The Fair at South Farallon.” It’s 3750 words long and is available at this link:
http://www.equillpublishing.com/the-fair-at-south-farallon.html
The next one is an Elfyverse short story that originally appeared at the Written Word Online Magazine in 2007, “Trouble with Elfs,” that was started with the able assistance of my late husband, Michael, thus he gets a credit for it. It’s available at this link:
http://www.equillpublishing.com/the-trouble-with-elfs-a-story-from-the-elfyverse.html
Finally, there are several stories of Michael’s available, the latest of which is the Joey Maverick adventure “On Westmount Station,” a story I finished for him and co-wrote. It is 10,000 words long, and if there’s interest in this story I plan to continue writing in my husband’s “Maverick” universe.
Please go to this link to find it; it’s a bargain at only $1.00 (Australian):
http://www.equillpublishing.com/joey-maverick-on-westmount-station.html
The Holidays are here: Reflections on Grief.
Grieving people are often wholly misunderstood, even by friends and family members. And when holidays come around, that misunderstanding tends to become magnified tenfold, if not hundred-fold . . . simply put, oft-times the “advice” you get from the well-meaning is not worth the time to listen to it.
A case in point being the saying, “You need to move on” from your grief.
Move on to what, exactly?
I mean, here I am — I loved my husband with all my soul and all my strength, and I still love him to this day. I will always love him, and I don’t see anything wrong with that — the only difference between me and another grieving widow is that it’s been six years and three months (plus a day) since my husband died, and by this time most widows don’t say anything about how much they still miss their husbands. (Widowers, either, about their wives.)
Well, I’m tired of that unwritten rule, and here’s why.
When you love someone, you tell them. Often. You do good things for them. Often. You let others know that you care about your loved ones, as often as you can get away with it, and without pushing your relationship in someone else’s face, you do whatever you can to keep that relationship alive — a living, breathing thing. And everyone understands that, so long as your spouse, or your family member, or your friend, or even your beloved pet, is still alive.
But once that person (or pet) is dead, all bets are off. Suddenly, you’re not supposed to talk about the person any more, because he or she is dead. Even though you love him or her just as much as you did yesterday, and you appreciate his or her presence in your life for as long as he or she was able to stay, you’re now supposed to say nothing because “it’s not done.”
In fact, as a widow or widower, you’re supposed to take your wedding ring off, and prepare to date someone else, or there’s something wrong with you. (Like Hell there is, but that’s another issue entirely.)
So now, you’re not only not supposed to talk about the person you love so much, but you’re also supposed to surrender your most prized possession — your wedding ring — because “it’s not done” to keep wearing it.
I have news for anyone who thinks this way: you are being ridiculous.
I can’t make your decisions for you about how you grieve, nor whether you date again, nor how soon you date again, or anything else, because that’s all up to you. (As it should be.) But I categorically refuse to let anyone make my decisions for me.
My husband Michael was the most important, most valuable person in my entire life. Bar none. I refuse to stop talking about him — about his influence on me as a writer. As a person. As an editor. As anything — because what we had together was priceless. Invaluable. And well worth remembering and honoring.
Holidays are extremely difficult. I miss my husband with every breath I take. And I want him back . . . oh, how I want him back.
But all I can do is continue on. Keep trying. Keep creating. Keep his work alive, along with my own, and of course along with anything we started together.
Holidays, to me at least, are not entirely about spending time with family, though I do a good bit of that. And they aren’t all about gift-giving (financially, that’s out), though I do think a great deal about those less fortunate than me and pray for the best outcomes possible.
No.
Holidays, to me, are about remembrance. Are about love. Are about honor, and shared sacrifice, and about dreams becoming the truth — because, you see, Michael and I made our commitments to each other around this time eight years ago today.
And I would never, ever, wish to “move on” from remembering that.
Brett Favre’s Consecutive Games Streak Ends
Brett Favre sat out this past Monday night for the first time in nineteen years, and his consecutive games started/played streak ended at 297. Favre has been troubled with many injuries this year, including a broken ankle, a knee issue (maybe related to having to run about on the broken ankle), shoulder problems, and now he’s unable to grip the football without feeling numbness, tingling or pain. (He’s not talking much about the pain, but if for some reason he’s dodged physical pain with this issue — unlikely — assuredly he has mental pain regarding his current inability to use his primary talent.)
A brief comparison with the “Iron Man” of professional baseball, Cal Ripken, is in order. Favre’s streak started in 1992 and continued until nearly the end of 2010, spanning nineteen years. (Favre has played twenty years in the National Football League, but in his first year he was a little-used backup QB in Atlanta.) Whereas Cal Ripken, Jr.’s 2632 games played streak in baseball was over sixteen years — both are considered “Iron Men,” incredibly tough, gifted individuals who refused to take days off, who refused to give up on their teams, and who are revered because of everything they were as players, and for everything they’ve given to their sports.
Some have argued that because there are three current QBs with an active streak (Philip Rivers has 78, Eli Manning has 100, and Peyton Manning has 205 games played in a row), plus two more active QBs with long streaks (Tom Brady had 111 straight, I believe, before he got injured and missed most of 2008, while Drew Brees had a streak of 79 games played in a row that ended in December of ’09) that perhaps it doesn’t really mean as much in football to start all these games in a row as it does in baseball.
Au contraire, mon frére — it’s an interesting statisical anomaly, yes, that there are now six QBs in history with 100 or more starts in a row. But Favre’s streak — which, when added to his playoff games, was actually 321 games in a row — is exceptional for two reasons.
1) He holds the consecutive games played streak for ALL NFL PLAYERS, not just quarterbacks **
and
2) Over the years he continued to play despite a busted thumb on his throwing hand, a broken ankle, a number of concussions (he was always taken promptly out of games as soon as someone knew there was a problem, fortunately for him), and more than a few injuries to his throwing shoulder and elbow. Any of these injuries, even the least of them, could easily have kept him out of action for a week or more, ending his streak far sooner . . . yet somehow, Favre always found a way to recover in time for next week’s game.
It is extremely unusual that Favre has been able to overcome all that just to keep playing; that for the most part he’s played brilliantly, exceptionally, and has been one of the top quarterbacks in football for at least the last 15 years (save this year) just goes to show how special a player Favre has been over time. He’s combined longevity, toughness, intelligence and heart in a unique way and has exemplified the best aspects of his sport over a long period of time. We definitely will not see his like again even if, by some remote chance, Peyton Manning or someone else equals or surpasses Favre’s streak down the line.
The guy who’s second in the NFL behind Favre in consecutive games played/started is former Viking defensive end Jim Marshall — Marshall had 270 games played with an additional nineteen playoff games, bringing his consecutive games streak total to 289 overall. Marshall had the overall NFL record for over thirty years before handing it off to Favre, and it was thought for many years that Marshall’s streak would never be broken, or tied, or equalled. (And it hasn’t been, by a defensive end.)
Granted, quarterbacks have an offensive line that’s paid to protect them, but they also are the most vulnerable player on the field for many reasons, far too many to list here. It’s almost miraculous that Favre was able to play for so long and overcome so many injuries; it’s fitting, in a way, that it took a triple-pronged attack of injuries — a broken foot, shoulder problems, and an aching hand with numbness and tingling — in order to end Favre’s streak.
So please, do not let the “argument” that there are six quarterbacks who’ve played 100 games straight or more, two of them with active streaks (the Manning brothers), stop you for appreciating Brett Favre’s historic accomplishment.
A very good Time magazine article asks the question, “Why did we take Brett Favre’s streak for granted?” A relevant quote follows, with the link following that (as is apparently Time magazine’s preference):
Cal Ripken played 2,632 straight games for the Baltimore Orioles. That streak is revered; the night Ripken passed Gehrig back in 1995 became a national celebration – even the President showed up. But wasn’t Favre’s streak much more difficult to pull off? What’s harder: standing on a baseball field for an hour or two, everyday, playing shortstop, or lining up under center once a week in football, where very large men are paid very large sums of money to knock you out of the game? Favre’s body got buried in the turf every game, but he kept bouncing back up. He played with broken bones. He took a mental pounding too: Favre played one of the best games of his career, back in 2003, the day after learning that his father had died.
No disrespect to Ripken: in a daily endeavor like baseball, there’s certainly more opportunities for a freak accident that could stall such a streak. But baseball has always been a sport that overvalues its numbers. Since it is played at a slower pace than other games, there’s more time to ruminate on individual feats. So let’s give Favre his due; he’s the ultimate Iron Man in pro sports history.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/14/why-did-we-take-brett-favres-streak-for-granted/#ixzz18MNtQvzF
*** End quote ***
When at his best, Brett Favre could elevate an entire team and carry them on his back, willing them to play better — we saw it for seventeen seasons in Green Bay, we saw it in New York when he was with the Jets (until he had arm issues later in the season), and we’ve seen it now for two years in Minnesota.
So now, Favre’s streak is over; his team, the Vikings, will not make the playoffs this year. He may not be able to play again with his injuries, as they are extensive and painful, which is a real shame. This will undoubtedly be his last year as a professional football player — he’s just too injured now, and he knows it.
What’s really sad is that the Vikings backup QB, Tarvaris Jackson, was placed on the injured reserve list (meaning he can’t play again this season) earlier today. Favre most likely will not play this week, either; right now he’s helping the coaches with the third-string QB Joe Webb and getting NFL veteran QB Patrick Ramsay (signed earlier this week for depth purposes) up to speed on the offense. That’s a good thing — Favre, according to retired QBs Trent Dilfer and Steve Young (the latter a Hall of Famer), has, in their parlance, “forgotten more football than other people know.” Favre has already said that he’ll be glad to help Webb, Ramsay or anyone else who gets in there while he’s unable to play, which is a classy move, one that goes strongly against his image as a “prima donna” or “diva.” (I’ve always wondered how much of that was overblown, especially as most of the teammates he’s ever been around have had nothing but good things to say about him as a player.)
I will miss seeing Brett Favre’s infectious enthusiasm on the field, and will miss seeing Favre’s scrambling plays that most of the time hit their target — something very, very few QBs in the history of the NFL could ever do — even though once in a while it did result in a costly interception (or two).
The NFL will not be the same without Brett Favre as an active player, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
——
** Jeff Feagles, a punter, holds the special teams record for consecutive games played and actually has more years of service and more games of service than Brett Favre, but because punters are never in the starting line-up these days, and because punters sometimes are active for the game and get credit for being available for the game if there’s no need for punting (it’s rare, but it happens), he is not considered the “Iron Man” of professional football. (He is, however, appreciated mightily by folks like me, who recognize excellence and perseverence when we see it whether it’s Feagles, the punter, or Favre, the quarterback or Marshall, the DE.)
Barb Caffrey's Blog 