Beware Absolutes
Tonight’s blog post is simple: beware absolutes, especially when it comes to writing.
Look. When we write, if we write about a character who has only one motivation, that’s going to be a one-dimensional character that’s tough to work with. And yet the world is full of “shades of gray,” which you’d never know if you turned on the evening news or if you listened to political talk shows all day (as I often do; I do rotate from the leftward spinning ones of MSNBC to the rightward spinning ones of Fox News to at least get some variety in the coverage).
How people see things is often related to how they’ve heard those same things be described in the past. This is just the way our contemporary, 21st Century world is; perhaps it’s because we don’t seem to have enough time to be able to think for ourselves after carefully studying the issues. Or perhaps it’s just more comfortable for us to be around others who share our world view and belief system, which might be why so many of us look at the world in the most basic, absolute, black-and-white thinking imaginable.
For a writer, this sort of ultra-concrete thinking is deadly. It creates dull, one-dimensional characters which populate dull, one-dimensional stories, and those are stories no one wants to read.
Now, there have been legitimate times in the world history where there was a really good system versus a terrible one — such as during the 1930s until 1945. What Adolf Hitler did to Germany was unconscionable, but the reason we still read about him is because he wasn’t one-dimensional (no matter how much we might’ve wanted him to be). This is a man who painted (though not well). He loved music, and was a devotee of Wagner. He enjoyed comparative religion and religious philosophy. And no matter how much you might loathe him (I know I certainly do), he definitely was a multi-faceted person with a huge amount of interests that fascinates readers even now due to both his psychological complexity and the fact that he was able to subjugate an entire country to his whims.
We writers must learn from history and remember that even the worst people thought they were doing the right thing by their lights. (They might be the only one thinking they were doing the right thing, mind you.) That even the worst people probably had occasional pangs of conscience. And that even the worst people were not one-dimensional cardboard cutouts.
Mind you, you also need to be cognizant of the flip side, as there are very few angelic types in this world (Mother Teresa, Father Damien the Leper Priest, and a very few others). These “earth angels” among us (or bodhisattvas, if you’d prefer that term) knew they were fallible, mortal, and just as guilty of having a bad thought or a bad day as anyone else.
Remember always to “beware absolutes,” and beware absolutism. Because that is the enemy not only of good writing, but of good thinking as well.
Just reviewed Ellen Renner’s “Castle of Shadows” at SBR
Folks, CASTLE OF SHADOWS is a good, solid YA fantasy-adventure about eleven-year-old Princess Charlotte of Quale (‘cept she’s always called “Charlie”). Charlie’s mother left her and her father, the King, five years ago, without explaining why. All Charlie knows is that her mother was a gifted scientist and physicist, and that apparently Charlie’s mother found out something that scared her so much that she burned her notes and then skipped town.
There’s a lot of intrigue here, and some good action-adventure down the line, too.
Here’s a link so you can read it at SBR:
Enjoy!
US Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Approves of Racist, Polarizing Ad
Pity former United States Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). He recently approved of an ad that, to put it charitably, is both racist and xenophobic. This ad aired on his campaign’s behalf in the state of Michigan during the Super Bowl, which just goes to show that there’s no accounting for taste.
The ad, featuring an Asian-American girl speaking broken English while biking through a bunch of rice paddies, is an extremely tone-deaf way to say that current US Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) spends too much money (as the Chinese girl says, “Thank you Debbie SpendItNow” and there’s an associated Web site, to boot). Here’s the text of what this young woman actually says in the ad:
“Thank you, Michigan Senator Debbie Spenditnow. Debbie’s spent so much American money. You borrow more and more from us. Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs. Thank you, Debbie Spenditnow.” (Transcribed this evening while listening/watching to it on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” and Current TV’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”)
Do I even need to start in on how wrong this ad is? (Or will you just go look at it for yourself in order to see how a candidate for the high office of US Senator can waste his money while offending nearly everyone in the process?)
Please see this link from Real Clear Politics, which has an embedded link to the commercial in question:
As the Detroit News put it, “Hoekstra Super Bowl ad Raises Sensitivity Question:”
GOP consultant Nick De Leeuw flat-out scolded the Holland Republican for the ad.
“Stabenow has got to go. But shame on Pete Hoekstra for that appalling new advertisement,” De Leeuw wrote on his Facebook page Sunday morning. “Racism and xenophobia aren’t any way to get things done.”
Good for De Leeuw. I’m glad he stood up and called this ad exactly what it is: racist and xenophobic.
Going on (still from the Detroit News article sourced above):
A media consultant who has advised Democrats also thought it could prove problematic.
“Some Asian-Americans may be offended by the stereotype that is portrayed in the spot,” said Robert Kolt, who teaches advertising part-time at Michigan State University and had previewed a number of Sunday’s Super Bowl ads. “Pete seems like a nice guy in the ad, but I think he is wasting a lot of money now. … It’s just not Super Bowl-worthy. It’s not cute, it’s not funny and it’s not memorable.”
Ah, but I beg to differ — it’s memorable for all the wrong reasons, which is far worse for Rep. Hoekstra than if it were simply a mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy ad of the type we’ve all seen many times before. (And if you think “some Asian-Americans” only “may be offended,” I have some prime real estate in Antarctica for sale.)
Hoekstra is not the only one running against Stabenow, mind you; Gary Glenn, of Midland, MI, is also vying to become the Republican general election candidate for the US Senate Seat. And according to the same article sourced above from the Detroit News, Glenn is most unamused:
“Saving America from the Washington, D.C., politicians who gave us this crippling debt and deficit crisis, Republican and Democrat alike, means Hoekstra and Stabenow should both get benched,” Glenn said in a release.
And Michigan Democratic Party Chairman was equally unamused (quoted again from the Detroit News article):
“Hoekstra’s ad is nothing more than a hypocritical attempt at a Hollywood-style makeover because the fact is, Pete spends a lot,” Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said. “Hoekstra voted for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and voted for trillions more in deficit spending before quitting Congress to get rich at a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm. Hoekstra is using the big game to play games with Michigan voters.”
So let me get this straight. We have an ad that some members of the GOP have condemned roundly, along with some members of the Democratic party. We have an ad that’s meant to “make a big splash” (why else be so offensive?). And we have an ad that, on the offensiveness meter, is totally off the charts.
And, of course, it’s an ad that Hoekstra and his campaign defends; they call it “satirical” (they must not be using the word the same way I would, then), and say that their real meaning is that Stabenow simply spends too much money, that’s all. (Any racism that might be present — pshaw! How can we think it? We’re all Americans here, right? Or so Hoekstra and his campaign prays.)
About the only good thing I can say for this ad is that it has brought disparate segments of the population together — the Ds and the Rs — who normally wouldn’t touch each other with a ten-foot pole. But that’s the only silver lining in an otherwise dark and offensive cloud.
——————-
Further thoughts . . . otherwise known as, “After further review:”
As for what I’d do, were I Hoekstra? (Inquiring minds wanted to know.) If for some reason I’d been stupid enough to make this ad in the first place, then have been even more stupid in putting it on the air to cause big-time trouble, I’d first apologize. Then I’d pull the ad. And finally, I’d do whatever I could to put this behind me as quickly as humanly possible.
But because Hoekstra apparently isn’t very smart, he’s standing by his “I didn’t mean any harm!” and “It’s satire!” defenses.
Nothing says Hoekstra must be intelligent, now, is there? (But if he has even two brain cells together, he really should pull this ad because it is beyond offensive. It is disgusting.)
Sen. Wanggaard Recall News: Wanggaard will not debate former Sen. Lehman
Last week, former Senator John Lehman (D-Racine) said he would take on current Senator Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) in an upcoming recall election.** Lehman, who lost to Wanggaard in 2010, says he wants a series of public debates; however, Wanggaard says he has “no interest” in debating Lehman whatsoever and will “stand on his record.”
Please see this link for further details:
About the best Wanggaard says he’s able to do is this; if Lehman is willing to attend one of Wanggaard’s weekly town halls out in the Town of Yorkville (a very small, rural part of Racine County):
“If (Lehman) wants to attend one of my town halls, he can sure ask questions,” said Wanggaard.
In Lehman’s announcement Tuesday that he will run against Wanggaard in a likely recall, he said when he ran against Wanggaard in 2010, and was defeated by him, “Mr. Wanggaard never once would agree to an on the ground debate in Racine.”
There was a television debate and The Journal Times hosted an online forum, but no public debates where people could ask questions in person.
“They just avoided a discussion,” Lehman said in his announcement.
Lehman said he would like to see a series of debates. “I think people deserve that,” Lehman said.
When Lehman ran against former County Executive William McReynolds in 2006 for the Senate, he said there were about 10 debates.
. . . which just goes to show you how much McReynolds respected the public, and how much Wanggaard disrespects the public now.
Look. There are good Republicans in Wisconsin who currently hold high office (Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, is one such Republican), and there are good Republicans who’ve held office in the past, including McReynolds. These are responsible people who believe in public debates, and want the public to be well-informed as to the nature of the decisions facing them.
For that matter, all six of the Republican state Senators who faced recall in 2011 allowed for public debates; one, Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay), didn’t have a debate, but that’s because his opponent, Nancy Nussbaum, had to deal with funeral arrangements due to the death of her mother on the day the debate had been scheduled. For obvious reasons, the debate was called off. (Let the record state, however, that Cowles was willing to debate. Wanggaard is not.)
So why is it that the 2011 Rs were willing to debate the D candidates who were running in recall elections against them, but Wanggaard is unwilling to debate Lehman now? (And for that matter, why was Wanggaard unwilling to debate Lehman back in 2010?)
Methinks Wanggaard knows that debates or no debates, he will be out on his ear — the first one-year Senator in the history of Racine politics. (Former Senator George Petak, R-Racine, held office from 1990-6, and was successfully recalled during the middle of his second term.) And that’s why his public stance — i.e., “No debates!” — is so wishy-washy at absolute best.
Were I Wanggaard, I’d want to go down fighting, so the constituents I’d represented knew that I’d at least tried to do my best by my own lights. But nothing says he must be smart or courageous, now, does it?
Anyway, as I’m one of Wanggaard’s constituents — not that he’s ever listened to me before, mind you — I want to say this to Senator Wanggaard:
Senator, it’s time to stop ducking the issues. Debate former Senator Lehman in a public forum. Take questions from your constituents. And be prepared to explain why, oh why, you voted against collective bargaining when you, yourself, have benefitted handily from collective bargaining in the past (and continue to benefit from it in the here-and-now due to your police retirement).
It’s not that you’ve benefitted that’s so upsetting, Senator — it’s that you don’t want anyone else to benefit now that you have. (Otherwise known as, “I have mine, so who cares about you?”) That, sir, is hypocrisy at its finest, and that is why we are so upset with you.
We don’t like hypocrisy in Racine, Senator. We don’t like it at all.
But you’re still allowed to explain yourself, and your actions, in a way that makes more logical sense than you’ve done thus far. So do yourself a favor, and debate Lehman; it can’t hurt, might help, and will at least make those of us who oppose you appreciate your willingness to stand up and face the music.
—————
**Note that while Wanggaard’s upcoming recall election isn’t a 100% lead-pipe cinch, I would put it at 99.9% likely due to the fact that over 24,000 signatures were turned in while approximately 15,400 were needed to recall Wanggaard. Not all of those signatures will be valid, but most will be; Wanggaard is headed to a recall election and he well knows it.
NFL News: A Super Bowl Safety; also, Rodgers wins NFL MVP
Sometimes, odd things just happen.
Take tonight’s Super Bowl, for example. New England Patriots QB Tom Brady, on the first play of the game from scrimmage, threw a deep pass to the middle of the field as he was on his own five yard line (very bad field position, that). But there were no receivers there, so the refs called intentional grounding — which meant that the New York Giants ended up with a 2-0 lead, gaining a safety.
This had never before happened in the Super Bowl — much less on the very first play of the game from scrimmage. (It makes me wonder what else is going to happen in this game.)
The other NFL news today is so disconcertingly normal . . . Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers, as expected, won the NFL’s Most Valuable Player award (MVP). Rodgers was one of two outstanding QBs this season — New Orleans Saints QB Drew Brees being the other — and either one of them winning the MVP (or sharing the MVP) would’ve made sense.
It does seem strange not to see Brees or Rodgers playing in the Super Bowl. But it’s not the first time the NFL MVP has sat at home during the Super Bowl, and assuredly it won’t be the last, either . . . that’s why the saying, “There’s always next year” is so powerful.
Performance, Music, and Nerves
Folks, I started thinking about one of the sentences I’ve thrown into several of my articles about sports stars, but mostly with regards to figure skating stars as often, only one or at most two people are on the ice at the same time. That sentence is, “(X) can really be something, if (he/she) can learn to control (his/her) nerves.”
Now, why is it that I keep saying this?
I’m a musician, and have been since I was eleven years old. So I know a great deal about performance anxiety. I’ve also played many solos in front of bands and orchestras, as well as within the band and orchestra as a featured performer; that’s why I do know how it feels to be out there, all by yourself, wondering if everything’s going to work right today and waiting to see how well the performance comes off.
Consider that in music, we have many things that aren’t under our control. How fast is the conductor taking the music? Will one of the saxophone’s pads fall off? (Brass players worry about similar things related to pistons sticking or the like.) Will my reed continue to work, or will it do something idiosyncratic at the last possible minute after I’ve committed to the solo and can’t change it?
Well, figure skaters have to worry about their skates; not just their skate blades, but whether or not their laces will break. (This happened to Nobunari Oda at the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.) Will there be ruts in the ice that can’t be avoided? (This happened to Johnny Weir during his second combination spin at the 2010 Olympics and stopped his spin dead.) How well did the competitor do beforehand? (This is important because people throw stuffed animals on the ice and it can take a while to clear them off, plus as the next competitor, you have to stay away from them before they’re all cleared.)
So all you can do, as a performer in whatever discipline, is control what you can control. That’s tough to learn. (I know I didn’t really learn it until I was close to thirty.) And worrying about it beforehand is counterproductive, yet if you’ve had past difficulties, it’s very human. (We all do it.)
The solution, if there is one, is to not take it all so seriously. (This can be very tough to do in a business where how well you audition is vital, but it’s necessary.) And to remember that no matter how badly you may play today, you’ll play well tomorrow and the next day and the day after that — because you’ve done everything you can do by rehearsing for untold, uncounted hours beforehand.
That’s why, despite how casual it may seem when I throw that one sentence in there about such-and-such “controlling his (or her) nerves,” it’s not a casual thing at all. It’s a long-held belief that’s been borne out by many things I’ve lived through as a performer. And it’s why I have empathy for someone who really has talent, like Jeremy Abbott, who uncharacteristically falters (as Abbott did during his 2010 Olympic short program; Abbott performed much better in the long program to finish in ninth place overall, but even his long program wasn’t really up to his best), because I know he (or she) can do much better if he’ll only learn to trust himself along the way.
One more thing to consider is this: when you perform for a living (or for even part of your living), you start thinking you’re only as good as your last performance. I’d like to tell all performers of all types one, simple thing: Please, do not do this.
Instead, what you as a performer need to do is to remember that you have prepared well for whatever it is you’re about to do. That you’ve dedicated yourself to learn your craft. And that you’re going to do your level best; that’s all anyone can expect of you, and it’s all you should expect out of yourself.
You also should try — and I know this is very, very hard — not to let the dictates of how you perform take over your life. Who you are as a person has very little to do with how you may perform any given day, though how you prepare for the performance, and what you put into the performance — your “sweat equity” — has a great deal to do with you and your perseverance and your personal character.
That’s why I write blog posts about perseverance, because I feel that’s the main difference between a person who ultimately succeeds and one who doesn’t. You must refuse to give up on yourself and your talents, because that’s literally the only way to lose in the game of life — no matter how well, or how badly, you may perform on any given day.
My late husband Michael used to tell me, “If you can’t do it today, you will assuredly do it tomorrow. I know you; I know you don’t give up. ‘Quit’ is not part of your vocabulary.” And then I get back after it tomorrow, because I know he was — and still is (wherever he is now in Eternity) — right.
Or to distill this message down to its essence: your only true competition is yourself. So do yourself a favor, and keep utilizing your talents as long as humanly possible. Don’t give up.
United States Men’s 2012 Championships: Abbott Wins, Rippon 2nd
Folks, I am a figure skating junkie despite never learning to skate. (I tried roller skating. I had poor balance. I knew better than to try ice skating.) I’ve studied the jumps, the spins, the choreography, and of course as a musician I enjoy figure skating programs that actually go with their music.
That’s one reason why I like contemporary men’s figure skaters Jeremy Abbott and Adam Rippon so much. Like my all-time favorite Johnny Weir (who’s preparing for a comeback), these are men who spin well, jump well, and most importantly to my mind, are musical, lyrical performers who can actually create art on the ice.
Granted, most of the time, what’s talked about with regards to Abbott is his past inconsistency. Abbott, 26, has persisted, and has proven his resilience under pressure; while his 2011 season was one to forget (much like Weir’s 2009 season), he’s come back stronger than ever and had two fine performances (a brilliant short program, and a very good and musical long program) to easily win the United States 2012 men’s championship. This was his third win at the United States National Championships, as he’d previously won in both 2009 and 2010.
Adam Rippon, 22, who came in second after a great short program and a so-so long program that was long on artistry and a bit short on jump technique, is another of those skaters I can’t help but root for. Rippon has such wonderful flow over the ice; his spins are perfectly centered 99.9% of the time (all that any human being can do, in short), his footwork is inventive and elegant, and his musicality is impressive. Rippon has everything a figure skater could ever want at his fingertips, but he has to learn to control his nerves.
Abbott and Rippon train together in Michigan as they have the same coaches, former World Champion Yuka Sato and former US National pairs champion Jason Dungjen (a married couple, who also coach two-time US National Champion Alissa Czisny). So it seemed especially fitting for these particular two men to go one-two during Sunday afternoon’s men’s figure skating competition; that they have cemented their place on the 2012 World Team is an additional benefit that both men will assuredly appreciate, considering that it’s never been a lock for either man to make the World Team due to a variety of factors.
Congratulations, gentlemen! And best of luck at Worlds!
2012 US Women’s Figure Skating Championships — Wagner Wins, Czisny Second
Folks, last year I wrote a blog about Alissa Czisny (link is here), and that blog goes double for her performance this year in the 2012 United States Women’s Figure Skating National Championships even though she came in second to Ashley Wagner.
Watching Czisny skate last evening, I was struck again by her elegance across the ice, the perfection of her positioning, her excellent spins, and her gritty determination. Though Czisny fell on her first triple Lutz (her most difficult jump) and turned out of another attempt at the same jump, she otherwise made no obvious mistakes; this is quite difficult to do, because once something goes wrong in a performance, it can be difficult to hold it together.
I applaud her determination and persistence; coming in second to Ashley Wagner (who skated by far the best program of the night, with six clean triple jumps) is not a defeat. And as Czisny said herself to NBC Sports reporter Andrea Joyce, sometimes you can learn more from your imperfect programs than your perfect ones, which shows how strong Czisny’s mental perspective is overall.
Czisny should be named to the World Team as she came in fifth last year. Had she come in third at the US Nationals, she’d have had a harder time to get onto the World Team, though it might’ve happened anyway as the US has to know Czisny is their strongest competitor overall, and is by far the US’s best chance to medal at Worlds.**
But keep your eyes on Wagner; she’s a very strong skater with good jumps, good spins, and some nice artistry to her. (She’s friendly with my favorite figure skater, Johnny Weir, too, so that doesn’t hurt her in my eyes, either.) She, too, has an excellent chance to get a medal, providing she hangs on to her composure.
More thoughts about the women’s championships: it was nice to see Caroline Zhang do well and come in fourth, as it’s been years since she skated a clean and effective performance. Zhang skates a bit too slowly for my taste but the way she moves is impeccable and her spins, while slower and less precise than Czisny’s, are probably the best of all the American women aside from Czisny.
Agnes Zawadski, first after the short program, fell into third place. Zawadski is only seventeen years old, so she has plenty of time to compete among the best in the United States, and eventually, the world. I really enjoyed her short program and see big things ahead for her if she can only get a handle on her nerves.
Otherwise, I felt sorry for Mirai Nagasu; she came in seventh, and had a wildly inconsistent performance. I think Nagasu needs to speak with Czisny once this season is over, because Czisny is the skater who’s most likely to understand what Nagasu has been going through.
See, once upon a time, Czisny was not a model of consistency, either, partly due to a lack of good jump techniques with the triple jumps. But she’s worked through that and has come out more confident, more dedicated and with everything you could ever want in a figure skater on the other side. Maybe Nagasu can do the same thing down the road if she just learns to trust herself and her ability.
Here’s hoping.
———-
** UPDATE: Czisny was indeed named to the World Team along with Wagner. Congratulations!
Just Reviewed the Last Two Books in Jim C. Hines “Jig the Goblin” Series at SBR
Folks, I just reviewed GOBLIN HERO and GOBLIN WAR, the latter two books of Jim C. Hines “Jig the Goblin” series, at Shiny Book Review. These books are satirical and often made me laugh, but the lack of a definite conclusion to the third book was frustrating. (If there’s to be a fourth book down the line, I’d completely understand as there are dozens of loose ends — or at least it seems that way — left to exploit in future books.)
Here’s the link:
My capsule review is, go read Hines’ books in paperback. They’re fun, they’re enjoyable, and I really hope Hines will write a fourth book (maybe several more books) about Jig because there’s lots more to say. (And before anyone points it out, I am aware of several more short stories in Jig’s universe. That’s a start, but more novels are needed.)
Enjoy!
Prince Fielder signs with Tigers; 9 years, $214 million
Folks, there are reports all over the Internet that former Milwaukee Brewers first baseman Prince Fielder has signed a deal with the Detroit Tigers; the deal is reported as being $214 million over the course of nine years, or an average $23.78 million per year.
See this story from Ken Rosenthal for further details:
Here’s a relevant quote:
On the long list of Scott Boras shockers, this one ranks near the top.
Boras’ top free-agent client, first baseman Prince Fielder, has agreed to a nine-year, $214 million contract with the Tigers, according to major-league sources.
Fielder’s deal with the Tigers does not include an opt-out provision, a source said.
Tigers general manager David Dombrowski recently told ESPN.com that Fielder, “doesn’t fit for us. He’s looking for a long-term deal and that just doesn’t fit.”
Either Dombrowski was shading the truth, or Tigers owner Mike Ilitch — who has worked well with Boras in the past — made a last-minute call to sign Fielder.
So, see, it’s not just me who’s shocked. Rosenthal is obviously shocked, too.
The reason this deal surprised so many people, including me, is because of how long it took on the one hand (as we’re only about a month away from when pitchers and catchers must report to Spring Training) while on the other hand, the team that ended up landing Fielder — the Tigers — wasn’t even on the radar screen until now. (This last bit is very reminiscent of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim’s pursuit of Albert Pujols; no one on the outside of the negotiations had any idea that the Angels were interested in Pujols, much less that they’d lay out big money for him.)
At any rate, the Tigers’ plans apparently include having Fielder play some first base and DH other days; they already have a first baseman in Miguel Cabrera (who hits from the right side, and is a power hitter), but Cabrera is no better defensively than Fielder and presumably wouldn’t mind DHing now and again.
Now, as a Brewers fan, I wasn’t surprised at all to see that Fielder is moving on. It was obvious that he didn’t want to re-sign here; he had an opportunity to do that last year, and even at the end of this year, he had the opportunity to accept arbitration and come back for another year — Brewers set-up man Francisco Rodriguez (“K-Rod,” one of the best closers in the game), decided to do this even though the Brewers have a particularly good closer in John Axford — one who set team records last year and one who isn’t being paid very much. (Axford should be getting a lot more than he is; at this point, he’s making just over the major league minimum and that really seems unfair. But I digress.)
This situation has happened before, albeit with C.C. Sabathia. Sabathia helped the Brewers get to the 2008 playoffs; the Brewers clinched the “wild card” spot on the final day of the season, and they wouldn’t have done so without Sabathia’s stellar performance (he went 11-2 with a 1.65 ERA in 17 starts with the Brewers). But Sabathia, as good as he was, was a half-season rental; Fielder was developed by the Brewers farm system and his entire career (six full seasons and part of a seventh) was spent in Milwaukee up until now.
Still, unlike Ryan Braun, who accepted a contract below market value in order to stay in Milwaukee because he apparently likes the stability of knowing he’ll be financially solvent (good thing, too, but other than Evan Longoria, there isn’t a single player in MLB who’s anywhere near as interested in his long-term financial future as Braun), Fielder obviously wanted to go wherever he’d get the most money. And he does have ties to Detroit; his father played there, and Fielder took batting practice there as a pre-teen — part of the “Fielder legend” says that Fielder hit several HRs in batting practice when he was twelve, though I’m unsure that’s factually correct. (Fielder has enormous power, and even as a child he probably had a great deal of it also. But Fielder himself cast aspersions on some of these legends while he was in Milwaukee, saying, in effect, “Don’t believe everything you hear, but isn’t it a nice story?”)
I just hope that whatever Fielder is getting out of this deal is worth it to him, because it’s one thing to be a “Big Man On Campus” like he was for the Brewers; it’s another to become the highest-paid player on the team, as he will be for the Tigers. The media in Detroit isn’t as friendly as the media in Milwaukee, and even if they were, Fielder’s contract will make him much more of a target than he’s ever been in Milwaukee. This is something he’s not likely to understand until he’s lived with it for a while; I just hope the learning curve for him won’t be too steep along the way.
Granted, Fielder is a big man (in many senses, including his heart) and I’m sure he can handle it. But it will be much more difficult for his family and friends to deal with the media on days where he goes 0 for 4 with a couple of Ks (even a guy who strikes out as little as Fielder does, proportionately, has a few days like this a year) than it’s ever been in Milwaukee.
All I can say now is, “Enjoy the contract, Prince. Play well. And don’t forget your fans in Milwaukee.” Because assuredly, we will not forget about you anytime too soon.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 