Of Heroes and Dissappointment...

Now comes word that Bruce Springsteen may have stepped out on his wife of many years. I don't have any idea whether these allegations are true. From what I've seen, it's hard to tell for sure. For the moment let's put aside whether they are true.
You see, I am of two minds on situations like this.
One the one hand, I don't think I should really care. I like Bruce Springsteen because of his music. He's clearly a gifted musician and songwriter and what he does away from the stage and recording studio, while it does affect the songs he choses to write, has nothing to do with quality of that music and of the sincerity I see in his music. If he writes a love song and I don't really know who it's about, it does not matter to me. Even if every song he writes is about his wife Patti, I still have only a small, fleeting window into what their relationship is. And ultimately, that window does not really help me like or dislike his music any more than if a song were about an anonymous woman. And a lot of his songs (probably the majority) aren't love songs. So, logically, his marital troubles shouldn't matter in my enjoyment of those songs.
On the other hand. I know I respect Springsteen for more than just his musical talents. I respect him because he seems to believe in many of the same causes I do. And he seems like a normal guy. Me, if I had the talent and drive he did. Which is to say, he's not really all that much like me, but there was something about him that made me feel he was. He seemed humble and giving. Now, to find out that he may have been having an affair on his wife. Well, that's not something I can really relate to. And I don't think that's something a 'normal guy' would do (though I know there are those who would disagree with that statement). So, clearly I am a little dissappointed. But I still cannot put a finger on exactly why. He did not lie to me. He made no vow to me as a fan of his music and the image he presented to me. And yet, I feel a little distrubed by this news.
I have been reading a biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt. However you feel about him and for whatever reasons, there is no denying he was a great president. His handling of World War II alone puts him among the best leaders this country has ever had. But, I was a little taken aback when I found out he had had an affair. I knew his marriage with Eleanor was not a traditional one for many reasons, but it still struck me as odd that this great man would have an affair. I know, I am naive. But a major difference between the Springsteen infidelity and FDR is that I don't for one minute think of the former president as a normal guy. He's a larger than life figure. A man who led this country and, by example, much of the world, during one of the most tenuous moments for democracy in the history of the world. I don't think I'm overstating. And it's for this, along with his leadership during the depression that he is most remembered. And again, FDR owed me nothing when it comes to his relationship with his wife. But, I still feel a little let down.
This could be because of my father's (almost certain) infidelity with the woman he now lives with. Sure, that makes sense. Men that I considered heroes for different reasons all seem to have had troubles staying within the bounds of their marriages. It's troubling for me. The difference in my father's situation is that a case can be made that he did owe me some duty being that he was my father and the woman he cheated on was my mother. And for all that I've denied it recently, my father and I are a lot alike. We look similar. We react in situations the same way. I sometimes see pictures of me and I see my father's timidity or sly smile. I hear myself say things my father would say to me when I was young. I don't so much worry that I will repeat my father's mistakes, because I think I'm making a lot of other decisions now that will keep me happier than he was while I was growing up*. But, because we are so similar, I find it disturbing that he couldn't or didn't make a different, better decision. And that he refuses to look at what he did as at least a little dubious. Clearly, I took the news of his cheating harder than I took the two others, but I can't ignore this as being a reason why their situations strike me as disappointing.
And I think that's probably the answer. The troubles of Bruce and Roosevelt, for all the pain and awkwardness they cause in their own lives, brings up unresolved issues I have with my father. The issues we will likely never resolve. I mean, I could go on for a while about how there are no heroes anymore. Maybe, bring up Tiger Woods and blame the media for reporting too much sordid crap, or blame our insatiable appetite for this crap, but I don't really care about any of that. And I don't care about the revelations of other people's marital troubles for anything that they mean about the person and their families. I care more about what they have in common with me and my family. And it makes me wonder if everyone feels similarly about these sorts of situations. To me it's the only rational way to explain why we're upset when people we know do stupid things.
Huh. And I thought I was going to write an entry not about me.

Note1*. Law school. Having kids later. Not going to war, which really has to be the big one. I think if my father hadn't gone to that war in Vietnam, he would be a completely different person now. Happier. Maybe the marriage with my mom doesn't happen or doesn't last, I don't know. But, I think he doesn't gain all the weight and he a lot of the issues he has now don't exist or seem much easier to deal with.

my 2 cents...

The Bissinger/Lietch debate about sports blogs and journalism doesn't seem to affect this blog much when you first look at it. I don't really write about sports. I'm not a journalist, nor am I trying to be. I noticed the debate because I'm a deadspin.com reader. I don't generally comment on there, but I do enjoy reading the comments.
But before I delve too much, a quick recap. Bob Costas hosted a forum on which he invited Buzz Bissinger (of "Friday Night Lights" and "3 Days in August" credits, among many others), Will Leitch (of Deadspin.com and "God Save the Fan") and Braylon Edwards (of the Cleveland Browns) to talk about the blogs and their impact on sports journalism. The debate was actually ugly and unhelpful. Bissinger was very angry and it was hard for me to discern what it is he exactly hated about blogs, but the money quotation that's getting thrown around is (and I'm just gonna paraphrase) blogs are devoted to speed and cruelty. The debate that ensued was really not a debate as much as it was a piling on in an emotional and unthinking way. And as such, I wasn't going to say much about it. (Besides others have put more thought into it and have interesting thoughts on it.) But what does stir me to say something (I know you're thinking, Joe, you're writing because we demand your thoughts on this, but no...) was Bissinger's latest comments on NPR.
Here it was, finally, the reason Bissinger got so upset. And, you know what? I surprisingly, agree with him (on some stuff). I agree that it's enough with Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. I agree that there's a lot of dumbing down going on in the media and in our culture. And I appreciate that he's willing to say he was too angry to really make his point.
What I don't get is how blogs are responsible for the way that cruelty sells in America right now. It seems to me that tabloid rags have been doing stuff like this for a long time. And most people I know realize this and ignore the National Inquirer and its ilk. If there's any problem with how blogs work now, it's that we're not sure which ones are good and which ones aren't and it's not as easy to tell as with tabloids, which are printed up on that newstock and are put in a row at the cash registers of supermarkets.
I think the urge for cruelty that Bissinger talks about is definitely in our culture, but where he blames blogs, I blame people. The blog is just a template. It takes a person to make it good or bad. And yes, a lot of people post anonymously on the web so they can be cruel. But that's a symptom of larger problems, I think. And it's seen in a lot of places besides blogs.
Which brings me to the part of the Costas-talk where Matt Leinhart and his beer bong pictures are brought up. I agree with Bissinger that Leitch's defense of the Lienhart photos as being "humanising" was a little off. It was probably posted (and I don't know, because I've never even so much as talked to anyone at deadspin) because it was funny. And because it would bring people to the site.
But, you know, the secondary effect of it is that it does make Leinhart more human. And I think that's a good thing. I don't want to root for these marketing giants anymore. I look at Michael Jordan now and admire what he accomplished, but I don't care about it. Same for Derek Jeter. I don't see them as people. I see them as brands. And as such, I don't care much about them any more than I do Nike, McDonalds or General Motors. In the rush to be a global marketing force, they've lost the humanity, the ability to seem relatable to me.
This isn't to take anything away from their accomplishments. Jeter's a great shortstop. Jordan's probably the best ever. But as they've made themselves marketable (and God bless them for cashing in on their fame. I would if I could.) they have to pretend to be these perfect people who have no opinions and have no fun that might be considered offensive. (Remember the story about Jordan where he said (paraphrasing again) Republicans buy shoes too?)
I sort of feel bad for them, now. (Especially with the NFL just kicking guys out of the league for crimes that are never prosecuted, much less proved.) (Though it is hard to feel bad for a guy who makes a pretty nice chunk of cash, but still.) I wouldn't want to have to deal with the papparazzi he probably has to deal with daily. Much less the camera-phone that took these pictures. It does suck.
But it's not like Lienhart did anything wrong. No crime. All he was doing was enjoying the lifestyle his job (and the cash that comes with it) afford him. So, I don't see him as being "humiliated" as Bissinger says this was intended to do. I see him as a young guy who I can kind of relate to now. (Kind of.) And in a vicarious way that goes beyond dreams of playing QB, I like him a little more now. Much in the same way that going on Saturday Night Live made me like Peyton Manning more, because I saw him as more of a regular guy. Clearly these are different because Manning's move was calculated and a marketing effort, but the effect, for me anyway, is similar.
And I'm sure Bissinger could point to more, less savory material that gets posted and doesn't have this effect on us, but I think my point is this: These are normal people who are put in extraordinary circumstances. They have money and fame, but they're still as fragile and stupide and greedy, and horny and interesting as the rest of us. And it's kind of nice to see them this way once in a while, because seeing them on billboards soaring above us doing amazing feets of athletic prowess is great, but the hero worship is enough. It's only good for their marketing and my feelings of inadequecy. And really, there's enough of both to go around.