The SoapBoxers

Derek Jeter

Derek Jeter broke his ankle in the 12th inning of Saturday night’s ALCS opener.  Would the ankle have remained intact if the game had gone just nine innings – or was there previous stress that would have resulted in a break at a later point?  It’s a moot point for the Yankees, as they’re without their captain.  After losing again on Sunday night, the Yankees are down 2-0 and heading to Detroit for three games.  Oh, yeah – they’ll face Tigers ace Justin Verlander in the next game.

It’s no surprise that the Yankees are down 2-0 to the Tigers.  Even with the help of steroids, they’re giving up a good 60 pounds per man across the offensive line.  With Fielder at center and Cabrera at left tackle, the Yankees D-line isn’t ever going to get a hit against Verlander.  Oh, sorry, wrong sport.  Seriously, though, those guys are huge for baseball players.  If you’re wondering which city has the best restaurants, don’t overlook Detroit.  Those guys are eating well.

Jeter’s value had been the subject of much debate over the years.  Much of the discussion has revolved around his defense.  Yankee fans will point to error total and gold gloves and say he’s a good defender.  Others will point to advanced defensive metrics which rank him mediocre or worse.

But is Jeter’s post-season offense also overrated?

We always hear that A-Rod chokes in the post-season and that Jeter shines.  Jeter’s career post-season OPS is .838.  How bad is the OPS of the legendary choker, Alex Rodriguez?  .838.  Jeter’s had some great post-season series, but he’s also had a few stinkers over the years.  However, his legacy was established early in his career, as his reputation precedes him at this point.

An argument that you might hear is that Jeter ranks highly in many career post-season statistical categories.  This is true.  He’s first in hits, runs, total bases, doubles and triples while ranking in the top five in homers, RBI, and walks.

However, let’s not overlook one big aspect of Jeter’s numbers: opportunity.  Not only has he been fortunate to play on many successful teams, but the post-season is longer than it was in the past.  Prior to division play in 1969, there were a maximum of 7 post-season games per year – The World Series.  In 1969, this jumped to 12 possible games per player before jumping to 19 in 1995.  The coin flip game now makes it possible for someone to play in 20 games during a single post-season.

Yogi Berra famously won 10 World Series titles as a member of the Yankees.  He was also on the losting side 4 times.  Her compiled 295 post-season plate appearances in 77 games – incredible numbers for his era.  Derek Jeter has 734 plate appearances in 158 post-season games.  That’s a full season of games, just in the post-season.  He has more post-season homers (20) than Reggie Jackson (18) or Babe Ruth (15), but it would be silly to argue that he was a better slugger.  Does he have more shining post-season moments than nearly anyone else?  Sure – but he also has more ordinary moments.

Jeter’s 734 post-season plate appearances are by far the most in history.  Bernie Williams is second with 545, Manny Ramirez is third with 493, Jorge Posada is 4th with 492 (anyone noticing a trend?).  In fact, only seven other players have half as many post-season at bats as Jeter.

Don’t get me wrong – Jeter has made the most of his opportunities.  But he has also been the beneficiary of a massive amount of opportunities over the years.  Jeter also is the runaway leader is strikeouts – not because he sucks, but because he’s had more opportunity to strike out.

Likewise, he’s also had more opportunity to get injured … and random chance finally got Jeter on Saturday night.

I have written several articles on the various activities in the middle east that are general associated as the Arab spring. There have been calls for intervention in every location that has had violence. The United States chose not to intervene in Egypt. The choice was to provide air cover for the rebels in Libya. There has apparently been no decision to intervene in Syria, at least not yet. I have taken the stance that the United States should not intervene in any of these conflicts.

Yes, innocent people are being injured and killed. Yes, the existing governments are cruel and corrupt. No, it is not the responsibility of the United States to beat sense into every country in the world.

I did support intervention in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In Iraq, a sovereign nation, Kuwait, was invaded and asked for assistance. Saudi Arabia felt threatened by Iraq and also asked for assistance. A lot of people forget that the Iraq war was started by Iraq and that Iraq violated every article of the cease fire that they begged for. People also forget that President Bush went back to the United Nations and asked permission to enforce those articles. He did not need to but he did. Instead, the political left claimed he was going in to steal the oil or take revenge for an attempt on the life of former President Bush, his father. Unfortunately, the reason for fighting was confused by the declaration of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. Again, this claim was presented by Iraq, then denied. At least one of the issues that drove the second phase of the Iraq war could easily have been deflated by the Iraqi government simply stating that they had used all of their chemical weapons when they put down protests from their own people. An the evidence of the weapons was found, just downplayed by the political opponents of the president. Now there are birth defects in record numbers in Iraq near the various military bases, and the same people who claimed there were no Iraqi weapons are now trying to claim that the birth defects are the result of the United States using depleted uranium.

In Afghanistan, we had active supporters of a group that attacked the United States. I am not a hawk in general, I feel we should support out friends and defend ourselves. It is also not a point of who is president. I felt that President G.H.W Bush was completely wrong in sending our troops into Somalia, and set President Clinton up for failure. I thought that President Clinton was wrong to get involved in the Balkans, that was a European problem and the Europeans should have taken care of it. I praised President Obama for not taking action in Egypt. We may not like the group in charge, but it is not our problem. I criticized President Obama for intervening in Libya. Sure the guy we hated is gone, but what of the groups now competing for power? We have a dead ambassador, possibly killed with weapons that the United States provided.

The biggest problem with civil wars is that as an outsider, we do not know who the good guys are, or even if there are any good guys. We can generally identify the innocent victims by seeing who is dead and who has guns. We do not want other countries to tell us what government or leader we have, and I think that we should have the same stance for others. The original call for action in Syria was from the national press. The second wave came from the “internation community” basically people who wanted the United States to spend its blood and treasure on their fight. Now we have calls from Senator McCain and other in congress. In my opinion, they are just plain wrong and I hope that President Obama does not buckle under the pressure to act.

When John L. Smith’s financial woes made the news, it was reported that the Arkansas football coach owed $25 million in debts related to bad real estate deals.  Later court filings showed that this figure was not accurate.  Smith actually owed $40 million.  Prior to this year, Smith’s highest salary was $1.35 million at Michigan State in 2002.  recently, he’d been earning $130,000 as the head coach at Weber State.

How could Smith manage to incur $40 million in debt?  That’s a great question.  It definitely seems like some bankers were asleep at the wheel when they gave Smith loans.  Could an average Joe get loans for such a high multiple of their annual income?  I doubt it.

If the bankruptcy court discharges Smith’s debts, he’ll wash his hands of them and begin anew.

Smith is 53, and if successful, could conceivable have around 15 more years of coaching left.  He could earn $20-$30 million during that time – with none of it going toward his creditors.

Does that seem right to you?  What this precedent would do is set up a win-win proposition for people like Smith.  These people would essentially be playing with house money.  They’d keep all the money they win but get other people to pay for their losses.

“Wait a minute,” you say.  “Maybe Smith will make an honest effort to pay back his creditors.  Maybe he just needs some time to straighten things out.”

That’s a noble thought – but you need to pick a different hero.  We recently found out that Smith deferred 70% of his 2012 salary.  Why?  To make it more difficult for is creditors to get at they money.  The bankruptcy court may call an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on Smith and force him to reach a repayment plan with his creditors – a plan that would garnish his salary.

A footbal coach, of course, it a leader of young men – someone who will mold them.  Perhaps some parents should have second thoughts about sending their sons to play football at Arkansas.

Bobby Petrino left Arkansas in disgrace, but I’m not sure that the Razorbacks traded up when they go John L. Smith.

The NRA, the National Rifle Association. It was formed in 1871 out of Union Civil War veterans in New York state, partly because Union small arms accuracy had been so atrocious during the war – it was rumored that for every 1000 shots fired, a Union soldier would hit once. According to their charter, they advocate for “the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States.”

The NRA has a widespread reputation for being a lobbying group as well, with members of Congress ranking it the most powerful lobbying organization in American politics. In 1980 the organization made their first endorsement of a presidential candidate, endorsing Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. I have zero problem with this, as one of Carter’s cabinet members was a very strong proponent of gun control, and this group seeks to uphold the second amendment – I.E. the organization was endorsing the candidate which had clearly demonstrated in the past to have values most similar with the NRA. In addition, the NRA has publicly stated that they will endorse an incumbent candidate every time in an area where both candidates are similar on their gun control and second amendment philosophies.

Recently in four “battleground” states, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, the NRA has starting airing an advertisement urging voters to defeat Barack Obama. President Obama, the incumbent (and remember how the NRA feels about incumbents) has generally left gun laws alone, and in fact is in favor more on the side of state and municipality rights over federal rights on gun control.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, actually signed into law an assault rifle ban while governor of Massachusetts. Not surprisingly, Mr. Romney has moved away from his tough stance on gun control – see my previous article for many more examples of issues where Mitt Romney has done a 180. In addition, Mr. Romney has previously said he was a full supporter of Massachusetts’ tough laws on gun control and said, “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”

So I’m curious, if President Obama has largely left existing gun laws intact, and in addition he legalized carrying concealed weapons in national parks and in checked luggage on Amtrak trains, why is the NRA endorsing Romney?   Even if they were identical in history, (because with Romney you can’t count what he’s done or said in the past, he’ll just contradict it) wouldn’t the NRA – according to their own policy – support President Obama in this case because he’s the incumbent? Paul Ryan – Romney’s own VP pick – said, “I don’t even think President Obama is proposing more gun laws.”

It’s sad to see that the NRA has moved beyond their historical and charter issues to become a purely political organization. If you’re really paying attention to the facts and you wanted to vote on 2nd amendment and gun control issues alone, Obama would be the choice in this case. President Obama has had plenty of chances to use public sentiment to push anti-gun control law: Gabby Giffords, the mass shooting in Aurora, and the Illinois mosque shooting, sadly just to name a few. He hasn’t, though. That leaves two reasons why they’ve endorsed Mitt Romney, either they’re buying into the right-wing hype with despite a lack of facts and are scared Obama is going to do something, or they’ve decided they’d rather disregard their purpose and just become a purely political organization.

The lack of coverage of the Triple Crown in the American League this year is total proof that baseball is no longer America’s Pastime. Instead baseball has been relegated to American history.

The only Triple Crown most anyone knows about outside of baseball aficionados is that involving the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont.

The king of the hill is now clearly the juggernaut known as football. American’s crave the gladiator style, fast paced action that only football can bring. Baseball in comparison is slow with action, the fielders stand around the entire time except when the ball is put into play. The antics of the batter box and the pitchers have delayed the games even more. Also baseball has gotten too specialized, no longer do players pitch complete games nor play double headers that often. No, baseball is no longer the game of a by-gone radio era, it is now made for TV entertainment, although not many are watching.

It Was a Very Good Year……

The last Triple Crown winner was Carl Yastrzemski in 1967. Yaz’s meteoric climb to popularity was due to a number of factors.

First he played for the Boston Red Sox. Not that the Beantowners were as popular back in the 50’s and 60’s as they are today, but remember baseball had much fewer teams then, and Boston was one of the more popular teams, mainly due to the heavily populated Northeast.

Second, Yaz also followed Ted Williams, arguably the best hitter of all time and surely on everyone’s list as a starter on any All-Time baseball team you want to put together. Williams left an irreplaceable hole in the hearts of Boston fans. After all he had won the MVP twice, was a two time triple crown winner and 19 time all-star. Yaz would never be able to replace Williams, but he did his best to try.

Thirdly Yaz played his entire career with the Red Sox, and was an 18 time all-star, won the MVP and Triple Crown in 1967 and is a member of the 3000 hit club. The 1967 season is the main reason he is still revered in Massachusetts. 1967 was a magical season for the normally down-trodden Sox, and added to the allure of Yastrzemski popularity.

The Red Sox finished 9th place in the division the year before, and were in a tight race with the Minnesota Twins and the Detroit Tigers as the season came to a close. He hit an amazing .521 with 5 homers and 16 rbi in the last two weeks of the season propelling the Sox to the World Series where they eventually lost to the St. Louis Cardinals. Yaz was the main that almost single handedly carried Boston all the way to the title, and the fans never forgot that.

Pride or Prejudice?

Cabrera faces a slug of uphill factors in his chance to cash in on this monumental accomplishment. The media is not giving it much coverage because, let’s face it, Detroit is not a sexy baseball town, and he does not speak English as his primary language. I am surprised that no sports reporters have mentioned this fact. We all like to claim that things such as race and prejudice no longer have a place in sports or society today, but the reality is they still do. It will be interesting to see how the people who vote on the MVP will choose this year. They have a tough decision.

Mike Trout, of the Angels is getting just as much if not more media attention this year in the face of the biggest accomplishments in the Major Leagues in almost 5 decades. Mike Trout is 21 years old, is an American and looks to have a bright future ahead of him. He has done some things this year that put him on the list of all-time greatest seasons. Will he get the nod for the MVP vote, or will it be Cabrera?

Only 12 people have ever won a triple crown. That is less than the number of 500 Home Run club members, 3000 hit listers, 300 game winners and pitchers that have thrown perfect games.

Four times the Triple Crown Winner has not also won the MVP award. The last time that happened, Ted Williams lost out to Joe DiMaggio in 1947.

Only the votes remain, it will be an interest ballot to be cast by the Baseball Writers Association of America.

Until next time, stay classy Millville, Ohio

One of the oldest classic literary works is Oedipus. This three part play has been studies by academics and high school students for generations. As with last week’s article, I am taking inspiration from my son’s classics course assignment. This week, his class is finishing up reading and analyzing Oedipus. They are to choose a character and find an equivalent in another work. Beyond that equivalence, they are to create imagery of their own to show that they actually understand and can defend the characteristics they have chosen to analyze.

My son chose Oedipus as his character and the biblical Job as the equivalent. Neither character had personally done anything that would lead to punishment, yet both were punished by the gods. In the case of Oedipus, it was jealousy between gods and the crimes of his ancestors, both conditions that he was unaware of, that caused his suffering. In the case of Job, it is a rather odd bet between God and Lucifer, again without any knowledge or provocation from the victim. Both characters whine and complain about their fate, but neither actually blames the gods or God. They are both led through the trials and tribulations without any choices except the choice to honor the gods or not.

The imagery that my son chose was that of sheep. Sheep follow their herder both out of habit and necessity. The habit is the association with the herder from birth and not knowing any other life. The necessity is the herder leading the sheep to food, protecting them from predators and searching for them when they are lost or separated from the flock. In fact, domesticated sheep would not survive without the direct and constant intervention of the herders.

Many classic Greeks and modern religious people believe that the direct and constant shepherding is essential to their lives. Others live their lives either hoping that such attention is not needed or convinced that it is not provided. Regardless of your individual belief system, the story in Oedipus allows a certain amount of soul searching, as does the story of Job. If the shepherd purposely allows harm even if it is not fatal, is the shepherd actually doing his job? One could say that the Judeo-Christian God is better since Job gets some of what he lost back in the end, but in both cases the suffering does not help the victim at all. In the case of the Oedipus, the moral is “don’t upset the gods” and “the gods will punish you even if you have no clue why”. In the Job story, the moral seems to be “bad things happen, but if you believe in God, it will not be all bad”.

Building on the question from last week of what makes a classic a classic, consider the implications of a moral or teaching within a story. Most religious texts, fables and myths include morals and teaching. Any story has to have a point and many of the classics depend on moral imperatives to make that point.

Media bias has a long, sordid history.

I’ll never forget the famous black and white video of South Vietnamese Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a Vietcong militiaman. It was a silent movie but when NBC acquired it they added the sound of a gunshot for drama. Does anyone remember that that Vietcong murdered Loan’s whole family? Hmmm.

I’ll never forget CNN’s report on the AK47 years ago. The AK47 uses the 7.62×39 round. The weight and velocity of the bullet is very similar to the old .30-30. If you fire one 124 grain bullet at about 2,000 feet per second it has a fixed amount of energy (mass x velocity = energy). If you fire a second 124 grain at about 2,000 feet per second it will have the same energy. CNN however denied the laws of physics. Their report stated that the fully automatic version of the AK47 was more effective with more penetration. That is a lie.

I’ll never forget CNN’s report just the other year showing a Tea Party protestor who was legally caring a rifle in public. The image was zoomed in on the nicely dressed man to show clearly that the rifle was an AR15 variant. They reported that this person is a white supremacy supporter. When the same picture was shown not zoomed in, it was actually and nicely dressed black man and Tea Party supporter.

I’ll never forget CBS’s Dan Rather and the Killian documents. Who could forget that one? I can see why liberals want to pretend it never happened. Dan was certain President Bush, while serving in the Texas Air National Guard in the ‘60s, disobeyed orders but was given special treatment. The forgery was quickly identified by bloggers and experts. Dan and others lost their job and credibility.

There is a serious pattern of abuse by media. It is one thing to give commentary, like my articles, and another to present lies and half truths as facts. The Press has been described as the fourth pillar of the government which keeps the other three in check. The description has never been accurate but don’t tell that to Chris Matthews. The Media Research Center’s study shows that Governor Romney gets 13 times more coverage for his gaffes compared to President Obama. Aikin was nearly crucified for his legitimate rape comment but it’s not any different from Whoopi Goldberg’s comment of ‘it wasn’t rape rape’. I know Whoopi isn’t running for office but it reveals the double standard that exists. Aikin should have received the same grace as Whoopi.

Don’t you love it when the national news does a piece on Romney which shows his portrait for a second then plays 30sec of video of Obama! Familiarity earns trust and loyalty and they know it. My local news would report on the coming Obama events but only report on Romney after his events were over. Apparently they were called on it and for at least one day at each newscast they stated they will disclose Romney events also.

A couple of years ago on a local AM radio station Rush Limbaugh show would cut out at the most unusual times. The technical difficulty never happened during commercials or the less spectacular moments of the Rush Limbaugh show (every moment is spectacular but some are more so) always when Rush was about to make his point. I ran into an old friend after that and we started talking about it. He had made some phone calls that day of the technical difficulties. He was convinced the operator at the radio station did it intentionally. After my friend called and confronted them it stopped.

When was the last time you read legislation? I read the first 100 pages of Obamacare and wondered if the Democrats were channeling Karl Marx. Have you ever read the transcript of an Obama speech? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Do not trust CNN or CBS to deliver news. I don’t even give Foxnews enough credence to take them for their word. Always look for the full video, read the transcripts, read the legislation, and get the first hand information. Be a skeptic of everything. Shape your perspective and understanding of the world we live in with facts and not commentary. Don’t let anyone appeal to your emotions but be stoic, wise, and vote Republican this November. Trust me.

Every election cycle, we hear about swing states.  The majority of states are already decided long before election day – a heavy majority of voters on one side or the other makes it almost impossible for the opposing candidate to win that state’s electoral votes.  A handful of states can swuing either way, and ultimately determine the presidential election.

This time around, there is a lot of focus on “swing counties” – tightly contested counties within battleground states.  In some cases, the counties have voted for the winners in the vast majority of presidential elections for several decades.  The logic seems to be that focuses a lot of resources on these counties will ensure a candidate’s success in November.

This logic, of course, is utter crap.

Let’s use a sports example (just because I love sports).  Let’s take a person with average golf ability.  Not overly talented, but not an embarrassment, either.  I get this golfer a swing coach and have him practice for hours every day.  At the end of the year, the golfer has improved his score considerably.

Let’s spell out the analogy:

Is everyone still with us?

OK, the golfer used to be average.  That is, representative of a broader sample.  Now that the golfer is considerably better, one of two things can be true:

1. The population as a whole has improved to match our golfer
2. The golfer is no longer representative of the broader population

I’d bet that the second case is far more likely.  Want to bet against me?  I don’t blame you.  Why, then, do political strategists think that dumping lots of money into Swing county is going to make Swing State vote for the candidate?  What you’ve really accomplished is throwing off the natural dynamics of the county.  Where it once was evenly balanced and would ride the prevalent tide the state, it’s now in the middle of an active tug-of-war.  The result is that the “swing county” is going to become a worse predictor of the state as a whole – because it’s being exposed to stimuli that the entire state isn’t.  Basically, the control sample is being turned into the experimental sample.

There’s a lot of danger in placing too much emphasis on a small portion of the state.  While the presidential election is winner-take-all at the state level, that’s not the case at the local level.  There are no bonus points for winning a county.  If you win 49 states + DC by one vote each and get beaten by 5 million votes in one state, you’ll win an electoral landslide.  However, if you win 50 counties by one vote each and lose a single county by 500 votes, you lose the state.  Campaigns need to focus their efforts on the states where they can swing the outcome into their favor – not wasting money one states that are in the bag or ones that have no shot at.  But once a campaign is actively trying to win a state, every single vote counts the same.  Firing up an extra one hundred supporters in your stronghold or getting one hundred to crawl out of the woodwork in your opponent’s stomping ground – the votes count equal. 

It is hard to put two hands on the trophy when you have two hands around your own neck.

This should be the motto for the American team for the 2012 Ryder Cup Matches played at Medinah in Illinois. The American Squad played marvelously the first two days, and built what is basically considered an insurmountable lead (10-6) but failed to close the deal. Losing in a 14 ½ to 13 ½ final score.

Team Europe put its heavy hitters out early in an attempt to turn the tide. It worked, as the American team consistently lost holes 17 and 18 in a number of matches thereby giving the European contingent some unexpected points.

Miracle at Medinah

This ties for the largest come-back in the history of the event, matching the Miracle at Brookline in the 1999 Ryder Cup matches. The big difference here is that Team Europe did this on American soil, and not riding the wave of emotion that comes with a home field advantage.

I think Brookline at a lot more to do with this week than many golf fans even know.

At Brookline, European Captain, Jose-Maria Olazabal was there front and center in the American celebration. Most ardent golf fans forget that he was the opponent standing on the 17th green in the decisive match and watching Justin Leonard roll in a 45-foot birdie. The ensuing celebration with almost the entire American team running onto the green and basically creating a celebration pile created quite a rift between the teams (and the members of the golfing media on both sides of the Atlantic for that matter ) as it was viewed as a breach of golf etiquette.

Win One For Seve, or Still Steaming About Brookline?

This brings me down to Sunday. With Steve Stricker missing his put on the 18th hole, the match was in fact over. But standing in the 18th fairway was the final paring of the day. Francesco Molinari against Tiger Woods. Eldrick held a 1 up lead at the time.  With 14 points secured, there is really no reason to even finish out the match for that matter. Concede the hole – as the outcome is already decided.

Love concurred telling reporters, “Whatever Tiger and Molinari do we don’t get the cup. We’re stunned anyway. I stood there thinking, ‘Why isn’t over? Why isn’t it good-good?’ What were we playing for?”

Molinari and the Europeans, however, had a different take on the final outcome.

“I thought about giving him the halve in the fairway,” Molinari said. “But then the captain was there and he told me it’s not the same, winning or halving, so get focused and do your best and that’s what I did. . . . I wasn’t expecting him to give it to me.”

Instead both players hit “iffy” approach shots to the green and were both faced with 4 footers to tie with par. Molinari made Tiger putt his and he missed. Tiger gave Molinari his putt, but he made it anyway.

So it appears Olazabal got a little sweet revenge, on something that I can only suppose has been stewing with him for 13 years. On a day dedicated to the great Spaniard Seve Ballesteros, he pulls a totally Seve Ballesteros move of gamesmanship, and not sportsmanship, at the conclusion of the 2012 Matches.

Touché Jose, Touché

Two Hands on the Trophy

Geno Smith

I have been doing a Top 5 Heisman list each week, but this week, I am going away from that completely.

For those that watched the video game…errrr..basketball game….errrr…Track Meet…errrr..Football game between West Virginia and Baylor last Saturday, you will understand the following few lines of rhetoric.

There is only one clear cut person for the Heisman after last week. With the continued wide open, lack of defense football you will see much more in the Big XII this year, I can only imagine what type of numbers he is going to end the year at.

I present to you, this week’s ONLY Heisman candidate. Geno Smith – Quarterback of the West Virginia Mountaineers. All he did on Saturday against Baylor is throw for 656 yards, 8 Touchdowns, 0 Interceptions, 248.0 Rating. 5 carries 32 yards Rushing.

Yup, you read all of that correctly. On the year he has thrown for 1728 yards with 20 Touchdowns and count em NO interceptions. He has also ran for another 98 yards and 1 Touchdown on the year.

Hope he has his plane tickets to New York already on order.

Until Next time. Stay classy Miami, Florida

My son is in high school and taking a classics course. He posed the question “what makes a classic a classic?” This is a difficult question to answer. Everyone has there own opinion. There have been many times I was told to read something because it was a classic, yet it seemed to be basically pulp fiction. To me, a classic has certain elements. First, the story must cross the boundaries of time. Although both are considered classics, it is far easier to understand the motives and characters in The Odyssey they those in The Great Gatsby. The reason for this is that The Odyssey was written assuming that the audience did not understand the motives and therefore they are explained in great detail. The Great Gatsby is written only to the audience of the time. What is obvious to the characters and writer are lost on the current audience.

Most people assume that what is popular during their lifetime will be popular for ever. The fact is that only a small portion of the art of a period moves into the future, the far greater proportion drops into obscurity. In music, for the 1700s, many people could identify Mozart, Bach, and Wagner, but few but experts would even know who Buxtehude was (he was Bach’s teacher). In more modern times, who from the 1960’s would have thought that Pink Floyd would still be selling out live performances in the 2010s but find it almost impossible to get a copy of a Guess Who song other than in an compilation.

With the visual arts the same is true. There were literally hundreds of portrait painters in the 1600s, but he Mona Lisa is still the most famous. True, some masterpieces have been lost due to left, natural disaster, war and the temporary nature of the medium. Today, visual classics could be in the work of the commercial advertiser, but we cannot know for sure until a significant about of time has passed.

The same timelessness is the driver for all forms of art, music, visual and literature. Style changes, what is popular changes, but when something can be shared across generations or even centuries, then it becomes a classic. The works of J. R. R. Tolkien could also be considered classics. They are the basic story of good versus evil with a small hero overcoming immense odds. All of this was born in the nightmare that was the trenches of World War I. It has the forms of a classic, not just because it is a favorite among the anachronistic communities, but because the work itself drew upon earlier classics. Tolkien was a professor of classics specializing in Nordic and ancient Anglo-Saxon literature. He wove a tale that included the details required to allow the reader to understand the circumstances of the characters, even after history had moved well beyond the period he was writing in.

The 19th century novelists also went to great lengths to give background information, thus allowing Jane Austin’s works to last as well. Similarly, Shakespeare wrote with the same push for completeness of story. In many of his works, specifically the histories, his audience was rather ignorant of the topic. Schooling was not what it is today, and some of his effort was to educate his audience as well as entertain. Some works are studied in classics courses more for the fame of the author than the durability of the work. Earnest Hemmingway is studied at length, but as time goes on, many of his works fail the test. They are specific to his time and generation. What is famous today may well fall to the wayside. For example, the Harry Potter novels are very popular and even have the classic good versus evil story line, but they will never stand the test of time. The same goes for the Twighlight series and other popular works. These are all good books, as can be seen by their current popularity, sales and movie deals. The bigger test will be if the next generation even hears about them.

So what makes a classic a classic? Only time will tell.