Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2011

John Connolly, 18, of South Boston, Mass. is the most hated man in America. He just graduated from Boston Public Schools, where he earned above-average grades and athletic honors in football and baseball. He’s about to enjoy his last, great summer before he’ll be expected to start thinking about internships, building his resume and THE REAL WORLD. But, for the next three months, John and his friends will have fun just being teenagers in the neighborhood, and in the city, where they grew up. In September, JoCo – that’s what Connolly’s friends call him – will attend Fairfield University, where he’ll quickly learn that America suddenly hates Boston sports fans, and, by extension, people from Boston.

Once rumored to be the new location of Fenway Park (in 1999, when John was 7), South Boston has changed more than most people could have imagined in his lifetime. Large companies like Fidelity made significant capital investments in the South Boston waterfront creating a commercial district that had only been imagined as possible. The City built a massive convention center there that came with brand new hotels to service out-of-town guests. Southie has become a destination living spot for twenty- and thirty-somethings with fashionable restaurants and bars. Almost any observer of the city would say it’s been an improbable rise for South Boston over John’s 18 years. The same could be said about Boston sports teams, and about the City itself.

When John was 8 years old, the Patriots won their first Super Bowl ever with a team of largely unknown players and a coach that had been labeled a failure for his shortcomings in Cleveland. They went on to win two of the next three Super Bowls, and enjoyed one of the most dominant stretches the NFL has ever seen in 2003 and 2004 (for good measure, the Patriots finished the regular season undefeated when John was 14, and came within one insane Super Bowl catch of the second perfect season in NFL history). Nine months after the Patriots won their third Super Bowl, the Red Sox improbably completed a 3-0 comeback against the Yankees, their arch-rivals, and won the team’s first World Series in 86 years; they went on to win another in 2007. A year later, the Celtics won the NBA Championship for the first time in John’s lifetime, and played in another staggeringly close Finals against the Lakers two years after that. Then, finally, about a week ago, the Bruins won the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1972. Seven major sports championships in 10 years. And that is why, when John Connolly arrives at Fairfield University, his roommate is assuredly going to hate him.

To understand why any of this matters to John Connolly and to Boston is partly to understand why we watch sports and to understand why sports matter. It is partly to respond to derisive comments about grown men playing children’s games or throwing leather balls through iron rims or knocking each other senseless repeatedly. We watch sports, those of us that do, because it reinforces some of our basic assumptions about life – that if you work hard for a long period of time, you will succeed; that talent and skill are rewarded; that teamwork is important; that anyone can rise to an occasion and be a hero (Frankie Cabrera!). We watch sports because we like the certainty and finality that they give us when life usually cannot; knowing that one team, the best team, will win and one team will lose, even if, as in life, we often discount luck too much. We watch because, like a good Greek play, there are heroes and villains. We watch because sometimes the completely improbable becomes entirely possible.Sports is theater, sure, performed for sums of money that are incomprehensible, sure, but it can be the highest form of theater we have.

To grow up a Boston sports fan is to grow up hearing the same stories and the same names over and over. That type of oral history might be true of a sports fan in any city, but it’s particularly true here because of Boston’s historical presence in all four major sports. John Connolly heard those stories, the same way I did – from my father and coaches, from friends, on sports radio talk shows and in newspaper columns. For Celtics fans, it was stories of Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish, and before them Havlicek, Russell and Cousy, wars fought with the Lakers in the ’80s, the Bill Laimbeer clothesline. For Bruins fans, it was Bobby Orr, Phil Espositio and this goal. For Patriots fans, it was the ’86 Super Bowl and letting The Fridge score a touchdown. For Red Sox fans, it was Ted Willians, Yaz, Fred Lynn, Carlton Fisk, stories of the Impossible Dream season, the ’75 Series, Bucky *bleeping* Dent, and most of all THE CURSE OF THE BAMBINO. These stories and names were repeated so often, to so many people that they became myth – again in the Greek sense – more than historical recounts, parables about greatness and destiny and flying too close to the sun. Those were the Boston myths, inextricably tied up with the City, because so many in the city were inextricably tied up with them. For the Boston sports fan, they were all encompassing and inescapable.

When the Bruins finally won the Stanley Cup, more than one commentator described the team as “gritty” and “a reflection of the City of Boston.” It was, truly, an absurd premise. Were we really to believe that because a lot of the team resides in the North End that somehow these players – from Europe and Canada and other parts of this country – were imbued with the grittiness of a kid from the streets of Charlestown or Dorcester or the South Boston of John Connolly’s childhood? Of course not. But, the City is certainly a reflection of its sports teams. How could it not be? Those myths are rooted deep inside Bostonians, influencing our impulses, our moods, our behaviors like all those Greek morality plays were written to do. It’s not our fault as much as a byproduct of being raised as sports fans here, in this city. So, it’s easy now to call Boston, The City of Champions, given our teams’ recent successes. It’s an easy story to write (note: I’m aware the smug tone of that article kind of undermines my point here, especially from someone who profitted off of the fucking Curse of the Bambino. Screw you).

The individual fan experience is not nearly so universal. My dad’s experience as a Boston sports fan – 40-odd years before this winning blitz started – is different than mine (I was 21 when the Patriots won their first Super Bowl) is different than John Connolly’s. For me, I don’t think any sports moment will ever be better than the 2004 Red Sox – that epic comeback against the Yankees, the heroics of David Ortiz and Curt Schilling, winning that first World Series. That was the most meaningful for me (along with the Braves World Series victory in 1995, another story for another time). The stretch of Patriots dominance in 2003-2004 would be second; the clinical precision with which those teams dismantled the league, and Peyton Manning particularly, was awesome. Then the Celtics: watching Ray Allen play when he’s on is really fun. I was happy for Paul Pierce whose loyalty to Boston paid off in the end and Kevin Garnett. Then, finally, least meaningful to me, was the Bruins. I’m happy they won, but I never grew up playing hockey nor do I watch regular season hockey games. I’m more happy for my friends who did grow up playing and for whom the Bruins win was the spiritual equivalent of my 2004 Red Sox. Someone else would have a different order and John Connolly yet another one. Thats the thing about stories and myths, we self-select the ones that are important and meaningful to us.

A city doesn’t quite work like that. Boston will slowly change – with new stories and new myths, from a place shaped by my father’s experiences, and mine, to one shaped by John Connolly’s and people of his generation; maybe that process has already begun. If anyone can tell you about how a place can change, and shift, and become something it never was before, it’s John Connolly. It’s just too bad he’s going to be hated at Fairfield.

Read Full Post »

I first heard the word “convergence” 10 years ago. Actually, 10 years is probably my personal form of anchoring bias around even, neat-sounding time frames. It could have been 7 years ago. It could have been 15. There would be a way to pinpoint it – the exact first time I heard the word convergence – by researching the history of consumer technology. I could Google mobile technologies or search the digital archives of Wired to find the exact moment when convergence started becoming completely plausible and stopped sounding completely insane, which is how it sounded when I first heard the word.

Convergence is the concept of separate mediums or forms of telecommunication merging onto the same platform or same device. Today, the novelty of that idea is as interesting as listening to Congress debate raising the debt ceiling. But at the time, at the time I heard convergence described for the first time, it was completely insane, I promise you. Why would I want to watch TV on my computer? My TV was for watching South Park and The Daily Show. My computer was for bloodlusting Ogres… or was it downloading MP3s? There was no way I would want to watch TV on my computer. They were separate things. One was kept in the living room and one in the office. Not only were they separate physically, but I thought about them as separate things, each with its own place and function. In fact, I would say I probably wanted to keep them separate altogether… or so I thought.

You can’t do much of anything today without encountering convergence. Watching TV on your computer is pedestrian. You can surf the Internet on your TV. You can watch TV AND surf the Internet on almost every commercially-available cell phone, excuse me, smartphone. Movies are delivered seamlessly over high-speed cable lines into homes – sometimes before they are even released in theaters (and really, how long will those be around?) – or streamed through video game systems, or even picked up at vending machines in grocery stores? I can’t imagine what “convergence is completely insane” me would have said about movies in grocery stores. WHY would I want movies in a GROCERY store?

If you think about convergence on a grander scale – cosmically speaking, if you will – we have far exceeded even those basic notions of the concept. Facebook is the convergence of the Internet with real-life social interactions. Same with Foursquare. Twitter is the convergence of newspapers (what are those again?), or at least newsgathering, with text-messaging, itself the convergence of instant messaging and cell phones. And Google is the convergence of the Internet with literally everything.

For a while now one of my favorite writers has been Bill Simmons, formerly of ESPN.com, now of the more expositional Grantland.com. I admire his glib sense of humor and sports fan sensibilities as much his self-made career; he started his own website long before the convergence between newspapers and the Internet was inevitable or even probable. I think if someone were to ask Simmons why he has been so successful (and for non-sports fans, he has achieved tremendous success), he would answer because he was among the first to write from the perspective of the sports fan rather than the sports reporter people grew up reading. I’m pretty sure Simmons has said as much in one of his columns or one of his two books. I have a different take though. Simmons has been successful because of convergence. He was smart enough to realize the convergence between sports and pop culture, and savvy enough to capitalize on it long before Emmitt Smith appeared on Dancing With The Stars. He was a part – some part – of the shift from the passive, sit on the couch, watch the game, read the next day’s newspaper sports fan to the active, write about the game, bypass traditional media outlets sports fan. And that has been a huge convergence, not just in sports. Joe Public is no longer a passive receiver of telecommunications; he has become an active broadcaster and participant. That is where we are going – as a society, and in this column.

I recently got the fancy new Droid cellphone from Verizon, complete with 4G data speeds, an AMOLED touch screen, an 8-megapixel camera, 32GB of on-board memory and voice recognition. I say “navigate home” and it does. It’s about 10 times more powerful than any computer “convergence is completely insane” me ever owned or used. I joked to a friend that with all that technology I could practically run a television studio with it. What struck me most about the phone, though, was just how quickly it tracked the digital imprints of my life and embedded them in the device like electronic branding. Within a matter of seconds, my work email, calendar, and contacts, Google email, calendar, and contacts, Facebook friends, newsfeed, and pictures, Foursquare check-ins, and Twitter feeds and hashtags collided in a maelstrom of convergence. Everything was right there, in my hand, a swipe away. Now, even these new technologies, things that themselves were the products of technological convergence, were converging into this universal, all encapsulating, multi-platform message machine. Now these things that I had encountered separately, that I had thought of and learned about separately, were merged into one, inexorable stream of collective consciousness. Did I need my Facebook newsfeed and Foursquare check-ins in the same place? Did I want my Facebook status updates and personal tweets to be the same? Were they not different platforms with different purposes? Shouldn’t they be separate? Or… should they?

I’m a new Twitter user (follow me @cosmicspeaking, thanks), mostly because, for the longest time, I could not discern the difference between tweets and Facebook status updates. The lone exception, as far as I could tell, was that you could follow famous people on Twitter, which I did not care about doing. Or that’s what I thought when I first heard about Twitter. What I’ve discovered, however, is that all my interests are congregated in one place – it’s interest convergence, if you will. I follow my Top Chef/Food Network people, my poker people, my ESPN reporters, my Bill Simmons crew, my Boston-centric gang, my general news sites and my finance/investing prognosticators. I can go to Twitter and within a few moments, more or less, catch up on almost everything that interests me. There is no boundary between transmission and reception (it’s a fluid, ever-changing conversation), no boundary between user (passive) and content-creator (active), no boundary between Joe Public and Tom Hanks. For these reasons, Twitter is the penultimate convergence experience. Millions of its users self-select these worlds of intersecting interests, receiving messages, videos and pictures across mobile and desktop platforms, usually from complete strangers, and sometimes broadcasting the same back. Twitter is the ultimate aggregator, a perfect tool for a world in which convergence is ubiquitous.

As a social phenomenon of some import, Twitter is clearly here to stay in some form. The number of Twitter followers a user has is currently the ultimate form of social currency. The business side of the picture is less clear for Twitter (and Facebook and Foursquare and other convergence-based ideas). How to turn all of those aggregated eyes, aggregated messages, and aggregated content into aggregated dollars is a problem without a perfect solution as of yet. That means the future of convergence is equally unclear. Real social currency? Perhaps. Maybe, it won’t be long until someone actually is broadcasting television from their mobile supercomputer. Whatever happens with convergence from here on out though, it certainly won’t be completely insane. Almost anything seems entirely possible. Ten years ago, I never would have thought that.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.