I added this to the post below on the NY Times article, but didn't want anyone to miss it. Choice quote: He's beautiful. He's really really beautiful in the way that most American sports fans would associate with Michael Jordan. Where is almost seems like it's a mutation, or somebody from a slightly different species whose relationship to physical laws is somewhat different.
Word.
Ah, he took the words right out of my mouth! After reading the article yesterday, I thought to myself how Jordan and Federer both seem to have the penchant for defying the laws of Physics. For Michael, it was Newtonian gravity; for Roger, the violation is even more fundamental, as he seems immune to the laws of conservation of momenta - both linear and angular.
Posted by: Peacemaster | August 20, 2006 at 12:16 PM
I do not think he really approves the Apollon/Dionysos duality but Wallace thinks that people see and interpret it this way and that is what they are interested in...he tries to show that there is something beyond the "rivalry" that we should appreciate and there the Federer factor comes in...I do not think for a second that this article was about Nadal...he is only there as one of a negative example vis a vis what he calls beauty in effortless movement of Federer.
Posted by: Mimi | August 21, 2006 at 11:32 PM