Suggest OddsThe Swoosh and the Spider
IStock Photo 7988802 © James Brey
The fallibility of famous men has been on display this season, with public men held “much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect” over the roaring flames of notoriety (Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," 1741).
At the end of 2009, Tiger Woods was revealed to be systematically unfaithful to his wife. Then came more damning information on John Edwards, the man who cheated on his terminally ill wife, and convinced an aide to claim paternity of the ensuing child. And, of course there is a sex tape—Rielle Hunter is a videographer, after all.
We idolize the famous and accomplished and they play to our fantasies. Tiger is an athlete of magical gifts, a prodigy who actually fulfilled his promise. Taciturn and not prone to speak to issues beyond his sport, he conveyed modesty. He broke racial barriers, yet avoided controversial racial issues. Often, like Obama, he has seemed a harbinger of an era in which race would not matter. He was not a “credit” to his race—he was no race at all except the human one. Is it any wonder that he was such a valuable product endorser?
John Edwards—his name an eerie echo of the Puritan preacher—is another handsome and charismatic figure. During the 2004 vice-presidential debate, his good looks were a weird counterpoint to Dick Cheney’s gnarled and snarling visage. His supporters saw in him gifts beyond his attainments, and his detractors found his good looks proof of his shallowness (some of them recently elected a male model to the Senate).
Why should any of this surprise us? After all, Ring Lardner warned us long ago in You Know Me Al that great hulking athletes are often moral midgets. Add in political leaders and you have our moral caution for the day. We can imbue them with our hopes and dreams—and maybe we have to—but we also need to realize that our heroes are not likely to be proven less susceptible to temptation than we ourselves are—and they are given far more opportunity to succumb.
When the Tiger Woods story broke, thousands of people checked out “the odds an ever-married or cohabiting man has cheated during the relationship.” As of January 31, 2010, the number of visitors to this Odds Statement detail page has been 17,346. Using the same reasoning I applied to the blog entry entitled “The Tiger Woods Question,” about 1,000 of these visitors have committed similar infidelities at least once. And if all the men who visited the site were as handsome, rich, ambitious, and successful as Woods and Edwards, would the number be even higher?
Our fascination with the failings of the famous is a staple of our culture. It’s not hard to understand the satisfaction we take in knocking down false idols. And yet, though none of us is tabloid fodder, it seems to me every bit as interesting to ask in what ways and proportions we are just like them.
Comments (1)
I am a bit confused as to why 25% (or 1 in 4) of the founder's blog entries are related to Tiger Woods and his "transgressions." I would think it would be more interesting to consider the odds a half-tai/half-african american golfer comes second in majors only to the Golden Bear. Or to consider the odds a child raised in poverty becomes a successful trail lawyer, US Senator, Vice Presidential and Presidential candidate. These long odds and compelling success stories are what made this people interesting and famous in the first place, and by concluding that cheating is fairly common you attempt to lump these giants of their respective fields in with the rest of us. The fact of the matter is the only reason you know about the mistakes these men have made is because they have overcome great odds and achieved things few others could, so rather than focus what makes them normal, why not, as the BookofOdds.com, focus on what makes them extraordinary.
report abuseIn addition taking digs at the personal lives of successful people is counterproductive and a shameful way to use one's voice. Let's judge each man on his accomplishments and not make underhanded comments regarding people's success like that shirtless model Junior Republican Senator from Massachusetts Scott Brown. He too overcame tremendous odds in a state that Mitt Romney described "like a suit that you look at and say is that so blue it's black?"
As the site dedicated to the odds of everyday life, you successfully disseminated the odds a man will cheat and lambasted great successful men in the process. Yet for a site of this nature it would be more productive to consider the odds these men would be successful since you have made it clear they essentially anyone can cheat. By admitting the last Tiger Woods entry attracted more visitors than normal you are submitting to being a "one trick pony" by once again trying to undercut a man who made mistakes yet still holds many great accomplishments. Finally the Scott Brown dig obviously indicates you are a Democrat, be that as it may, you would probably be more familiar with the greatest cheater of all, President Bill Clinton who you fail to recognize as one of those everyday cheaters like Woods and Edwards. For the record, "the odds a US President is caught receiving oral sex in the White House are 1 in 44," which is something to consider if BookofOdds intends to become the official site of overlooking great accomplishments to constantly identify one's mistakes or infidelities, might you consider a strategic partnership with AshleyMadison.com (they did offer Tiger Woods $5 million).