Henry David Thoreau, Less is More, and Fenway Park Essay

total heat David Thoreau, virtuoso of Americas most long-familiar New Englanders, would most probably be disappointed with recent proposals to dismantle Fenway parklanding ara in station to take a leak a oftentimes geltable metrical football park. The olden two decades gestate witnessed a permeant sports trend in which professional sports franchises thrust sought to maximize revenues by abandoning or tearing raze old areas in effectuate to construct modern stadiums that coordinated a variety of an some otherwise(prenominal) income-generating facilities into the larger sports stadium design.In Toronto, for instance, hotels and de stragglement stores convey been attached to the baseball stadium in smart learn for the owners of the Toronto Blue Jays to generate more than(prenominal) than than clears through the creation of hotel and obtain markets. In the Bronx, to take some other example, the antiquated Yankees of New York made a purpose to abandon the mythical park know as Yankees stadium in order to construct a larger and more extravagant baseball stadium right on next to the old stadium.Many times, the pastime of enormouser profits in this heed involves the use of essentially extortionary methods by grasping owners of sports franchises in order to force municipalities to assign scargon tax dollars toward the renovation or construction of sports facilities under a scourge that the sports franchise depart move to a impudent city willing to fell tax dollars on their behalf.The role that esurience plays in this trend cannot be denied indeed, with attentiveness to the deprivation Sox, they have recently embarrassed the curse of the Bambino by at long last prevailing in the World series and consistently sell the studyity of their fines in increase to substantial amounts of merchandise. It is unquestionable, for instance, that The ballpark was jam-packed with avid fans, as it alship canal is (Dreier 18) and that th e wild Sox atomic number 18 maven of Americas most recognizable brand names.N cardinaltheless, patronage an extraordinarily loyal fan base and a baseball park considered one of the most aesthetically pleasing in all of sport, the fierce Sox self-will is pertinacious to raze Fenway car park in order to construct a completely new stadium. The ownerships primary precept is that the current park, with 33,871 seats (the smallest in the major leagues), is scotchally obsolete and that they need the supernumerary revenue from luxury boxes, stadium seats, and the other frills of newfangled stadiums in order to contest with teams that have them (Dreier 18).Proposals for renovations have been rejected by redness Sox ownership on the one thousand that a new stadium is cheaper than renovations. What emerges from proposals to annul Fenway Park in order to construct a new stadium is fundamentally a portrait of rapacity. Ownership is not satisfied with current profits, even though th ey have proven more than passable to compete, and one is left to wonder how much is too much and whether the smaller park might be a tiny reason underlying the Red Sox mystique.Thoreau would belike be passing critical of such proposals and the pr mangleered rational. Thoreau Personal Style, Less is More, and Simplicity Henry David Thoreaus mystique is intimately connected to his highly soulalized composing sort and his philosophic orientation. In terms of his committal to pen style, for instance, Thoreau prefers to spill directly to his readers quite than to rely on third nighone narrative techniques. To this end, Thoreau quite consistently writes in the first person in a way that creates a graphic symbol of conversational dialogue mingled with the writer and the reader.In creating the context of his pass away Life in the Woods, Thoreau employs this first person conversation style by writing When I wrote the following pagesI lived alone, in the woods, a mile fro m my neighbor, in a house which I had built myself and get along that I earned my labor by the work of my hands alone. I lived thither for two years and two months (n. p. ). In addition to employing a heavily dependent first person character reference of narrative, Thoreau likewise relies on personalised observations and experiences in order to test and to support his theories and his conclusions.His is a unequivocally hands-on type of narrative in which he derives his insights from personal experiences rather than from rumor taken from the observations and experiences of other hatful. To be sure, Thoreau does at times reference the theories and the works of other flock. He is obviously a erudite writer and he cites pr all overbs and theories from people as diverse as famous Buddhists, Hindus, and western writers. All of these let onside references, however, ar structurally subordinate to his own observations, theoretical premises, and proffered conclusions.This type of first person narrative gives rebellion to what is extraordinarily analogous to a type of personal and philosophical quest in which Thoreau appears to be challenging conventional erudition in resolveal prizes. Thus, in addition to a writing style that is deep personal, Thoreau also succeeds in allowing the reader to contend in his journey or quest. This is because his writing is richly descriptive in a way that makes it nearly impossible to sever the descriptions of New Englands born(p) purlieu from the philosophical and economic assumptions and conclusions that he is simultaneously addressing, considering, and commenting upon.At the same that he discusses the economic science of constructing his house he also describes in excruciating detail the type of subjective materials used for the construction and the benefits of understanding the qualities of these stark naked materials in order to most effectively construct his new home. Nature, in effect, represents both a sou rce of intellectual light and a liberty to live liveness in a manner than obviates blasting tender-hearted characteristics such as greed and desperation in the face of sensed deprivations. He remarks in this respect that I go and come with a alien liberty in Nature, a part of herself (n. p. ).Thoreaus writing style, in sum, is deeply personal and it invites the reader to join his reckon for meaning in a universe of dis telephone line in which human race existence cannot be severed from nature. Although he is most long-familiar as a literary philosopher, a c arful review of Thoreaus writing also demonstrates that he comments to a great extant on economics as well. He basically argues that human cosmoss have made daily behavior too complicated. It has befit too complicated because people desire things such as fame, money, and vehemence in ways that have no limitation.thither is no final tier of happiness, people always want more, and as a result people are destined t o be unhappy because there is no comfortable or concur level of accomplishment. He states in this respect that closely menthrough unpolluted ignorance or mistake, are so booked with the facetious cares and superfluously coarse labours of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them (n. p. ). People because need to set modest goals consistent with nature in ways that will result in contentment and moderation.He characterizes this as a simple approach to life in which happiness is best achieved by avoiding uttermost(prenominal) desires. Desperation, whether in terms of fame or profit, is therefore a destructive and should be avoided. In addition to being well-known as a philosopher, there is much economic discussion and wisdom in Thoreaus writings. The fundamental economic theme advocated by Thoreau is that When it comes to economic consumption, less is more (Cafaro 26). A desperate desire for public panegyric and wealth wastes natural resources and is unnecessary to t he improvement of a successful and happy life.In short, Thoreaus personalized writing style functions as a type of personal appeal for human beings to become happier and more self-sufficient by using resources wisely and by being content with fair limits in daily life rather than pursuing ever higher levels of stylized accumulation. Fenway Park through Thoreaus look Upon learning of the proposed demolition of Fenway Park, I headstrong to pack up my backpack with some clothes and camped in the visitors bullpen. It was my desire to learn whether the players and the fans were happy with the stadium.I spent afternoons in the parking lot, aid tailgate parties with fans, and flushs in my perch in the bullpen chatting with home and visiting players. I did not have to purchase tickets, the owners of the Red Sox having invited me to live in the bullpen for a month hoping that I would lend their proposals a vote of confidence after in person witnessing the ostensibly decrepit state of t he noted stadium, and I crafted a tent from dedicate uniforms and baseball bats in the evening to shield me from the chilly climate of capital of Massachusettss evenings and early mornings.Shelter and get at secure, I turned my attentions to warming my consistence and found that the natural confines of capital of Massachusetts were more than adequate for purposes of sustenance. The fans offered hot dogs during games, hamburgers during tailgate parties, and vendors were always kind enough to get out me with care packages on days that the Red Sox played away or had sluttish dates. I was, in sum, housed and fed and unloosen to engage in my observations of the fans and players in Fenway Park. Most players and fans seemed genuinely happy and content, subject of course to the scores of item-by-item games, and as I sat in the bullpen I thought I began to understand.It is true that Fenway Park is an extraordinarily old baseball stadium, that it is not as shiny or comminuted as othe r stadiums in the league, and as yet there was a natural and primitive eccentric that seemed in many ways to transcend contemporary baseball. The morning dew clung to the outfield bring outes of leafy vegetable and contri stilled to the firm natural sodomist in a way that allowed the outfielders to maintain a firm footing rather than glide or slipping in interestingness of line drives slapped by hitters into the gaps. The sight dehydrated in the afternoons and was soft enough to jar a players decay if diving for a pop-up became necessary.The grasses of Fenway were both aesthetically pleasing, a part of Bostons natural environment, and friend rather than for players descend to the ground. It occurred to me one early morning that other stadiums had tear up their natural grass and replaced it with Astro bugger and other forms of kitschy grass. The motives were fundamentally economic in nature, premised in an accountants calculation that maintenance fees would be cheaper s o that profits could be maximized, and the results were disappointing. These artificial turfs cut in color and peeled.Fans and players complained. The sun glared off the turf and blinded fans who had paid honorable money for tickets. The smell of the grass was gone and the handle became plastic stages rather than natural turfs. More, the comforting textures of grass fields torn up, players began to suffer more injuries and more honest types of injuries on artificial turf. Under the turf, another cost-saving measure, was a concrete and hard-rubber base. Players suffered ligament tears previously uncommon on grass fields and bones were more frequently down in the mouth when players have fallen on the grass.The turf is unnatural, it is unforgiving, and it does not interact naturally with the human body. This illustrates the danger of change premised on profit without a due regard being given to other salient factors. The artificial turf denigrated the visual aesthetic of observa tion a baseball game in person and led to decreased ticket sales in the same way, change magnitude injuries led to more expensive medical exam bills and lost playing time that obligate costs far in superfluous of the initial savings envisioned when the grass was torn out and the artificial turf was installed.Alterations have consequences and it is difficult to imagine darn something that is not broken. The grass in Fenway represents the uprightness of the game and is firmly etched in the minds of all that have visited as fans or played as players at Fenway Park. Fans and players are satisfied, the quality of the game is intact, and the ownerships preoccupation with profit must be analyzed in light of the downfalls go through in the case of artificial turf. There is more to baseball, both as a sport and as entertainment, that size and glamour.The violator is in the finer details and the owners would be well-advised to consider the risks of destroying a splendid thing for prof it alone. It would also be wise to consider the consequences of replacing the fondly certain with the uncertain. A peek into the stands demonstrates fans who are committed, loyal, and knowledgeable. There is a sea of Red Sox colors, families cheering and grimacing, and a uniformity of brainchild that seems difficult if not impossible to take in outside settings.These fans are feature with a common cause, the success of their near Red Sox, and this singularness of purpose transcends differences in their individual lives and diverse backgrounds and personalities. Fenway is a unifying force, it has since its inauguration been a unifying force for the people of New England generally and Bostonians more specifically, and this hotshot has been cultivated and reinforced by human fascination by such structures as the unfledged Monster in left field and such Red Sox heroes as Ted testamentiams.One might copy the Green Monster, a short but towering close in in left field, but it wo uld never be the same in a new field. More, given ownerships perverse fascination with profit, it is credible that the new left field fence would be lowered to accommodate more seats capable of selling more tickets. A new park would become standard rather than distinctive and one of the parks major draws would be eliminated. The same is true with the way in which memories of past heroes would be dished ted Williams batted over .400 while walking and streamlet within the confine of Fenway Park his holding would fade with the demolished park. Heroes and physical attractions are attached to Fenway park and cannot be duplicated. Finally, there are questions pertaining to audience as a writer, I am well certain of the fact that audiences are truer indicators of fame and reception than profits. What quality of fan, for instance, shall be attracted to a modern stadium with modern and non-baseball related amenities? Will the common man be priced out of attending Red Sox games in a spor t cathedral dedicated to profit rather than community and sport?These are questions worth considering they are worth considering because, in truth, the fame of the Red Sox is dependent on its natural environment. This natural environment, in turn, includes the history of the franchise, the friendship that Fenway Park cultivates between fan and franchise, and an audience that is fervently dedicated to the team. Removing Fenway Park whitethorn very well destroy these dependent relations and taint the brand shelter of the Boston Red Sox. Tearing down Fenway Park for a new stadium is like tearing down the forests for a new housing development. Nothing will ever be the same.