« Contemporary Book Reviewing | Main | The Racist »

September 25, 2006

The Problems With Big Mike

I highly recommend Kottke's thoughtful comments on Michael Lewis's deeply troubling chronicle of Big Mike, a massive, once-homeless black kid who a Christian family adopted, forced into football, and pushed upward on the path to success. The story, which seems on its face like a pleasant fairly tale, is actually rather disturbing. You have this hulking black kid, who grows up severely deprived and damaged, who can barely speak, won't talk, exhibits no inner life to speak of, and is, by luck, enrolled in a random Christian private school that means to not accept him. From there, his size and power attract the attention of a father who never got over his past athletic exploits, and his abject poverty attracts the Christian mother:

On a cold and blustery morning, Sean and his wife, Leigh Anne, were driving down one of the main boulevards of East Memphis when just ahead of them a huge black male stepped off the bus. He was dressed in the same pair of cutoffs and T-shirt he always wore. Sean pointed him out to his wife and said: “That kid I was telling you about — that’s him. Big Mike.”

“But he’s wearing shorts,” she said.

“Uh-huh. He always wears those.”

“Sean, it’s snowing!”

And so it was. At Leigh Anne’s insistence, they pulled over. Sean reintroduced himself to Michael and then introduced Michael to Leigh Anne.

“Where are you going?” he asked.

“To basketball practice,” Michael said.

“Michael, you don’t have basketball practice,” Sean said.

“I know,” the boy said. “But they got heat there.”

Sean didn’t understand that one.

“It’s nice and warm in that gym,” the boy said.

So he's adopted. Once word of his unbelievably physique goes around, they all -- and by they all, I mean the family, not the kid -- decide he simply must get to college to play football. And through a variety of tutors, he makes it. And they all live happily ever after. Right?

Only it's never clear that Mike wants to play football. When he's initially approached by a recruit, he refuses to speak to him. And for all the warm-fuzzies offered by the tale, for every extreme physical specimen like Big Mike, how many kids inhabit torturous worlds of material deprivation but are never rescued by sports-obsessed evangelicals? And does this story serve to paper over that fact, or expose it? And was this family seeing dollar signs and fame in Mike, or truly acting out of concern? And what sort of country do we live in that athletic ability should be necessary to lift children out of hellish poverty?

As I said -- it's disconcerting. But it's an amazingly well-told tale, and I highly recommend folks read it.

September 25, 2006 | Permalink

Comments

Yeah, that's quite a story.

I'm not too concerned about the fact that Mike didn't have any desire to play football. Really, it seems that he didn't have any intrinsic desire to do anything, except make it through the day. What bugs me is when people are pushed into things against their interests. And I'm guessing that his life, with football, will be happier than his life would've been without football, simply for economic reasons.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 25, 2006 5:29:11 PM

Well, Ezra, a lot of people just don't believe that the government should provide everyone with a warm home and three meals a day. Self-reliance, and all that.

But Big Mike had an advantage that other poor people don't: He had the physical gifts to play football at a very high level. There's a reason why linemen whose names you've never heard of are making several million dollars a year. Very few people can do that job effectively. If Mike actually has the gifts, then his worries are over.

The government, please note, is not responsible for Mike's success, nor is it responsible for other poor people's lack thereof.

Posted by: Joel | Sep 25, 2006 5:31:38 PM

Um, Joel, you're missing the point. The (happy) reason that this guy succeeded is that he got lucky - genes, Hulk-esque vats of goo, whatever, he's freakishly large and fast. But without that, there's no systemic way for him to succeed. And there are plenty of folks in that boat, without the 330 pounds.

Posted by: ptm | Sep 25, 2006 5:43:55 PM

Hey, Ezra,

There are plenty of kids that don't want to go to school either. Were they, too, forced? Is that also disconcerting?

This kid was lucky to be adopted by people who care and made a path that worked for him. I wish other parents would do the same instead of trying to be "friends" with their children.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 25, 2006 6:01:43 PM

Ok, so for the most part I have to agree with Fred's above comment. But WTF?

I wish other parents would do the same instead of trying to be "friends" with their children.

As if one can't do both, as if being a close friend as well as a disciplinarian is somehow wrong. Give me a break. I want my kid to be comfortable with talking to me about issues that effect a lot of kids, such as sex and drugs, which is a hell of a lot more likely when you play with a child, love a child and make it clear that they are free to talk about absolutely anything that they are wondering about.

Posted by: DuWayne | Sep 25, 2006 6:16:18 PM

Well, Ezra, a lot of people just don't believe that the government should provide everyone with a warm home and three meals a day. Self-reliance, and all that.

Michael Oher was homeless at age 16. Does self-reliance mean kids should be providing a warm home and three meals a day for themselves at age sixteen, and if they don't they should freeze or starve? What is wrong with you?

Posted by: Matt Weiner | Sep 25, 2006 6:23:47 PM

I'm not too concerned about the fact that Mike didn't have any desire to play football. Really, it seems that he didn't have any intrinsic desire to do anything, except make it through the day. What bugs me is when people are pushed into things against their interests. And I'm guessing that his life, with football, will be happier than his life would've been without football, simply for economic reasons.

I mean, I tend to think that on average, it's better for Big Mike to be in this situation than the apparent hell that was his life before this.

But I think the scary thing that Ezra and Kottke point out is more about the article than about Big Mike - Lewis quite clearly never quotes Mike except secondhand. He appears only as an object of people's apprehension - just about exclusively white people's - and never as a subject. That is most certainly an authorial choice, and a highly problematic one.

Further, this treatment of Mike as an object seems to come in part from the people around him:

But during the games he seemed confused. When he wasn’t confused, he was reluctant. Passive, almost. This was the last thing Freeze expected. Freeze didn’t know much about Michael Oher’s past, but he knew enough to assume that his player had some kind of miserable childhood in the worst part of West Memphis. A miserable childhood in the worst part of West Memphis was typically excellent emotional preparation for what was required on a football defense: it made you angry; it made you aggressive; it made you want to tear someone’s head off. The N.F.L. was loaded with players who had mined a loveless, dysfunctional childhood.

The trouble with Michael Oher as a football player was the trouble with Ferdinand as a bull: he didn’t exhibit the anger of his breed. He was just a sweet kid who didn’t particularly care to hit anybody. Or as Freeze puts it: “He just wasn’t aggressive. His mentality was not a defensive player’s mentality.”

Michael is supposed to exhibit "the anger of his breed" and people are surprised when he doesn't. There's no attempt on anyone's part to understand this from Mike's point of view - he's more animal than human in these two paragraphs.

I don't doubt that Michael Oher is a profoundly troubled young man, one who probably makes an awesomely difficult interview, and Lewis chose to write this way, and people choose to treat him this way, as the easiest path for dealing with him. But there's an undercurrent of racism in the way it's so easy for our culture to accept the discussion of Michael Oher as animalistic object, and that's troubling.

This isn't to indict the people who did well by Mike - that situation in undoubtedly so complex that no one should try to assign ethical blame from this far distance. But the article, in its flaws and in the way it seems to import some of those flaws from the people whose story it tells, reflects some scary tendencies in American society.

Posted by: DivGuy | Sep 25, 2006 6:31:39 PM

Well, Ezra, a lot of people just don't believe that the government should provide everyone with a warm home and three meals a day.

Well, Joel, a lot of people are born to parents who attended public schools, state-supported universities, who work in industries that had their start or even their continuing support from public monies, who bought their house with no money down because of federal programs and who shop for groceries, clothes and other sundries at a local shopping center that was, in part, financed by city money.

Then their children are often stupid and arrogant enough to believe that they are "self-reliant" just because the hundreds of government programs that have assisted them and their parents over the years don't have names like "welfare" or "assistance" or "needy" in them.

To get back to the subject of Michael, I would suggest that his adoptive family pushed him into sports because they, like many people in this country, believe that blacks can only meaningfully contribute athletically. What a blessing for Michael, therefore, that he was gifted with such a wonderful physique, otherwise there would be no hope for him at all.

Posted by: Stephen | Sep 25, 2006 6:54:48 PM

I would suggest that his adoptive family pushed him into sports because they, like many people in this country, believe that blacks can only meaningfully contribute athletically. What a blessing for Michael, therefore, that he was gifted with such a wonderful physique, otherwise there would be no hope for him at all.

I suspect this went the other way round, that they noticed Mike's hulking physique before they decided to push him into football. If he were 5'2" and spent his days scribbling math equations they might have tried something else.

Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 25, 2006 7:06:21 PM

But there's an undercurrent of racism in the way it's so easy for our culture to accept the discussion of Michael Oher as animalistic object, and that's troubling.

Why do you say this? What is the evidence that race is a factor in whatever ease you imagine is involved?

Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 25, 2006 7:13:43 PM

Sanpete, this:

Freeze didn’t know much about Michael Oher’s past, but he knew enough to assume that his player had some kind of miserable childhood in the worst part of West Memphis. A miserable childhood in the worst part of West Memphis was typically excellent emotional preparation for what was required on a football defense: it made you angry; it made you aggressive; it made you want to tear someone’s head off. The N.F.L. was loaded with players who had mined a loveless, dysfunctional childhood.

The trouble with Michael Oher as a football player was the trouble with Ferdinand as a bull: he didn’t exhibit the anger of his breed. He was just a sweet kid who didn’t particularly care to hit anybody.

There does seem to be a smooth transition from talking about Oher's childhood in (I assume) black neighborhoods to referring to his 'breed' and comparing him to an animal.

Posted by: Matt Weiner | Sep 25, 2006 7:25:37 PM

Matt: I think that Lewis used 'breed' to mean other defensive players, or other left tackles:
The trouble with Michael Oher as a football player was the trouble with Ferdinand as a bull: he didn’t exhibit the anger of his breed. He was just a sweet kid who didn’t particularly care to hit anybody. Or as Freeze puts it: “He just wasn’t aggressive. His mentality was not a defensive player’s mentality.”

Posted by: Andy | Sep 25, 2006 7:55:18 PM

Lewis quite clearly never quotes Mike except secondhand.

Perhaps in the exceprt linked, however in the full book (which is excellent, by the way) Lewis quotes Oher a lot, especially towards the end - (Lewis notes that it takes a bit for Oher to warm up to someone.)

Posted by: Pooh | Sep 25, 2006 7:56:06 PM

I don't know, Andy, when it says "the anger of his breed" it comes just after a passage where he explains how you'd expect a kid from the worst part of West Memphis to be angry. I think there's evidence here for what DivGuy called an 'undercurrent' of racism; in society as much as in anyone involved in the story. And didn't you cringe when Oher was weighed on the cattle scale?

Posted by: Matt Weiner | Sep 25, 2006 8:39:23 PM

Here is what I think:
1, this is a great freaking narrative, as expected. thanks for the link.
2, the heroes in this story are the ones who help Mike without thinking about sports
3, what idiot gets excited about football when your peak salary appears to be under $10mm for a teeny little league (measured by employees multiplied by tenure)? Play soccer or baseball.
4, having once or twice been near someone Real Darn Good (at skiing or basketball or whatever it is I do badly), I have to appreciate the lyricism of the athletic descriptions in the article. Skiing is what I am better at than maybe 99% of US residents (not saying much; in Austria I suck), and there is nothing like ripping off a really great run, turning around, and watching someone Real Darn Good just cough up a hundred-times-better one like he was clearing his throat.
5. “The Mormons may be going to hell,” Sean says. “But they really are nice people.”

Man, that was great. I don't know why the rest of you all have to argue so much. Michael Lewis is Mr. Moneyball. If you know anything about his work, it is that it feels great reading it, but it totally disposable a few minutes later.

Posted by: wcw | Sep 25, 2006 9:02:34 PM

I don't know why the rest of you all have to argue so much.

Because it's so much fun. I thought you knew that.

Posted by: Stephen | Sep 25, 2006 9:19:59 PM

Matt, I see what you're saying, but when I read this I figured the author was intentionally making the animal connections to show how Mike was regarded from a football perspective. I didn't think he was endorsing that perspective, or expecting the reader to be easy with it either. Whether the author also intended the possible racial overtones I don't know, but he sure didn't set it up the way he could have if he had wanted to bring that out more (i.e. he didn't mention race when he could have in connection with Mike's miserable childhood). But I haven't read the whole thing to see if I might have misread the intent.

Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 25, 2006 9:39:10 PM

I have to agree that the "breed" reference was likely intended from a football perspective. I loathe the sport myself (watching - I enjoy a pickup game now and then) but have some family members who are very obsessive. I recall hearing many such references over the years.

Posted by: DuWayne | Sep 25, 2006 10:10:18 PM

when I read this I figured the author was intentionally making the animal connections to show how Mike was regarded from a football perspective. I didn't think he was endorsing that perspective, or expecting the reader to be easy with it either.

Agreed. But I don't think this contradicts what DivGuy said about the undercurrent of racism in society; I think Lewis is portraying that faithfully. And to heighten it probably would have ruined the effect; surely the people involved didn't consciously think of Oher as a piece of meat, but that attitude sort of leaks through.

Was anyone else scandalized by BYU? They're a reputable institution, but it sounded like they're selling grades to get academically unprepared kids up to college requirements. Someone who doesn't get a big NFL payday could be badly hurt by this.

Posted by: Matt Weiner | Sep 25, 2006 10:21:21 PM

How?

That kid never would have sniffed college otherwise. I don't begrudge BYU their fake classes -- I begrudge the NFL and NBA their lack of farm systems.

Posted by: wcw | Sep 26, 2006 12:16:06 AM

Someone commented on this somewhere else, but the "put him on the bus" story is worth well more than the price of admission.

I totally understand why people would cringe at the cattle scale thing, but I'm enough of a football fan to be like, "awww, yeah!" when I hear that a promising offensive line prospect was weighed on a cattle scale because the normal scale didn't go high enough. Being huge is part of the job if you're an offensive lineman, and it's an awesome hugeness anecdote.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 26, 2006 1:19:49 AM

Well, Ezra, a lot of people just don't believe that the government should provide everyone with a warm home and three meals a day. Self-reliance, and all that.

Of course not.

It's much better that the elderly, the disabled and the purely unlucky in the richest country in the world slowly starve to death pour encourager les autres.

The real religion of America is the worship of Mammon.

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Sep 26, 2006 2:02:08 AM

wcw, I think there might be a kid who's marginally academically prepared, who could benefit from some real prep or junior college or something, who takes BYU's fake classes to get into a football factory on scholarship, doesn't learn anything in college because that's not what they're there for (and anyway they're underprepared), doesn't make the NFL, and winds up without any marketable skills. That probably won't be what happens to Oher, but it seems like a dubious practice in general. And I agree that the NBA and NFL should have real farm systems (I like the proposal someone made somewhere that colleges sponsor athletes who get free tuition after the end of their football career, when they can actually focus on classes).

I'm also kind of against fake classes on principle.

Posted by: Matt Weiner | Sep 26, 2006 10:11:35 AM

Sure, but almost all classes are fake classes.

Posted by: wcw | Sep 26, 2006 5:33:43 PM

I would agree with Jason Kottke's comments that the story is in many ways a blank slate on which the readers projects there own feelings. On the one hand you have a youth who is given the oppertunity to go to college (a postive I think we can agree) and further the possibility to earn millions of dollars playing a sport (a chance I know I would kill for, as probably would many others).

On the other hand you have the fact that the kid is, it appears, making few, if any choices for himself. What he wants is, as has been pointed out, not discussed. I think the question is do we ignore that fact, that he's basically being told what to do, because what he's being told to do has some positive benefits, i.e. being told to play football so as to go to college and perhaps the NFL is not that bad.

I guess I would wonder what the alternatives would be. If Big Mike hadn't been directed in such a manner, what would he be doing? I have other thoughts about the piece but this comment is running a tad long as it is so I'll wrap it up here.

Posted by: jake | Sep 26, 2006 6:34:05 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.