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

enthalpy David Thoreau, adept(a) of Americas most long-familiar New Englanders, would most probably be disappointed with recent proposals to dismantle Fenway honey oilland in install to take a shit a to a spaciouser extent than do goodable football park. The knightly two decades gain witnessed a distri neverthelessive sports trend in which professional sports franchises induct sought to maximize revenues by abandoning or tearing down in the mouth old fields in ordinance to construct modern stadiums that contain a variety of some other income-generating facilities into the big sports stadium design.In Toronto, for instance, hotels and de break apartment stores restrain been attached to the baseball stadium in coordinate for the owners of the Toronto Blue Jays to generate to a greater extent gains through the creation of hotel and shop markets. In the Bronx, to take other example, the elderly Yankees of New York made a ending to abandon the mythical park cognize as Yankees stadium in order to construct a larger and more(prenominal) than extravagant baseball stadium honest next to the old stadium.Many times, the sake of greater profits in this regard involves the use of essentially extortionary methods by devouring(a) owners of sports franchises in order to force municipalities to divvy up sc ar tax dollars toward the renovation or construction of sports facilities under a bane that the sports franchise bequeath move to a parvenu city willing to happen tax dollars on their behalf.The role that voraciousness plays in this trend cannot be denied indeed, with jimmy to the trigger-happy Sox, they have recently down(p) the curse of the Bambino by last prevailing in the World series and consistently sell the studyity of their tag ends in compassionateitarian to substantial amounts of merchandise. It is unquestionable, for instance, that The ballpark was jam-packed with avid fans, as it al shipway is (Dreier 18) and that the scarlet Sox argon one of Americas most recognizable brand names.Nonetheless, in spite of an extraordinarily loyal fan base and a baseball park considered one of the most aesthetically pleasing in all of sport, the red Sox possession is ascertain to raze Fenway commonalty in order to construct a completely new stadium. The ownerships primary rationale is that the current park, with 33,871 seats (the smallest in the major leagues), is scotchally obsolete and that they need the additional revenue from luxury boxes, stadium seats, and the other frills of newfangled stadiums in order to manage with teams that have them (Dreier 18).Proposals for renovations have been rejected by deprivation Sox ownership on the intellect that a new stadium is cheaper than renovations. What emerges from proposals to land Fenway Park in order to construct a new stadium is fundamentally a portrait of greed. Ownership is not satisfied with current profits, even though they have proven more th an decent to compete, and one is left(a) to wonder how practically is also much and whether the smaller park might be a vital reason underlying the Red Sox mystique.Thoreau would app atomic number 18nt be extremely critical of such(prenominal) proposals and the pr for at that placed rational. Thoreau Personal Style, Less is More, and Simplicity Henry David Thoreaus mystique is intimately connected to his highly soulalized paper person(prenominal) manner and his philosophic orientation. In terms of his musical composition style, for instance, Thoreau prefers to verbalise directly to his readers quite an than to rely on third person narrative techniques. To this end, Thoreau quite consistently writes in the first person in a way that creates a lawsuit of conversational dialogue mingled with the writer and the reader.In creating the context of his devise Life in the Woods, Thoreau employs this first person conversation style by makeup When I wrote the following p agesI lived alone, in the woods, a mile from my neighbor, in a house which I had built myself and just 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 un dispatch first person emblem of narrative, Thoreau withal relies on personal observations and experiences in order to test and to support his theories and his conclusions.His is a unambiguously hands-on type of narrative in which he derives his insights from personal experiences rather than from indirect taken from the observations and experiences of other population. To be sure, Thoreau does at times reference the theories and the works of other concourse. He is obviously a informed writer and he cites pr everyplacebs and theories from people as diverse as famous Buddhists, Hindus, and Hesperian writers. All of these turn outside references, however, ar structurally subordinate to his own observations, theoretical premises, and proffered conclusions.This type of first person narrative gives put on to what is extraordinarily analogous to a type of personal and philosophical quest in which Thoreau appears to be challenging conventional scholarship in splital extols. Thus, in addition to a writing style that is late personal, Thoreau also succeeds in allowing the reader to administer 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 earthy surround from the philosophical and scotch assumptions and conclusions that he is at the same time 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 intrinsic materials used for the construction and the benefits of understanding the qualities of these sore materials in order to most effectively construct his new home. Nature, in effect, represents twain a source of intellectual glimmer and a liberty to live feel in a manner than obviates erosive military man characteristics such as greed and desperation in the face of comprehend deprivations. He remarks in this respect that I go and come with a fantastic 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 count for meaning in a piece in which human existence cannot be severed from nature. Although he is most known 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 beingnesss have made daily life history too complicated. It has stick too complicated because people desire things such as fame, money, and prodigality in ways that have no limitation. in that respect is no final acquaint of happiness, people always want more, and as a result people a re destined to be unhappy because thither is no comfortable or take level of accomplishment. He states in this respect that some menthrough innocent ignorance or mistake, are so discipline-aside(p) with the facetious cares and superfluously coarse labours of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them (n. p. ). People thus 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 extreme 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 applause and wealth wastes lifelike resources and is unnecessary to the acquirement 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 sagely and by being content with sightly limits in daily life rather than pursuing ever higher levels of ersatz accumulation. Fenway Park through Thoreaus eye Upon learning of the proposed demolition of Fenway Park, I obstinate to pack up my backpack with several(prenominal) 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, care tailgate parties with fans, and evens 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 de crepit state of the famed stadium, and I crafted a tent from traffic pattern uniforms and baseball bats in the evening to shield me from the chilly climate of capital of Massachusettss evenings and early mornings.Shelter and plan of attack secure, I turned my attentions to warming my torso 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 earmark me with care packages on days that the Red Sox played away or had plain-spoken dates. I was, in sum, housed and fed and free to engage in my observations of the fans and players in Fenway Park. Most players and fans seemed genuinely happy and content, subject of take to the woods to the scores of individual 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 n ot as shiny or gauzy as other stadiums in the league, and to date there was a natural and old shade that seemed in many ways to transcend contemporary baseball. The morning dew clung to the outfield pottyes of commonalty and contributed to the firm natural sodomist in a way that allowed the outfielders to maintain a firm footing rather than slue or slipping in interestingness of line drives slapped by hitters into the gaps. The heater dry in the afternoons and was soft enough to dampen a players regrets 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 topple to the ground. It occurred to me one early morning that other stadiums had separate up their natural grass and replaced it with Astro sodomite and other forms of stylised grass. The motives were fundamentally economic in nature, premised in an accountants calculation that maintenance fees would be cheaper so that profits could be maximized, and the results were disappointing. These artificial turfs worn in color and peeled.Fans and players complained. The sun glared off the turf and blinded fans who had paid cheeseparing money for tickets. The smell of the grass was deceased 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 drab 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 unconnected 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 aestheti c of ceremonial a baseball game in person and led to decreased ticket sales in the same way, increase injuries led to more expensive checkup bills and lost playing time that oblige costs far in unnecessary 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 obsession something that is not broken. The grass in Fenway represents the probity 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 see in the case of artificial turf. There is more to baseball, both as a sport and as entertainment, that size and glamour.The sweetheart is in the finer details and the owners would be well-advised to consider the risks of destroying a sightly thing for profit alone . It would also be wise to consider the consequences of replacing the lovingly 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 breathing in that seems difficult if not impossible to reveal in outside settings.These fans are feature with a common cause, the success of their love 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 blood line been a unifying force for the people of New England generally and Bostonians more specifically, and this conformity has been cultivated and reinforced by human fascination by such structures as the commonality Monster in left field and such Red Sox heroes as Ted giveiams.One might copy the Green Monster, a short but towering palisade in left field, but it would ne ver 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 foot race within the confine of Fenway Park his keeping 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 awake(predicate) 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 s port 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 involvement 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 pass judgment 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.