[ARETE] Cohan review

[Duncan Jamieson]

All,
Please find below and attached Scott Peterson's review of Noah Cohan's *We
Average Unbeautiful Watchers*.
Duncan

Cohan, Noah. *We Average Unbeautiful Watchers: Fan Narratives and the
Reading of American Sports*. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2019.
Hardbound, $45.00.


Reviewed by Scott D. Peterson, University of Missouri—St. Louis



Like all good cultural scholarship, Cohan’s book resists the monolithic,
all-or-nothing take, and as an optimistic cultural critic, Cohan seeks to
demonstrate the “transformative power” of sports fans to “subvert the
patriarchal and corporate imperatives embedded in the broadcast and the box
score” (4). To reach this goal, Cohan examines a wide range of fan texts:
novels, memoirs, films, and blogs, across a number of major sports. Readers
familiar with David Foster Wallace’s essays might recognize the book’s
somewhat unusual title, which points to the paradox at the heart of the fan
experience: those of us who fall short of athletic genius (thus leaving us
“average” and “unbeautiful” by the inevitable comparison) are ultimately
disappointed by the athlete’s inability to explain her/his own powers and
their impact on us (2). Given that we all struggle to define and describe
the meaning we derive from sport—and sports—Cohen’s book offers numerous
insights into that process from the fan perspective.



Cohan’s texts range from materials that could be counted among the Sport
Literature canon —DeLillo’s *Pafko at the Wall*, Coover’s *Universal
Baseball Association*, Exley’s *A Fan’s Notes*—to authors and auteurs
discussed in the pages of *Aethlon*—John Wideman, Spike Lee, Bill
Simmons—and films examined and/or reviewed (and sometimes graphically
quoted at SLA conferences)—*Fever Pitch* and *Silver Linings Playbook*.
Some of Cohan’s texts—especially the blogs—would not be considered
canonical, yet these are nonetheless significant and important examples of
fan-made meanings. Each of the chapters contains carefully and effectively
constructed comparisons of these far-reaching texts to ultimately
illustrate “the potential for alternative narratives that remake or reshape
fans’ understanding of their role such that they subvert or reconceptualize
that hierarchical structure [that] is always present …” (201). Because it
treats some of the same texts as the early sport literature analyses of
Michael Oriard and Christian Messenger, Cohan’s book expands those
treatments by focusing on the fan’s role.



Despite Cohan’s accurate and needed analysis of electronic texts, Chapter 5
and his Epilogue reminded me that some aspects of sport narrative have
remained unchanged across the century and a half of sports journalism. The
bloggers examined in Chapter 5 effectively serve as an alternative
perspective, yet the numerous excerpts illustrated how these fans turned
writers were just as prone to flights of fancy as the “clever journalists”
in love with their own wit who drew H.L. Mencken’s sharp criticism of the
profession a hundred years ago. Last month’s flap over the former Houston
Astros assistant GM’s comments highlights memoirist Stacey May Fowles’
point about the dangers of losing sight of players as human beings (208);
however, this perspective is hardly new: Ella Black, writing in the *Sporting
Life* in 1890 called for the same accountability both on and off the field.
Though she did not use the term “hypermasculinity,” Black was not
unfamiliar with the concept. Cohan’s analysis does not shy away from the
excesses of sports fans—c.f. Coover’s Waugh or Exley’s fan, and recent
excesses of sports fans can certainly be counted among the extremes that
had Michael Schulman addressing “the dark side” of popular culture fans who
are “more powerful than ever” in the September 16 issue of the *New Yorker*
(26). As a suggestion for future research, the hows and whys of sports fans
making meaning across generations is another area ripe for similar
investigation; it could be something as simple as what Michael Chabon does
with his and his father’s love of the original *Star Trek *series in the
November 18 issue of the *New Yorker* (24). With the apparent demise of *Dead
Spin* and the precipitous decline of *Sports Illustrated*, perhaps space
will open up for a new publication dedicated to sports fans.



At the end, Cohan returns to his optimistic cultural critic perspective
when he writes, “Reading sport isn’t just something fans can and should do
for personal fulfillment, but also a form of labor that can be directed to
improve the games themselves” (209). Just as I drew comfort at a recent
conference from philosopher Alva Noë’s argument that keeping score at a
baseball game is an exercise of “knowledge production,” Cohan’s argument
also sits well with me, even as I do my best (with mixed success) to root
for sport in general over any particular team. Cohan’s book will appeal to
cultural critics, fans of all stripes, and American Studies scholars as it
thoroughly and convincingly examines an understudied and undertheorized
perspective of the Sport(s) Media Industrial Complex.



Remember to smell the roses as you recumber past

Duncan R. Jamieson, Ph. D.
Professor of History
Book Review Editor
*AETHLON: The Journal of Sport Literature*
Ashland University
Ashland, OH  44805
USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/sport_literature_association/attachments/20191126/e8a51876/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CohanReviewFIN.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 15535 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/sport_literature_association/attachments/20191126/e8a51876/attachment.docx>