From the Vault — February 7, 2014, 3:15 pm

John R. Tunis’s “The Olympic Games” (1928)

Is it worth carrying on with the Olympic Games?

INTERIOR OF THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYDEN. From a print by Jan Cornelius Woudanus, dated 1610. Harper’s Magazine, April 1905

INTERIOR OF THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYDEN. From a print by Jan Cornelius Woudanus, dated 1610. Harper’s Magazine, April 1905

The XXII Winter Olympic Games open today in Sochi, Russia, amid concerns about Russia’s record on LGBT rights and human rights more generally and talk of “Potemkin toilets” and shower surveillance. In the face of all this Sochi-specific skepticism, we seem almost to have lost sight of our broader skepticism about the modern Olympics, which began as a celebration of international cooperation and the amateur spirit and have since become a spectacle of professionalism and consumerism. If so, this is too bad: a trip to the Harper’s Magazine archive suggests that raising such doubts is a sport nearly as old as the games themselves.

Although the 1924 Olympics included a week of winter-sport events that was retroactively labeled the first Winter Games, the first truly independent Winter Olympics were held in the Swiss town of St. Moritz, in 1928. This was also the year that the tradition of the Olympic Flame was introduced. It’s fair to say the modern Olympics were then in their infancy. Yet some people were already tiring of the spectacle. The August 1928 issue of Harper’s appeared just as the ninth Summer Games were beginning in Amsterdam, and in its pages John R. Tunis noted the increasing worry, throughout the international community, over “the advisability of continuing” the Games.

Tunis is known these days mostly as the author of a series of baseball novels for young boys. (They were childhood favorites of mine, and also of Philip Roth, who transferred his love of Tunis’s books to Nathan Zuckerman in American Pastoral.) But he was also one of the first great sports commentators and a frequent Harper’s contributor. In “The Olympic Games,” he gives a brief history of the original Olympics, which were central to ancient Greek culture for six hundred years until, Tunis argues, their spirit was destroyed by professionalism. “Indeed, so open and so apparent were the commercial recompenses dispensed,” Tunis writes, “that men like Plato and Socrates denounced them in public — doubtless receiving the same sort of derision as those who venture to question our sporting panorama of the twentieth century. Then, as now, a class came into existence which openly devoted its time to the serious business of athletics.” He goes on to suggest that the very changes that killed the original Olympics after seven centuries threatened to do the same to the modern games in less than half of one.

As a factual matter, of course, Tunis was wrong to doubt that the modern Games would survive. And not all of his complaints look legitimate in retrospect. (He believed that the inclusion of female athletes represented the “acme of absurdity.”) But his piece is well worth reading, if only as a reminder that the “golden age of amateurism” didn’t look like such a golden age at the time. It goes without saying that Tunis would have found the business that sports has since become about as familiar as Socrates would have found 1928 Amsterdam. In the interim, the Olympics have given up even the pretense of amateurism, which may be an improvement, since it at least saves us from a good deal of hypocrisy. As for global cooperation, the Sochi games seem already to be aggravating international tensions more than assuaging them. Like the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the Sochi Winter Games have many people asking whether serial human rights abusers ought to be given the opportunity to host this kind of global showcase. Perhaps the better question to ask about the Olympics is the one Tunis asked in the year the Winter Games began: whether “it would be best to drop them altogether.”

Share
Single Page

More from Christopher Beha:

From the October 2018 issue

Ove and Out

Knausgaard’s struggle comes to an end

From the May 2017 issue

Head-Scratcher

Can neuroscience finally explain consciousness?

From the March 2017 issue

New Books

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

November 2018

Rebirth of a Nation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Tragedy of Ted Cruz

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Rebirth of a Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s presidency signals a profound but inchoate realignment of American politics. On the one hand, his administration may represent the consolidation of minority control by a Republican-dominated Senate under the leadership of a president who came to office after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. Such an imbalance of power could lead to a second civil war—indeed, the nation’s first and only great fraternal conflagration was sparked off in part for precisely this reason. On the other hand, Trump’s reign may be merely an interregnum, in which the old white power structure of the Republican Party is dying and a new oppositional coalition struggles to be born.

Illustration by Taylor Callery (detail)
Article
Blood Money·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the past three years, the city of South Tucson, Arizona, a largely Latino enclave nestled inside metropolitan Tucson, came close to abolishing its fire and police departments. It did sell off the library and cut back fire-truck crews from four to three people—whereupon two thirds of the fire department quit—and slashed the police force to just sixteen employees. “We’re a small city, just one square mile, surrounded by a larger city,” the finance director, Lourdes Aguirre, explained to me. “We have small-town dollars and big-city problems.”

Illustration by John Ritter (detail)
Article
The Tragedy of Ted Cruz·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I saw Ted Cruz speak, in early August, it was at Underwood’s Cafeteria in Brownwood. He was on a weeklong swing through rural central Texas, hitting small towns and military bases that ensured him friendly, if not always entirely enthusiastic, crowds. In Brownwood, some in the audience of two hundred were still nibbling on peach cobbler as Cruz began with an anecdote about his win in a charity basketball game against ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. They rewarded him with smug chuckles when he pointed out that “Hollywood celebrities” would be hurting over the defeat “for the next fifty years.” His pitch for votes was still an off-the-rack Tea Party platform, complete with warnings about the menace of creeping progressivism, delivered at a slightly mechanical pace but with lots of punch. The woman next to me remarked, “This is the fire in the gut! Like he had the first time!” referring to Cruz’s successful long-shot run in the 2011 Texas Republican Senate primary. And it’s true—the speech was exactly like one Cruz would have delivered in 2011, right down to one specific detail: he never mentioned Donald Trump by name.

Cruz recited almost verbatim the same things Trump lists as the administration’s accomplishments: the new tax legislation, reduced African-American unemployment, repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court. But, in a mirror image of those in the #Resistance who refuse to ennoble Trump with the title “president,” Cruz only called him that.

Photograph of Ted Cruz © Ben Helton (detail)
Article
Wrong Object·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

H

e is a nondescript man.

I’d never used that adjective about a client. Not until this one. My seventeenth. He’d requested an evening time and came Tuesdays at six-thirty. For months he didn’t tell me what he did.

The first session I said what I often said to begin: How can I help you?

I still think of what I do as a helping profession. And I liked the way the phrase echoed down my years; in my first job I’d been a salesgirl at a department store counter.

I want to work on my marriage, he said. I’m the problem.

His complaint was familiar. But I preferred a self-critical patient to a blamer.

It’s me, he said. My wife is a thoroughly good person.

Yawn, I thought, but said, Tell me more.

I don’t feel what I should for her.

What do you feel?

Photograph © Joseph S. Giacalone (detail)

Percentage of Aquarians who are Democrats:

47

Scolded dogs look guiltier if they are actually innocent.

Nikki Haley resigns; Jamal Khashoggi murdered; Kanye visits the White House

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today