MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2024342200 · doi:10.1353/nin.2007.0050

Love Me, Hate Me: Barry Bonds and the Making of an Antihero (review)

2007· article· en· W2024342200 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roberta Newman

Notice bibliographique

RevueNine · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican Sports and Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrologueBondArtArt historySociologyPsychoanalysisPsychologyLiteratureBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Love Me, Hate Me: Barry Bonds and the Making of an Antihero Roberta Newman Jeff Pearlman. Love Me, Hate Me: Barry Bonds and the Making of an Antihero. New York: Harper Collins, 2006. 384 pp. Cloth, $25.95. As its subtitle asserts, Jeff Pearlman's Love Me, Hate Me proposes to discover, through an in-depth investigation into the slugger's background, what forces contributed to the creation of a baseball antihero. In literary terms, an antihero is a self-styled social outcast or rebel with whom readers tend to identify but who lacks the traditional attributes, physical prowess among them, generally associated with heroes such as Achilles or Ivanhoe. Rather than painting a portrait of baseball's answer to Holden Caulfield, Yossarian, or Randall Patrick McMurphy, Pearlman's Barry Bonds more closely resembles a villain, the likes of whom professional wrestling impresario Vince McMahon would be proud. The tone for this profile is set in the prologue. Here, Pearlman notes that, first and foremost, Bonds is not to be trusted, providing readers with the invaluable information that Bonds failed at knot tying while in the Cub Scouts, but, because his father was a famous ballplayer and a local hero, young Barry was the beneficiary of social promotion. Bonds had the audacity to tell Pearlman that, in fact, he never was a Cub Scout. So goes Love Me, Hate Me. According to Pearlman, on the way to becoming the single-season home run record holder, Bonds, son of a talented, but deeply flawed and extremely demanding alcoholic father, stepped on or over everyone in his way. Fortunately, Bonds seems to have stopped short of kicking puppies, or at least evaded the notice of his fourth-grade teacher, a high school teammate, and a host of similar informants, while doing so. As Pearlman, a former writer for Sports Illustrated and Newsday, tells Bonds, "I've interviewed everyone. Five hundred people," to write this profile (3). Most of his informants, however, seem to have been ancillary figures in Bonds's life. The meat of this profile, particularly when it comes to the details of Bonds's professional career and his alleged abuse of performance-enhancing drugs, comes from secondary sources. Certainly, Pearlman would have been remiss [End Page 151] had he not referred to the work of Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, the San Francisco Chronicle writers who broke the BALCO story by publishing leaked grand jury testimony. But he adds nothing new, simply reiterating what has already been said and, by now, is well known. No matter what sources he relies upon, one thing is clear: Pearlman regards his subject with the utmost contempt. Even when discussing Bonds's laudable successes on the field, Pearlman is excessively mean-spirited and unwilling to give credit where credit is due. Writing of the slugger's quest to become only the second player in Major League history to hit 40 home runs and steal 40 bases in the same season, Pearlman calls the feat a "statistical fraud in motion," only to retract the statement, saying, "Okay, maybe 'fraud' is too strong. Statistical indecency" (175). In Pearlman's eyes, Bonds's attempt to wrest something positive from a 96-loss season borders on scandalous. The notion that paying fans may have had some interest in Bonds's quest to succeed in this regard does not even cross the author's mind. Indicative of Pearlman's dislike for Bonds is the author's unwillingness to accept that his subject might have actually done something positive, going as far as to suggest that Bonds could not possibly have been upset by the attacks of September 11, 2001, and must have been faking when he seemed to be disturbed by the event. The stated purpose of Love Me, Hate Me is to explain exactly why Bonds, a ballplayer of prodigious talent even without the benefit of performance-enhancing drugs, became a BALCO customer. At various points, Pearlman does seem to offer an explanation for Bonds's selfish quest for personal glory, suggesting that what drives Bonds is baseball's version of the "anxiety of influence": he is compelled to succeed in order to please, and...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,810
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,990

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,246
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNineMême sujetAmerican Sports and LiteratureTravaux en français237 207