April 2009

On the Road is a book many years in the making for me. I had heard so much about it for so long and yet, like all of the other “classics” in its genre, I knew I would only read it when I was actually ready to read it. We are usually presented with this type of material way too early in our lives.

I faked my way through countless novels during high school, spending more time pretending to get through the books as opposed to sincerely trying to understand and appreciate them. In essence those literary icons come to us way before we are ready to ably process them.

I still cite To Kill a Mockingbird as my ultimate classic of all time simply because it managed to hold me for a longer time than any of the other books I was required to read. It somehow became a joyful educational experience and whether it still tops my list after all this time is something I’d almost rather not know. I prefer for it to remain the champ whether it deserves the status or not.

I don’t remember if On The Road was part of the curriculum when I was in school although I doubt simply because of the prevalent conservative nature of our school board which probably shunned a book so wildly championing irreverence and wanton drug use. Knowing now what I knew then the book would have simply served as inspiration for a student’s verboten culture and frankly, at the time, little about me was verboten. My, how times have changed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Just so you know, the Hockey Hall of Fame announced this week that it will be “allowing” women into the esteemed Hall starting next year.

Naturally the move has divided the hockey public; some claiming it’s about bloody time while others see the move as another in the long line of watering down history and an exercise in knee jerk ultra-sensitivity.

I’m divided on this issue. I certainly see the case for having women enshrined into the Hall. It is the Hockey Hall of Fame after all and women have certainly provided an historic chapter or two (especially lately). The part I don’t get is in mandating a quota. Since there’s such a backlog of women who are rightly eligible the HHOF has made it known that they will be inducting up to two women a year, in addition to whatever guidelines they have for the men. I think this sort of arbitrary number opens a big can of words for the future since you run the risk of fracturing hockey into its specific elements. If five men are reasonably eligible but realistically no women are rightfully deserving can you skip the girls for one year?

For me it all goes back to the purpose of the Hall in the first place. It’s not an NHL Hall, it’s a hockey Hall, thus it must now play a little catchup in trying to encompass a lot factions that have been (sincerely) ignored. European hockey is now starting to be recognized and I suppose you have to have an adjustment period while you try to retro-fit the Hall and its (now) worldwide history and audience.

Accepting this, the question then becomes simply: is this person deserving of recognition and induction into the Hall simply on the implication of what he or she provided to the world of hockey at large? That is, when you think of the sport of hockey and all its facets does this person deserve recognition as having provided something? Without question, women deserve to be part of this, so finally allowing them eligibility is the right thing to do. The fear in this camp is the nature of well-intentioned things like this that often start for the right reasons, but often end up being more about tokenism than anything else.

If that sounds harsh imagine this: Should there are also be a mandate to ensure that a certain amount of Europeans - or at least non-NHLers - get into the Hall as well?

While that may sound ludicrous it really isn’t an unfair assumption. Merit, after all, knows no ethnicity or gender. Having women part of the process is certainly acceptable. Ensuring sanity with this equality remains the big question.