Skip to main content

Bob Greene I

Yes, children, there once were widely syndicated general-interest columns.



You don't hear of them much any more. Heck, newspapers of the old sort are themselves an endangered species, and the old-style columnists (humorous like Erma Bombeck, politically analytical like Peter Lisagor, self-appointed tribunes of the working stiff like Jimmy Breslin).

Perhaps it's just that we don't need gatekeepers any more to tell us who is good at spouting opinions, analyzing public issues, or making us laugh.  Good for us.

But back when there were still syndicated columnists, one of them -- one of the most popular of them at his peak in the 1980s -- was Bob Greene.

I haven't given any thought to Bob Greene in years.  But for no good reason, I've come across some material lately about him and about the scandal in which his career ended in 2002.  Let's not discuss the scandal now. You can read about it here if you want.

But that was, as I say, in 2002, and by that time we all knew about the internet. The old gates were crumbling, and Greene's career was well past its peak by any measure.

The final column that he wrote for his home-base paper was published on September 11, 2002. Itr was a reflection on the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks: easily the most obvious subject about which one could have written a column for publication on that day, and Greene's great flaw was that he too often wrote about the most obvious subjects.

Though not an original thinker, Greene did have a distinctive voice. I went through a phase of reading him with some regularity, and I don't regret it. He'd write thus: "Baseball hasn't been the national pasttime for many years now -- no sport is. The national pasttime, like it or not, is watching television."

Or, a tad more philosophical, "If you look closely enough, amid the merciless and the bitter, there is always the chance that you may find comfort and the promise of something good."

In 1984 he wrote a book about his daughter's first year of life, and his reactions to fatherhood, Good Morning Merry Sunshine. Yes, the title wasn't original. The name is spelled either "Mary" or "Merry" in the children's song: "Good morning Merry Sunshine/ How did you wake so soon? You scared the little stars away/ And shined away the moon."

His baby's actual name wasn't Mary, It was Amanda Sue. Still, the book has a nce tone of smaltz, cleverly maintained with variations.  "Slowly, it occurred to me that I might have the opportunity here to tell the most human story I have ever encoutered -- the story of a new life, and how that new life affects the lives of the two people who have helped to create it."

So it is comforting (in this merciless world) to notice that Greene did make something of a comeback as a writer, although never again as a newspaper columnist, years after his 2002 fall from grace.

I'll say something about his comeback tomorrow.

Comments

  1. Thank you for this. I hadn't thought about Bob Greene in many years. I read him regularly in the 1970s, did not like his sentimentality, but found myself reading him anyway. I grant that we had similar midwestern boyhoods, except that mine was poorer and rougher.

    I was not aware that a sex scandal had ended his career as a columnist in 2002. According to Wikipedia, she was of legal age in Illinois, and the tryst was not consumated, at his insistence. And Mrs Greene died 4 months of health problems 4 months after his dismissal. Did her broken heart break her will to live...?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak