Roger Federer and the mystery of genius
I hope you got your print edition of the Philippine Star yesterday—it was the size and heft of a phone book—because it should become a collector’s item.
On the occasion of the 24th anniversary of the paper, our Lifestyle editor Millet M. Mananquil (MMM, like James Bond’s boss times 3) asked 24 columnists to write about 24 icons in business, politics, and the arts. Ideally the subject should be someone the writer has covered extensively, or know very well. When the assignment arrived I spent half a day considering my options. There’s my Jedi master, but I had just interviewed him before the elections; also, his daughter Bianca’s prize-winning essay on his father Teodoro Locsin, Senior would appear in the same issue. I could write about Jaime Augusto Zobel again, but Igan was already writing about his father, plus I know exactly what Jaime would say. (“Is this really necessary?”, then quick change of topic to rugby or books.) There’s Ely Buendia, but I have made too much of my association with the Eraserheads considering I was around for about five minutes (See, I just dropped their names for no good reason).
Then it occurred to me that I was approaching the assignment from the wrong angle, Prudence, when I should be coming from a position of Awe. Quandary resolved. I would write about an individual I do not know personally but whose career I have followed for the last ten years, whose tribulations and triumphs I have experienced with such intensity that they might have been my own. I would write about Roger Federer.
Genius is a dangerous idea. Genius is an affront to the principle that all people are created equal. But there is no denying that there are individuals who perform feats no one else can, and pull them off as if they were the easiest, most natural things in the world.
Anyone can aspire to the extraordinary. It takes discipline, determination, and years of training to develop a natural talent, but it can be done. No doubt discipline, determination and training are also vital to the progress of genius, but they are not its source. Genius seems to spring from out of nowhere, causing us to ask: How did he do that? Is that even possible? We sense that the feat came from someplace beyond human effort. We are forced to admit that sometimes, sheer will is not enough.
Genius is the gift that possesses its recipient. Our admiration is tinged with resentment because we suspect that its recipient has been chosen over us. Genius lends credence to the notion of Destiny.
Roger Federer is a genius.
Continue reading this article in the Philippine Star’s 24th Anniversary Issue.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
July 29th, 2010 at 02:24
Hi Jessica, I really only wanted to say how BIG a fan I am of Roger Federer. But then I realized that your Twisted columns on tennis were what turned me on to the game. I remembered, too, that it was your column that made me start reading serious literature, even when I was alone in the pursuit and ill-equipped at the time. (I was a freshman in high school and a great fan of TODAY; I miss it to this day.)
So my two devotions in life, literature and tennis (Roger Federer, in particular), I owe to you. It must be awesome and daunting for you to realize such influence on other people. But I’m sure that, like me, they can’t thank you enough for leading them to the matchless experience of the sublime.
July 29th, 2010 at 02:26
Oh and may I just say that I posted a message on Roger’s Facebook page immediately after his loss in London urging him to take on a coach. I don’t care if it sounds delusional, but I feel like Roger listened to me. Paul Annacone is a fantastic choice, don’t you agree?
July 29th, 2010 at 02:51
Ha! My column has not been a total waste of time. Thanks.
July 29th, 2010 at 07:13
Wow, I feel stupid about asking in an earlier blog entry whether David Foster Wallace is good or not. Turns out, I’ve already read some of his pieces a few years before.
Glad you picked Jesus Fed. You have, as Roger would say, a FANTASTIC taste.
July 29th, 2010 at 07:36
Loved this line from your article:
“His opponents were not so much adversaries as co-conspirators, present only because the rules required two players.”