Why would you read a 5-page article (7 if you count the 2 [2!] pages of footnotes) that is ostensibly about tennis? You might read said article because it was written by David Foster Wallace (author of Infinite Jest, Oblivion: Stories, and Consider the Lobster), of all people. I tend to look up a lot of words when reading--a 3-click process, thanks to Firefox/dictionary.com. I also tend to read a lot of sports writing. I don't, however, tend to look up a lot of words while reading sports writing. Yet somehow Wallace wrangled me into looking up "dolorous," "annealed," and "mesomorph" while reading his article on Roger Federer--who, btw, is apparently a metaphysical anomaly. Even better, Wallace's seriously eccentric writing is not at all contrived; his brilliant convolutedness is all natural, and hence refreshing.

More importantly, perhaps, he is unapologetic about his subject matter. He and I are in the same camp in that we think sports and basic, swamp-level popular culture in general are suitable areas for cultural, semiotic, and even philosophical investigation. This commonality, admittedly, may have biased me in favour of said article. The main point, if you haven't drifted off yet--I know I have--is that the article is good because, among and subordinate to other things, it is a healthy "FU!" to those self-described intellectuals who look down upon sports (etc.) and the "fanboydom" that they inspire.

Another reason to support shameless popular entertainment: Roxanne's cousin is in Snakes on a Plane, and John Tucker Must Die. It probably seems like I'm making that up, but I'm not. (To expand on Chuck's colour-coding scheme: green means it's the truth.)