English 101 OL1 Midterm: Contrasting Oates' and Angelou's Approaches

This essay, written for an English 101 midterm, contrasts the approaches of Joyce Carol Oates and Maya Angelou. It examines how Angelou depicts a fight with cultural roots, showcasing a test of skill, while Oates delves into deeper roots, particularly male-female relationships infused with sexuality, as seen in her essay on Mike Tyson and the sport of boxing. The essay explores Oates' perspective on the aggressive masculinity of boxing and its connection to societal issues like rape and the exploitation of athletes. It analyzes the cultural and social implications of the themes presented by both authors. The analysis includes a comparison of their literary styles, thematic focuses, and the underlying messages conveyed about societal norms, gender dynamics, and the complexities of human behavior.

English 101 OL1 – Midterm
After reading Carol Oates, write an essay contrasting their very different approaches. Angelou
depicts the fight she describes as possessing cultural roots, a test of skill between an African
American hero and his Italian opponent. Oates does not focus as much on the cultural
component (though she certainly alludes to it); instead she speaks of deeper roots, specifically
male- female relationships that transcend race and are infused with sexuality.
“Rape and the Boxing Ring – By Joyce Carol Oates
Originally published in Newsweek, February 24, 1992.
Mike Tyson’s conviction on rape charges in Indianapolis is a minor tragedy for the beleaguered sport of boxing, but
a considerable triumph for women’s rights. For once, though bookmakers were giving 5-1 odds that Tyson would
be acquitted, and the mood of the country seems distinctly conservative, a jury resisted the outrageous defense
that a rape victim is to be blamed for her own predicament. For once, a celebrity with enormous financial
resources did not escape trial and a criminal conviction by settling with his accuser out of court.
That boxing and “women’s rights” should be perceived as opposed is symbolically appropriate, since of all sports,
boxing is the most aggressively masculine, the very soul of war in microcosm. Elemental and dramatically concise,
it raises to an art the passions underlying direct human aggression; its fundamentally murderous intent is not
obscured by the pursuit of balls or pucks, nor can the participants expect help from teammates. In a civilized,
humanitarian society, one would expect such a blood sport to have died out, yet boxing, sponsored by gambling
casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and broadcast by cable television, flourishes: had the current heavyweight
champion, Evander Holyfield, fought Mike Tyson in a title defense, Holyfield would have earned no less than $30
million. If Tyson were still champion, and still fighting, he would be earning more.
The paradox of boxing is that it so excessively rewards men for inflicting injury upon one another that, outside the
ring, with less “art,” would be punishable as aggravated assault, or manslaughter. Boxing belongs to that species of
mysterious masculine activity for which anthropologists use such terms as “deep play”: activity that is wholly
without utilitarian value, in fact contrary to utilitarian value, so dangerous that no amount of money can justify it.
Sports-car racing, stunt flying, mountain climbing, bullfighting, dueling—these activities, through history, have
provided ways in which the individual can dramatically, if sometimes fatally, distinguish himself from the crowd,
usually with the adulation and envy of the crowd, and traditionally, the love of women. Women—in essence,
Woman—is the prize, usually self-proffered. To look upon organized sports as a continuum of Darwinian theory—
in which the sports-star hero flaunts the superiority of his genes—is to see how displays of masculine aggression
have their sexual component, as ingrained in human beings as any instinct for self-preservation and reproduction.
In a capitalist society, the secret is to capitalize upon instinct.
Yet even within the very special world of sports, boxing is distinct. Is there any athlete, however celebrated in his
own sport, who would not rather reign as the heavyweight champion of the world? If, in fantasy at least, he could
be another Muhammad Ali, or Joe Louis, or indeed, Mike Tyson in his prime? Boxing celebrates the individual man
in his maleness, not merely in his skill as an athlete—though boxing demands enormous skill, and its training is far
more arduous than most men could endure for more than a day or two. All athletes can become addicted to their
own adrenaline, but none more obviously than the boxer, who, like Sugar Ray Leonard, already a multimillionaire
with numerous occupations outside the ring, will risk serious injury by coming back out of retirement; as Mike
Tyson has said, “Outside of boxing, everything is so boring.” What makes boxing repulsive to many observers is
precisely what makes boxing so fascinating to participants.

This is because it is a highly organized ritual that violates taboo. It flouts such moral prescriptions as “Thou shalt
not kill.” It celebrates, not meekness, but flamboyant aggression. No one who has not seen live boxing matches (in
contrast to the sanitized matches broadcast over television) can quite grasp its eerie fascination—the spectator’s
sense that he or she is a witness to madness, yet a madness sanctioned by tradition and custom, as finely honed by
certain celebrated practitioners as an artist’s performance at the highest level of genius, and, yet more disturbing,
immensely gratifying to the audience. Boxing mimics our early ancestors’ rite of bloody sacrifice and redemption; it
excites desires most civilized men and women find abhorrent. For some observers, it is frankly obscene, like
pornography; yet, unlike pornography, it is not fantasy but real, thus far more subversive.
The paradox for the boxer is that, in the ring, he experiences himself as a living conduit for the inchoate, demonic
will of the crowd: the expression of their collective desire, which is to pound another human being into absolute
submission. The more vicious the boxer, the greater the acclaim. And the financial reward—Tyson is reported to
have earned $100 million. (He who at the age of 13 was plucked from a boys’ school for juvenile delinquents in
upstate New York.) Like the champion gladiators of Roman decadence, he will be both honored and despised, for,
no matter his celebrity, and the gift of his talent, his energies spring from the violation of taboo and he himself is
tainted by it.
Mike Tyson has said that he does not think of boxing as a sport. He sees himself as a fantasy gladiator who, by
“destructing” opponents, enacts others’ fantasies in his own being. That the majority of these others are well-to-
do whites who would themselves crumple at a first blow, and would surely claim a pious humanitarianism, would
not go unnoticed by so wary and watchful a man. Cynicism is not an inevitable consequence of success, but it is
difficult to retain one’s boyish naivete in the company of the sort of people, among them the notorious Don King,
who have surrounded Tyson since 1988, when his co-manager, Jim Jacobs, died. As Floyd Patterson, an ex-
heavyweight champion who has led an exemplary life, has said, “When you have millions of dollars, you have
millions of friends.”
It should not be charged against boxing that Mike Tyson is boxing in any way. Boxers tend to be fiercely
individualistic, and Tyson is, at the least, an enigma. He began his career, under the tutelage of the legendary
trainer Cus D’Amato, as a strategist, in the mode of such brilliant technicians as Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray
Robinson. He was always aware of a lineage with Jack Dempsey, arguably the most electrifying of all heavyweight
champions, whose nonstop aggression revolutionized the sport and whose shaved haircut and malevolent scowl,
and, indeed, penchant for dirty fighting, made a tremendous impression on the young Tyson.
In recent years, however, Tyson seems to have styled himself at least partly on the model of Charles (Sonny)
Liston, the “baddest of the bad” black heavyweights. Liston had numerous arrests to his credit and served time in
prison (for assaulting a policeman); he had the air, not entirely contrived, of a sociopath; he was always friendly
with racketeers, and died of a drug overdose that may in fact have been murder. (It is not coincidental that Don
King, whom Tyson has much admired, and who Tyson has empowered to ruin his career, was convicted of
manslaughter and served time in an Ohio prison.) Like Liston, Tyson has grown to take a cynical pleasure in publicly
condoned sadism (his “revenge” bout with Tyrell Biggs, whom he carried for seven long rounds in order to inflict
maximum damage) and in playing the outlaw; his contempt for women, escalating in recent years, is a part of that
guise. The witty obscenity of a prefight taunt of Tyson’s—”I’ll make you into my girlfriend”—is the boast of the
rapist.
Perhaps rape itself is a gesture, a violent repudiation of the female, in the assertion of maleness that would seem
to require nothing beyond physical gratification of the crudest kind. The supreme macho gesture—like knocking
out an opponent and standing over his fallen body, gloves raised in triumph.
In boxing circles, it is said—this, with an affectionate sort of humor—that the heavyweight champion is the 300-
pound gorilla who sits anywhere in the room he wants; and, presumably, takes any female he wants. Such a
grandiose sense of entitlement, fueled by the insecurities and emotions of adolescence, can have disastrous
consequences. Where once it was believed that Mike Tyson might mature into the greatest heavyweight of all
time, breaking Rocky Marciano’s record of 49 victories and no defeats, it was generally acknowledged that, since

his defeat of Michael Spinks in 1988, he had allowed his boxing skills to deteriorate. Not simply his ignominious
loss of his title to the mediocre James (Buster) Douglas in 1990, but subsequent lackluster victories against
mediocre opponents made it clear that Tyson was no longer a serious, nor even very interesting, boxer.
The dazzling reflexes were dulled, the shrewd defensive skills drilled into him by D’Amato were largely abandoned:
Tyson emerged suddenly as a conventional heavyweight like Gerry Cooney, who advances upon his opponent with
the hope of knocking him out with a single punch—and does not always succeed. By 25, Tyson seemed already
middle aged, burnt out. He would have no great fights after all. So, strangely, he seemed to invite his fate outside
the ring, with sadomasochistic persistence, testing the limits of his celebrity’s license to offend by ever-escalating
acts of aggression and sexual effrontery.
The familiar sports adage is surely true; one’s ultimate opponent is oneself.
It may be objected that these remarks center upon the rapist, and not his victim; that sympathy, pity, even in some
quarters moral outrage flow to the criminal and not the person he has violated. In this case, ironically, the victim,
Desiree Washington, though she will surely bear psychic scars through her life, has emerged as a victor, a heroine:
a young woman whose traumatic experience has been, as so few traumas can be, the vehicle for a courageous and
selfless stand against the sexual abuse of women and children in America. She seems to know that herself, telling
People magazine, “It was the right thing to do.” She was fortunate in drawing a jury who rejected classic defense
ploys by blaming the victim and/or arguing consent. Our criminal-justice system being what it is, she was lucky.
Tyson, who might have been acquitted elsewhere in the country, was unlucky.
Whom to blame for this most recent of sports disgraces in America? The culture that flings young athletes like
Tyson up out of obscurity, makes millionaires of them and watches them self-destruct? Promoters like Don King
and Bob Arum? Celebrity hunters like Robin Givens, Tyson’s ex-wife, who seemed to have exploited him for his
money and as a means of promoting her own acting career? The indulgence generally granted star athletes when
they behave recklessly? When they abuse drugs and alcohol, and mistreat women?
I suggest that no one is to blame, finally, except the perpetrator himself. In Montieth Illingworth’s cogently argued
biography of Tyson, “Mike Tyson: Money, Myth and Betrayal,” Tyson is quoted, after one or another public
debacle: “People say ‘Poor guy.’ That insults me. I despise sympathy. So I screwed up. I made some mistakes. ‘Poor
guy,’ like I’m some victim. There’s nothing poor about me.”