The book and the subsequent film, Eight Men Out, both depict one of the lowest moments in professional sports in American history. Popularly known as the Black Sox scandal, it involved members of the Chicago White Sox baseball team allegedly taking money from players in exchange for deliberately losing the 1919 World Series. and the participants in the scandal have been a source of contention ever since, with supporters of several players pointing to statistics that belie the notion that some of them deliberately played poorly. The book and film present this story through a vast panorama of characters from three worlds: the world of baseball, that of the press and the underworld. As a result, neither the book nor the film contains what is traditionally considered a protagonist or hero. Rather, both plays emphasize the complexity of all the characters, rather than the “good” or “bad” of any one. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original Essay Through their medium, an author has more time to evoke resonance and nuance than a filmmaker. It is therefore hardly surprising that Eliott Asinof succeeds in describing the scandal with more complexity than John Sayles can in his film. The real story behind what actually happened in any real event always depends on a variety of elements. Given that no one involved at any level in this drama can appear more than unscrupulous or gullible, it should not be at all surprising that one of them was unwilling to be completely honest . The statements made by the players before the Grand Jury raised more questions than answers, and the true story of the players who started the event will forever remain a mystery. This atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty is felt throughout the book and indeed gives it a feeling of grandeur. The reader can never be completely certain of the deep involvement in the scandal of actors such as Buck Weaver and Shoeless Joe Jackson. As films are made for the satisfaction of mass audiences who have less patience with unanswered questions, John Sayles was forced to be less indefinite. The film provides a starker contrast between players engaged in sports sabotage and those seen as mere pawns. The difference is not necessarily inspired by art, but by economics. The wider the audience for a piece, the less likely it is that nuances and subtleties will be perceived. Compare, for example, an independent film about a low-budget independent film about a parent/child relationship to any sitcom. A central similarity between the book and the film is the decision to make pitcher Eddie Cicotte the emotional center. Cicotte, while a player for whom there is no doubt he was a willing participant, nevertheless appears to have the best reason of all for doing what he did. The book and film both portray Cicotte as the primary recipient of White Sox owner Charlie Comiskey's sensational greed, but also fail to make him a hero. Rather, he was an excellent pitcher who was denied a bonus for winning thirty games in one season only because, allegedly, Comiskey ordered him to the bench so he wouldn't have the chance. chance. While the book and film strive to make Eddie Cicotte sympathetic, even commendable, he is accustomed to different ideological goals in the two media. For Asinoff, Cicotte's position isprimarily exploited as a figure of opposition to Charlie Comiskey. In the book, Eddie Cicotte appears older and a little frail, an aging pitcher whose arm was feeling the effects of the thousands of balls he had thrown over the year. Despite the fact that his contributions and loyalty were expressed in a 29-7 record, his bank account did not reflect his role in providing owner Comiskey with a team that many called his best. Asinoff's book introduces an element of David versus Goliath with the notable reversal of fortune by having Goliath win. Although elements of a socialist struggle between owners and workers exist in the book, for the most part Asinoff aims for a strict historical resonance. Jonathan Sayles, for his part, directly attacks the story to comment on a broader socio-economic perspective. Sayles emphasizes the ideological distinctions between ownership and the players, then establishes a conscious connection between Comiskey and the players; both exploit baseball players and both will find themselves exempt from any serious penalties. As such, what Sayles seems to be asserting is that wanting to better yourself is part of the American dream – and that there is little distinction between doing so legally or illegally. No matter what, the disenfranchised worker will always be the one who pays the price for another man's successful realization of his dream. That Sayles is particularly interested in the social issues that exist in this story can be illustrated by the fact that it is he himself who appears as writer Ring Lardner's character and responds to owner Charlie Comiskey's undeserved praise with "S "He's such a fan, why doesn't he pay them a living wage?" Sayles uses Eddie Cicotte to drive home the essential point that if the White Sox owner had only paid his employees what they deserved. , they would never have had a reason to turn to the players. The whole scandal could have been avoided. At issue in Cicotte's specifics are the broader issues of baseball labor relations and social stratification. gap between the American dream and reality Baseball is considered the national pastime of the United States and holds a special place in American symbolism. As the first successful professional sport, baseball was seen as a means of. democratize ambition; any talented person could succeed playing baseball. However, this may not be the case. It is particularly interesting that the scandal became known as the Black Sox Scandal; the events took place before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. Result: no black player is involved in the scandal, and obviously no black player involved either in the management of baseball or in the world of organized crime. At a time when racism was the norm and Jim Crow laws were in effect across much of America, perhaps one of the reasons the scandal was so shocking was that everyone involved was white. The outrage may have been sparked not only because it was assumed that, as men paid to play a sport, these men would not have economic problems that would force them to such extreme action, but also because that men, as whites, could not be criminals. Black men, however, easily could have been. It is therefore the democratization of the national pastime which has probably suffered the most. The fact that it was only white men who would engage in such an embarrassing chain of events highlights two main considerations that most people.