don't be talking bad about we changs.

i had the opportunity to meet the other mr. chang at a tennis event in atlanta and can report that he is a charming person.

he was interested how i got the name irving and it was the first time he'd ever met a chinese jew.

i'm sure the writer would have won the US open if it weren't for m. chang.

i would have been a pro basketball player if it weren't for julius irving.

As a Michael Chang fan and someone who has played and taught tennis for 30 years, indulge me these points.

There's an undercurrent of self loathing in the piece. Own what you are and stand by it; that's what Michael Chang did his entire career.

He brought decency and honor to the game. You could do worse. And if his conduct was informed and guided by his Christianity, so be it. Playing with spirit takes many forms.

"Outlasting" an opponent IS outplaying him or her. Michael Chang had the grit and determination to play through all sorts of insufficiencies and prevail. How is this a strike on him?

The underhanded serve? One of my favorite moments in sports. It showed craft, technique, innovation, ingenuity. The equivalent of a suicide squeeze in baseball - the willingness to play small ball with everything on the line.

Forgive the rant. But as a 6'3" guy who lost to my share of retrievers, I've learned to respect the difference.

i believe the undercurrent of self loathing is the point of the article more than anything about Michael Chang. The article has nothing to do with Michael Chang, it is how a teenage boy reacted to Michael Chang and Asian stereotypes.

this is a story about the author growing up Chinese American. It is about the interaction of stereotypes with individualism. The title refers to how the author could have maybe been a slightly better tennis player if he had not been soooo preoccupied and dedicated to being the exception to any Chinese American stereotype. The author is owning this slight self-destructive childhood flaw and has turned it into a story.

Beyond the clear self-loathing and projecting going on in this piece, the idea that somehow Chang had to make up for lacking physical skills couldn't be further off.

Unlike baseball, where words like "crafty" or "intelligent" are pseudonyms for being out of shape, in tennis to succeed at such a style of play requires you to be orders of magnitude faster and more agile than your opponent.

The smaller players like Chang are always the quickest and fastest guys on the court... making them far better athletes than the bruisers who just hit bombs from the baseline and usually lose in the second round.

I think both of you are missing the point.

The author isn't saying Chang is a bad person. And obviously the article is about the author's insecurities and problems with being defined by his race.

"Own what you are and stand by it"

The point is that Chang didn't help the author do this; instead he chimed with the stereotypes that the author was trying to escape.

It's no problem for Chang to do that, since that fits fine with who he wants to be. That's not putting Chang down. But the theme of the piece is that just because a breakthrough celebrity has the same race as you, doesn't necessarily make it easier for you to "own what you are". In this case, it made it harder rather than easier, because the stereotypes the author wanted to escape from were strengthened. That's the irony that makes for a classic Slate contrarian article.

So there's no point saying "Chang is actually a nice guy" -- of course he is. Or, "This style of play is valid" -- yes, it works, but that's precisely the problem for Huan. Or that Huan is uncomfortable with certain aspects of Chinese American culture -- well, obviously, or he wouldn't have written the article. The point isn't to take Huan seriously that Chang "ruined" his pro-tennis career -- that's just hyperbole for the sake of a laugh. The central idea is the meditation on race, celebrity and individuality.

"Both of you" was aimed at the first two posters, not the next two who posted while I was writing.

indeed, i think we wrote the same sentiment simulanteously

But I think it's also important to consider how we often shoehorn people into roles based on how we want to think of them and of ourselves.

For example, while it is reasonable to understand that the writer could view Chang's doting parents who followed him around everywhere-- as he was a pro in his teens-- as being very Chinese, it's also representative of a mindset of predisposition towards categorization.

Every young tennis player has swarming, overbearing, overindulgent parents who follow their every move.

im1: I thought so too! (Does that count as a second coincidence?)

matt: That's a good point, but parental influence is a hot-button topic with my Chinese friends -- especially maternal influence, which maybe isn't quite so common in the tennis world. Huan would have done well to note your point, but I think he still would've brought up the anecdote about the mother...

Really enjoyed your thoughts and discussion...especially remarks about celebrity-identification, which is so powerful during teenage years when kids are trying to figure out who they are.

'But I think it's also important to consider how we often shoehorn people into roles based on how we want to think of them and of ourselves.'

what do you mean 'we' keemosabe? just because you stereotype people, doesn't mean everyone does. some of us do not buy into stupid hollywood movies and leftist group identity politics.

"The author isn't saying Chang is a bad person. And obviously the article is about the author's insecurities and problems with being defined by his race."

I didn't pick up on this at all. The tennis player that ultimatedly epitomized waht the author perceived as an exemplary asian player was Srichaphan. But that, as was made sufficiently clear in the article, was due mostly to Srichaphan's resemblance to the European players the author admire so much in terms of height and female preference. Furthermore, the author professes his admiration for Srichaphan NOW, and I can only assume the author as of 2008 is no longer a teenager.