The book and subsequent film Eight Men Out both portray one of the lowest points of 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 gamblers in exchange for purposely losing the 1919 World Series. The actual events and participants in the scandal have been dated then a point of contention, with supporters of several players pointing to statistics that disprove the idea that some of them purposely played poorly. Both the book and the film present this story through a vast panorama of characters from three worlds: the world of baseball, that of newspapers and that of the underworld. As a result, neither the book nor the film contains what is traditionally considered a protagonist or hero. Rather, both pieces emphasize the complexity of all the characters, rather than the "good" or "bad" of any one of them. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay By virtue of his medium, an author has more time to evoke resonance and nuance than a director. It is therefore not surprising that Eliott Asinof manages to depict the scandal with greater complexity than John Sayles can in his film. The real story behind what really happened in any real event always depends on a variety of elements. Since no one involved at any level in this drama can seem anything better than unscrupulous or gullible, it shouldn't be at all surprising that any of them may not have been willing to be completely honest. The statements gamblers made to the Grand Jury raised more questions than answers, and the true story of the gamblers who started the event will forever remain mysterious. That atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty is felt throughout the book and, indeed, gives it a sense of grandeur. The reader can never be completely certain how deeply involved in the scandal were actors like Buck Weaver and Shoeless Joe Jackson. Because films are made to please a mass audience that has less patience with unanswered questions, John Sayles was forced to be less indefinite. The film provides a starker contrast between those players engaged in athletic sabotage and those presumed to be mere pawns. The difference is not necessarily inspired by art, but by economics. The broader the audience a piece is aimed at, the less likely it is that nuances and subtleties will be seen. Compare, for example, an indie film about a low budget indie 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, despite being a player for whom there is no doubt he was an intentional participant, still seems to have the best reason of all for doing what he did. Both the book and the film present Cicotte as the primary recipient of White Sox owner Charlie Comiskey's sensational greed, but they also fail to turn him into a hero. Rather, he was a great pitcher who was denied a bonus for winning thirty games in a season only because, allegedly, Comiskey ordered him to be benched so he wouldn't get the chance. While both the book and the film strive to make Eddie Cicotte likeable if not downright praiseworthy, he is accustomed to different ideological goals in the two media. For Asinoff, Cicotte's position is exploited primarily as a figureheadopposition to Charlie Comiskey. In the book, Eddie Cicotte appears older and a little frailer, an aging pitcher whose arm was feeling the effects of thousands of balls thrown over the course of a 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 considered the best. Asinoff's book introduces an element of David versus Goliath with the notable reversal of fortune in having Goliath win. While there are elements of a socialist struggle between owners and workers in the book, for the most part Asinoff aims for rigorous historical resonance. Jonathan Sayles, on the other hand, directly attacks the story to comment on a broader socio-economic perspective. Sayles accentuates the ideological distinctions between ownership and gamblers and then makes a conscious connection between Comiskey and gamblers; both are exploiting baseball players and both will find themselves exempt from any serious penalties. As such, what Sayles seems to be arguing is that the American dream is about wanting to better yourself – and there is little distinction between doing so legally or illegally. Regardless, the disenfranchised worker will always be the one who pays the price for the successful realization of another man's dream. That Sayles is particularly interested in the social stakes present in this story can be exemplified by the fact that he himself appears as the writer Ring Lardner and responds to the owner Charlie Comiskey's undeserved praise with "If he's such a fan, Why don't you pay them a living wage?" Sayles uses Eddie Cicotte to drive home the essential point that if the owner of the White Sox had paid his employees only what they deserved, they would never have had reason to turn to gamblers. The whole scandal could have been avoided. At issue specifically with Cicotte, the larger issues of employee relations in baseball and social stratification cause the disconnect between the American dream and reality. Baseball has been considered America's national pastime and holds a special place in American symbolism. As the first highly successful professional sport, baseball was thought to democratize ambition; anyone with talent could be successful playing baseball. Yet this may not be the case. Of particular interest is that the scandal became known as the Black Sox scandal; the events took place before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. As a result, there are no black players implicated in the scandal, and obviously no black players involved in baseball management or organized crime circles. In an era when racism was the norm and Jim Crow laws were in place across much of America, perhaps one reason the scandal was so shocking was that everyone involved was white. The indignation may have been triggered not only because it was taken for granted that, since males were paid to practice a sport, these men would not have had economic problems that would have forced them to such an extreme action, but also because the men, in as white, they couldn't possibly be criminals. Black men, however, could easily have been. Therefore, it was the democratization of the national pastime that suffered the greatest blow. The fact that these were all white men involved in such a problematic chain of events points to two major considerations that most people preferred to overlook regarding professional sports at the time. Becoming an athlete wasn't necessarily a choice; as.