I know, for someone to ask that question is sacrilege, it would be hard to imagine the Olympics beginning and ending without, well, the beginning and ending.
A Slate editorial I read seemed to pull that question out of me. What makes the Olympics so special in most people's minds is that it is a moment in history where all of the major countries come together in athletic brotherhood, bridging the gaps of... blah blah blah... you get it. In recent decades, holes have been poked into that balloon which holds everyone's warm fuzzies for the Olympics. We've seen it time and time again of how the Olympics pales in comparison to its good name.
Let's get back to it then. The opening/closing ceremonies are just that, ceremonies - two grand shows. They are the magician waving with one hand, driving your attention away from the total waste of resources and manpower that only contribute to temporary wealth/prosperity for a country or region. Perhaps that editorial got me stirred up after all. ;)
Nothing is hardly ever what it seems when it comes to the Olympic ceremonies. Not to mention, it's not the Summer Olympics. It's the light beer of the Olympics. The one that isn't taken as seriously as its full bodied sibling. Don't believe me? Not even the Winter Olympics takes itself as seriously. This year, the opening ceremony takes place two days after the games begin.
Here's an entertaining quote from the editorial:
"But the old lie becomes even worse—a super-lie, so to speak—when you realize it doesn’t open anything. Opening, according to Merriam-Webster, means “an act or instance of beginning.” The Pyeongchang opening ceremony begins nothing. They should call it the opened-two-days-ago ceremony instead."
Do you agree? Should there be this much hoopla over the opening and closing ceremonies of the Winter Olympics?