I am quite pleased by the Mets' 7-2 win against the Marlins today. The Great Santana had one of the best Opening Day starts in Mets history (only Tom Seaver had more strikeouts on Opening Day - 9-8 - than Santana), the bullpen didn't allow any runs, David Wright had two hits and three RBI, Jose Reyes also had a good game, and no one got injured. The only disturbing aspects were that Wright and Reyes each got caught stealing, both rarities. But overall it was a great start to the season, especially since the Phillies also lost.
I was not pleased by MLB.tv's technical problems. Apparently the site crashed because so many people were trying to watch it this afternoon. You would think that they would have extra bandwidth available in anticipation of Opening Day, but no. So I had to follow the game on ESPN.com instead of watching it live. Arggh.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Addendum to the facebook update
I forgot to mention two things about Scrabulous in my last post:
1. I started out getting TERRIBLE tiles; in my first game I kept getting vowels, and in my second game consonants. I felt like the computer hated me. But now things are evening out a bit.
2. Every time I check my games and I don't have any moves to make, I start another game with someone. I'm currently playing eight games even though I've only been playing for three days. Most of my partners need to check their games more often, only a few are as dedicated as me (and weirdly, two of the most dedicated have names beginning with "K").
I am happy that Scrabulous uses the Tournament Word List (TWL) rather than just the Official SCRABBLE Players' Dictionary (OSPD). The TWL is better because it contains all of the legal words, including words that are deemed "objectionable," i.e., nearly every word related to sex, whereas the OSPD is a censored list because it tries to be "family-friendly." I am glad that the Scrabulous creators realize that to go along with the OSPD's censorship would be antithetical to the spirit of the game, which is to explore and enjoy the English language in all its beauty.
1. I started out getting TERRIBLE tiles; in my first game I kept getting vowels, and in my second game consonants. I felt like the computer hated me. But now things are evening out a bit.
2. Every time I check my games and I don't have any moves to make, I start another game with someone. I'm currently playing eight games even though I've only been playing for three days. Most of my partners need to check their games more often, only a few are as dedicated as me (and weirdly, two of the most dedicated have names beginning with "K").
I am happy that Scrabulous uses the Tournament Word List (TWL) rather than just the Official SCRABBLE Players' Dictionary (OSPD). The TWL is better because it contains all of the legal words, including words that are deemed "objectionable," i.e., nearly every word related to sex, whereas the OSPD is a censored list because it tries to be "family-friendly." I am glad that the Scrabulous creators realize that to go along with the OSPD's censorship would be antithetical to the spirit of the game, which is to explore and enjoy the English language in all its beauty.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
facebook update
I have become a facebook addict. I check it even more than I check my e-mail now - three or more times a day. Yesterday my friend Kara convinced me to add the Scrabulous application, so now there is even more reason for me to check my account because I have to make my SCRABBLE moves.
It's also been interesting to see who I've become friends with. Here is the breakdown so far:
4 childhood friends
4 high school friends
4 college friends/profs
4 graduate school friends
8 New York friends (from the two years I spent in Manhattan between college and grad school)
2 spouses of friends
I have at least semi-regular (once or more every fortnight) facebook interactions with about half of them.
It's also been interesting to see who I've become friends with. Here is the breakdown so far:
4 childhood friends
4 high school friends
4 college friends/profs
4 graduate school friends
8 New York friends (from the two years I spent in Manhattan between college and grad school)
2 spouses of friends
I have at least semi-regular (once or more every fortnight) facebook interactions with about half of them.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Thoughts on Robert Herrick's poetry
I possess a general dislike for literature written before 1816 (Frankenstein), but I've been reading some of Robert Herrick's poetry (1591-1674), and it's pretty cool (yes, even the over-anthologized "To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time"). I am especially drawn to his treatment of the erotic in poems such as "Upon the Loss of His Mistresses," "Cherry-Ripe," "Corinna's Going A Maying," and the unforgettable "Fresh Cheese and Cream." (Would ye have fresh Cheese and Cream? / Julia's Breast can give you them: / And if more; each Nipple cries, / To your Cream, here's Strawberries.) These poems are humorous, almost light verse, yet they are also respectful and profound.
I am especially drawn to "Delight in Disorder," which describes the alluring nature of a woman undoing her clothing before sex. What intrigues me about this poem is that Herrick writes it as an employee of the Church of England, an institution which would certainly not delight in the disordering of things, especially when that disordering involved illicit sex. So Herrick places the erotic in conflict with the religious. The two combatants are closely tied together - the Church is obsessed with sex (what other natural activity has so many rules governing it?), and part of the allure of sex is that it is a traditionally taboo activity - but Herrick's poem forces the reader to choose a side. Do you prefer chaste order, or do you prefer the disorder of "An erring lace" and "tempestuous petticoats?" I know what my choice is.
I am especially drawn to "Delight in Disorder," which describes the alluring nature of a woman undoing her clothing before sex. What intrigues me about this poem is that Herrick writes it as an employee of the Church of England, an institution which would certainly not delight in the disordering of things, especially when that disordering involved illicit sex. So Herrick places the erotic in conflict with the religious. The two combatants are closely tied together - the Church is obsessed with sex (what other natural activity has so many rules governing it?), and part of the allure of sex is that it is a traditionally taboo activity - but Herrick's poem forces the reader to choose a side. Do you prefer chaste order, or do you prefer the disorder of "An erring lace" and "tempestuous petticoats?" I know what my choice is.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
On the watching of baseball
I've been slowly reading through Roger Angell's Season Ticket over the past few weeks. Today I came across an intriguing statement in it from Roy Eisenhardt, former president of the Oakland A's. He says, "The delivery systems of baseball are a great concern now [...] televised baseball is is almost an auto-immune disease [...] Baseball can't really be taken in on television, because of our ingrained habits of TV-watching [which teach us to expect instant gratification ...] Baseball is a terrific radio sport by contrast, because radio feeds our imagination" (92-93).
My baseball-watching experiences jive with this statement. Although I now do a large majority of my baseball-watching via television, I would never have developed a love for baseball without first seeing it live. I became a baseball fan when my dad took me to a Mets game in 1985 when I was five years old. The Mets destroyed the Braves that day something like 13-3 or 14-4, and the two most mythical Mets of the era, Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry (whose names along with those of Keith Hernandez and Gary Carter I knew even then, even though at that point in my life I knew basically nothing about the outside world), played important roles in the outcome - Strawberry hit a homerun and Doc got the win. I was hooked. It wasn't just the fact that the Mets had shown that they were an entity to be worshipped with awe and devotion which converted me, but also the communal aspect of watching the game with thousands of other excited fans. The woman sitting next to us kept yelling "Yay Darryl Strawberry!," and gave me some wafer cookies, my favorite at the time. Once I was initiated into the community, I was able to take my appreciation of baseball and apply it to my watching of it on television, but this appreciation probably never would have been developed if I had just experienced televised baseball.
Once I became a fan, I did grow to love watching the Mets on WWOR-TV Channel 9 with Ralph Kiner and Tim McCarver announcing. This was back when McCarver was still a serviceable analyst, in large part because he respected Kiner as former player and therefore didn't feel like the burden of offering inside scoops to the viewers about the game rested solely on his shoulders. Now, when he is teamed up with Joe Buck (who is the most insufferable play-by-play announcer of this era) on Fox's baseball telecasts, McCarver tries too hard, he sounds like he thinks he must be brilliant every time he opens his mouth, and as a result is just shrill and annoying.
I also loved listening to the Mets on the radio on WFAN 660 with Bob Murphy, and later Gary Cohen. Aside from the food and the people, the thing I miss most about New York City is WFAN. In junior high I would come home from school and spend the afternoon listening to "Mike and the Mad Dog," and during the winter I would listen to Rangers hockey games at night with Marv Albert or Howie Rose doing play-by-play alongside Sal "Red Light" Messina. During the 1993-94 season when the Rangers won the Stanley Cup, I listened to so many of their games that I learned the Canadian national anthem by heart, something I've still been unable to do with "The Star-Spangled Banner," which is the worst national anthem ever - "America the Beautiful" would be a much better choice.
My baseball-watching experiences jive with this statement. Although I now do a large majority of my baseball-watching via television, I would never have developed a love for baseball without first seeing it live. I became a baseball fan when my dad took me to a Mets game in 1985 when I was five years old. The Mets destroyed the Braves that day something like 13-3 or 14-4, and the two most mythical Mets of the era, Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry (whose names along with those of Keith Hernandez and Gary Carter I knew even then, even though at that point in my life I knew basically nothing about the outside world), played important roles in the outcome - Strawberry hit a homerun and Doc got the win. I was hooked. It wasn't just the fact that the Mets had shown that they were an entity to be worshipped with awe and devotion which converted me, but also the communal aspect of watching the game with thousands of other excited fans. The woman sitting next to us kept yelling "Yay Darryl Strawberry!," and gave me some wafer cookies, my favorite at the time. Once I was initiated into the community, I was able to take my appreciation of baseball and apply it to my watching of it on television, but this appreciation probably never would have been developed if I had just experienced televised baseball.
Once I became a fan, I did grow to love watching the Mets on WWOR-TV Channel 9 with Ralph Kiner and Tim McCarver announcing. This was back when McCarver was still a serviceable analyst, in large part because he respected Kiner as former player and therefore didn't feel like the burden of offering inside scoops to the viewers about the game rested solely on his shoulders. Now, when he is teamed up with Joe Buck (who is the most insufferable play-by-play announcer of this era) on Fox's baseball telecasts, McCarver tries too hard, he sounds like he thinks he must be brilliant every time he opens his mouth, and as a result is just shrill and annoying.
I also loved listening to the Mets on the radio on WFAN 660 with Bob Murphy, and later Gary Cohen. Aside from the food and the people, the thing I miss most about New York City is WFAN. In junior high I would come home from school and spend the afternoon listening to "Mike and the Mad Dog," and during the winter I would listen to Rangers hockey games at night with Marv Albert or Howie Rose doing play-by-play alongside Sal "Red Light" Messina. During the 1993-94 season when the Rangers won the Stanley Cup, I listened to so many of their games that I learned the Canadian national anthem by heart, something I've still been unable to do with "The Star-Spangled Banner," which is the worst national anthem ever - "America the Beautiful" would be a much better choice.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Thoughts on Song of Solomon
I read Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon this past week for a class, and have come out of it feeling very depressed. The book is excellent in both its craft and its page-turning nature. What depressed me about it is that left me thinking there is no full solution to the problem of racial strife. The only character in the book that tries to fight against racism rather than trying to assimilate to the point of becoming white (Macon) or simply ignoring the issue (Pilate, Milkman) is Guitar, but he uses violent means to do so by attempting to avenge the killing of blacks with the killing of whites. This of course is not a helpful response to racism. But it raises the question, what is? In the fifty or so years since the modern Civil Rights movement began, legislation has improved the situation somewhat, but has still come nowhere near close to fixing the problem. Maybe it will take a full 300 years to completely heal the wounds of 300 years of slavery.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Books Acquired Recently
Books Acquired Recently (again!)
South Street. David Bradley. Used from amazon.com. I recently read Bradley's other novel, The Chaneysville Incident, and it was so good I felt the need to acquire South Street as well.
The Norton Reader. 12th ed. Ed. Linda H. Peterson and John C. Brereton. Free examination copy from the publisher. I might use this for the English 104: Rhetoric and Composition II class I am teaching this summer.
South Street. David Bradley. Used from amazon.com. I recently read Bradley's other novel, The Chaneysville Incident, and it was so good I felt the need to acquire South Street as well.
The Norton Reader. 12th ed. Ed. Linda H. Peterson and John C. Brereton. Free examination copy from the publisher. I might use this for the English 104: Rhetoric and Composition II class I am teaching this summer.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Books Acquired Recently
Books Acquired Recently
All of these were given to me for my birthday yesterday. All but the last two are fiction. I list them in no particular order.
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. Sherman Alexie.
The Time In Between. David Bergen.
Drown. Junot Diaz.
The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton. Jane Smiley.
Dangerous Laughter: 13 Stories. Steven Millhauser.
The Literature of Modern Arabia: An Anthology. Ed. Salma Khadra Jayyusi.
Uncontained: Urban Fiction in Postwar America. Elizabeth A. Wheeler.
Pandolfini's Chess Challenges: 111 Winning Endgames. Bruce Pandolfini.
All of these were given to me for my birthday yesterday. All but the last two are fiction. I list them in no particular order.
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. Sherman Alexie.
The Time In Between. David Bergen.
Drown. Junot Diaz.
The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton. Jane Smiley.
Dangerous Laughter: 13 Stories. Steven Millhauser.
The Literature of Modern Arabia: An Anthology. Ed. Salma Khadra Jayyusi.
Uncontained: Urban Fiction in Postwar America. Elizabeth A. Wheeler.
Pandolfini's Chess Challenges: 111 Winning Endgames. Bruce Pandolfini.
Thinking about poetry
I haven't been reading much poetry lately, and I haven't written any in over two years, but lately it's been popping up here and there in my life, as though the universe is telling me to revisit it. For instance, last night I was at a party when someone asked me what I thought of Yusef Komunyakaa. I replied that I think his poetry is only so-so, and immediately a third person responded with a gasp of horror and a verbal rejoinder to my opinion. I haven't been involved in a stimulating poetry-related occurence like this in ages, and it felt really good.
I stopped interacting with poetry (and by poetry I mean written, not oral poetry) because I am frustrated with academic poetry (i.e., poetry stemming from MFA programs, and the university millieu in general, which with rare exceptions is the only kind of poetry being written in the U.S. today). Its level of discourse is so exclusive, the reader must be a part of the academic world (subculture may be a better word here, but I don't even want to give this world the validation that calling it a "subculture" would give it) from which it comes in order to access the poems, which is not how poetry (or literature in general) should be. It should be from the gut, a visceral experience for both writer and reader that only requires an open, critical mind for the possibility of a revelation or sublime episode to be there. Instead, academic poetry too often requires a knowledge of the various philosophies behind it to become profitable to the reader, e.g., L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry, which is really literary theory written without paragraphs.
This inherent elitism saddens me because it automatically takes poetry outside of the realm of cultural relevance. That is why I prefer poets like Frank O'Hara, Tim Dlugos, Sherman Alexie, Julia Alvarez, and Amiri Baraka whose poems are rooted in everyday life, but also transcend it, whereas poets like those who publish in "important" magazines such as Poetry seem to be writing about life in some nonexistent head-world.
I stopped interacting with poetry (and by poetry I mean written, not oral poetry) because I am frustrated with academic poetry (i.e., poetry stemming from MFA programs, and the university millieu in general, which with rare exceptions is the only kind of poetry being written in the U.S. today). Its level of discourse is so exclusive, the reader must be a part of the academic world (subculture may be a better word here, but I don't even want to give this world the validation that calling it a "subculture" would give it) from which it comes in order to access the poems, which is not how poetry (or literature in general) should be. It should be from the gut, a visceral experience for both writer and reader that only requires an open, critical mind for the possibility of a revelation or sublime episode to be there. Instead, academic poetry too often requires a knowledge of the various philosophies behind it to become profitable to the reader, e.g., L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry, which is really literary theory written without paragraphs.
This inherent elitism saddens me because it automatically takes poetry outside of the realm of cultural relevance. That is why I prefer poets like Frank O'Hara, Tim Dlugos, Sherman Alexie, Julia Alvarez, and Amiri Baraka whose poems are rooted in everyday life, but also transcend it, whereas poets like those who publish in "important" magazines such as Poetry seem to be writing about life in some nonexistent head-world.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
2008 Topps baseball cards
6.09 p.m.
On 2 March 2008 I wrote about how baseball cards have changed since I was a kid, and how it is now very hard to find stores that carry them. This afternoon I was at a Walgreens and there was a box of 2008 Topps wax packs by the register, and I was so happy to see them that I bought a couple (yes, I fell victim to impulse-buy product placement). I was very surprised at some of the changes that have been made, many of which contradict my aforementioned post on the subject. Here's the rundown:
- There are only seven cards per pack (seven!), instead of 15 when I was a kid. So two 2008 packs = less than one 1987 pack, but there's an extra stick of gum in the 2008 half of the equation, so I suppose that helps if you are a kid that is excited by the gum (which always used to be terrible).
- The cards seem slightly smaller than they used to be, but maybe this is just an optical illusion stemming from either a) I'm (obviously) bigger physically now than when I last collected seriously, or/and b) the smaller pack size makes the individual cards seem smaller as well.
- As mentioned above, there is now a piece of gum in each pack! This excites me even though the gum will still probably be horrible. I don't know if this practice is just returning this year, or if it came back a year or few ago, but I do know that for at least ten years there was no gum. My assumption is that the gum is new again this year because there is a bright pink circle on the bottom right of the front of each pack which proclaims that they "Contains Gum!"
- The wrapping is transparent, which aside from the number of cards per pack is the biggest shock to me. When I started collecting in 1987, Topps rack packs (rack-packs? rak-paks?) were still transparent, but by 1990 they were wrapped in opaque cellophane so that buyers couldn't sift through the packs to find the ones with better cards showing and buy those first. I have never seen wax packs with clear wrapping before. I took advantage of this new feature to sift through the packs at the top of the box, and picked out a pack with a Miguel Cabrera on top, (which will be valuable if he keeps his weight under control and keeps hitting the way he has the first few seasons of his career), and one with Shawn Green on top, because even though he's retired now it's still a Mets card.
- The packs were 99 cents each, which is less than Topps wax packs have been the past few years, but is still a lot, considering that you only get seven cards.
- The design is pretty cool - sort of retro '70s. Topps' designs were best in the mid-1960s through the early 1980s (1988-89 were decent as well), so I am glad they are going back to this era of design.
Okay, now I am going to open them. Full report in just a moment.
6.33 p.m.
Immediately there is a problem - unlike '80s wax packs, which opened quite easily, the 2008 wrapping cannot be opened by hand without bending the cards inside. So you better have some scissors handy, and hope you're steady-handed enough (good luck eight-year-olds!) to cut the wrapping without cutting the cards.
6.36 p.m.
The gum is twice as big now as it was in the '80s, and is in its own wrapper! This means that there won't be gum stains on the cards, and that the gum might actually be fresh. Awesome! Also, it means that if you buy more than one pack at once, you can chew once piece and save the rest for later.
The gum tastes pretty good, but is very tough even though it is elastic enough to no longer bursts into razor-sharp shards when you bite into it. I fear for my fillings' safety.
6.39 p.m.
Pack 1 includes:
Miguel Cabrera #10 (in his photo he is already Photoshopped into a Tigers uniform, it looks like the photo was taken at Shea Stadium. From what I hear, Johan Santana's card has him Photoshopped into a Mets uniform.)
Red Sox Postseason Highlights World Series Game 4 #234 (I always thought the concept of postseason cards was cool, and was sad that Topps no longer made them in the '80s, so I'm glad they're back)
Johnny Estrada #139
Jake Peavy (sweet!) #50
Jim Thome (also not bad) #240
Mark Loretta #292
Mark Reynolds (with Diamondbacks just spelled "D-Backs" - this abbreviation is bad because my mind goes immediately to "D-Bags," and I know I am not alone) #83
6.45 p.m.
The gum is already nearly tasteless and is still almost impossible to chew, so I'm spitting it out.
Pack two includes:
Shawn Green #107 (Let's Go Mets!)
Mickey Mantle #7 (with his complete career statistics on the back and no other explanation. Odd.)
Brandon Phillips #255
Carlos Zambrano #155 (also not bad)
Vladimir Guerrero #90 (very good)
Kameron Loe #313
Esteban German #189
This must be a small series since the highest card I got was #313 and I also got five All-Star-type players (a very high concentration) not counting the Mantle card. But there isn't any indication on the wrapper about what series number it is (i.e., I assume there will be another, higher-numbered series released at some point this year), or how many cards are in the series. That's rather annoying. Back in the '80s when the Topps sets always had 792 cards, "792" became a mythical number like "755." It makes me feel old that this has changed.
On 2 March 2008 I wrote about how baseball cards have changed since I was a kid, and how it is now very hard to find stores that carry them. This afternoon I was at a Walgreens and there was a box of 2008 Topps wax packs by the register, and I was so happy to see them that I bought a couple (yes, I fell victim to impulse-buy product placement). I was very surprised at some of the changes that have been made, many of which contradict my aforementioned post on the subject. Here's the rundown:
- There are only seven cards per pack (seven!), instead of 15 when I was a kid. So two 2008 packs = less than one 1987 pack, but there's an extra stick of gum in the 2008 half of the equation, so I suppose that helps if you are a kid that is excited by the gum (which always used to be terrible).
- The cards seem slightly smaller than they used to be, but maybe this is just an optical illusion stemming from either a) I'm (obviously) bigger physically now than when I last collected seriously, or/and b) the smaller pack size makes the individual cards seem smaller as well.
- As mentioned above, there is now a piece of gum in each pack! This excites me even though the gum will still probably be horrible. I don't know if this practice is just returning this year, or if it came back a year or few ago, but I do know that for at least ten years there was no gum. My assumption is that the gum is new again this year because there is a bright pink circle on the bottom right of the front of each pack which proclaims that they "Contains Gum!"
- The wrapping is transparent, which aside from the number of cards per pack is the biggest shock to me. When I started collecting in 1987, Topps rack packs (rack-packs? rak-paks?) were still transparent, but by 1990 they were wrapped in opaque cellophane so that buyers couldn't sift through the packs to find the ones with better cards showing and buy those first. I have never seen wax packs with clear wrapping before. I took advantage of this new feature to sift through the packs at the top of the box, and picked out a pack with a Miguel Cabrera on top, (which will be valuable if he keeps his weight under control and keeps hitting the way he has the first few seasons of his career), and one with Shawn Green on top, because even though he's retired now it's still a Mets card.
- The packs were 99 cents each, which is less than Topps wax packs have been the past few years, but is still a lot, considering that you only get seven cards.
- The design is pretty cool - sort of retro '70s. Topps' designs were best in the mid-1960s through the early 1980s (1988-89 were decent as well), so I am glad they are going back to this era of design.
Okay, now I am going to open them. Full report in just a moment.
6.33 p.m.
Immediately there is a problem - unlike '80s wax packs, which opened quite easily, the 2008 wrapping cannot be opened by hand without bending the cards inside. So you better have some scissors handy, and hope you're steady-handed enough (good luck eight-year-olds!) to cut the wrapping without cutting the cards.
6.36 p.m.
The gum is twice as big now as it was in the '80s, and is in its own wrapper! This means that there won't be gum stains on the cards, and that the gum might actually be fresh. Awesome! Also, it means that if you buy more than one pack at once, you can chew once piece and save the rest for later.
The gum tastes pretty good, but is very tough even though it is elastic enough to no longer bursts into razor-sharp shards when you bite into it. I fear for my fillings' safety.
6.39 p.m.
Pack 1 includes:
Miguel Cabrera #10 (in his photo he is already Photoshopped into a Tigers uniform, it looks like the photo was taken at Shea Stadium. From what I hear, Johan Santana's card has him Photoshopped into a Mets uniform.)
Red Sox Postseason Highlights World Series Game 4 #234 (I always thought the concept of postseason cards was cool, and was sad that Topps no longer made them in the '80s, so I'm glad they're back)
Johnny Estrada #139
Jake Peavy (sweet!) #50
Jim Thome (also not bad) #240
Mark Loretta #292
Mark Reynolds (with Diamondbacks just spelled "D-Backs" - this abbreviation is bad because my mind goes immediately to "D-Bags," and I know I am not alone) #83
6.45 p.m.
The gum is already nearly tasteless and is still almost impossible to chew, so I'm spitting it out.
Pack two includes:
Shawn Green #107 (Let's Go Mets!)
Mickey Mantle #7 (with his complete career statistics on the back and no other explanation. Odd.)
Brandon Phillips #255
Carlos Zambrano #155 (also not bad)
Vladimir Guerrero #90 (very good)
Kameron Loe #313
Esteban German #189
This must be a small series since the highest card I got was #313 and I also got five All-Star-type players (a very high concentration) not counting the Mantle card. But there isn't any indication on the wrapper about what series number it is (i.e., I assume there will be another, higher-numbered series released at some point this year), or how many cards are in the series. That's rather annoying. Back in the '80s when the Topps sets always had 792 cards, "792" became a mythical number like "755." It makes me feel old that this has changed.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Books Acquired Recently
Today begins a new periodic feature in which I list for your viewing pleasure books that I have recently acquired. This is mostly so I can show off my love for book acquisition, but also because I don't feel like writing about anything else right now. Also, please note that this practice is shamelessly stolen from Nick Hornby's Believer column.
Books Acquired Recently (and where from)
Contemporary Fiction: 50 Short Stories Since 1970. Ed. Lex Williford and Michael Martone. Borders. (Quite good so far; I may actually assign it to one of my classes.)
The Naked and the Dead. Norman Mailer. Borders.
In Cold Blood. Truman Capote. Borders.
Incidentally, two topics I considered writing about were:
1. the writer Janet Kauffman (because she has a story in the above-mentioned anthology, "Patriotic"), who is one of my favorites, but more for her beautifully-crafted work than its thought-provoking-ness;
2. Christopher Hitchens' recent Slate column about why the British military should not have withdrawn Prince Harry from Afghanistan (http://www.slate.com/id/2186186?GT1=3800). Hitchens is either brilliant or a complete idiot, depending on what he's writing about. When he writes about politics, he's usually an idiot (e.g., he loves the Iraq war), but in this column he is spot on.
Books Acquired Recently (and where from)
Contemporary Fiction: 50 Short Stories Since 1970. Ed. Lex Williford and Michael Martone. Borders. (Quite good so far; I may actually assign it to one of my classes.)
The Naked and the Dead. Norman Mailer. Borders.
In Cold Blood. Truman Capote. Borders.
Incidentally, two topics I considered writing about were:
1. the writer Janet Kauffman (because she has a story in the above-mentioned anthology, "Patriotic"), who is one of my favorites, but more for her beautifully-crafted work than its thought-provoking-ness;
2. Christopher Hitchens' recent Slate column about why the British military should not have withdrawn Prince Harry from Afghanistan (http://www.slate.com/id/2186186?GT1=3800). Hitchens is either brilliant or a complete idiot, depending on what he's writing about. When he writes about politics, he's usually an idiot (e.g., he loves the Iraq war), but in this column he is spot on.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Kunzru's "Raj, Bohemian" and thoughts on lifestyle and the self
There is an excellent story in this week's New Yorker (10 March 2008), "Raj, Bohemian" by Hari Kunzru, about an urban hipster who realizes that his "taste had been central to my identity" (114). As a result, he has no self other than the objects he acquires and the carefully considered acts (where to eat, what parties to go to, how to dress, etc.) he executes, which unwittingly become performance art pieces rather than natural maneuvers. So he is only living synthetically. He laments that "what I thought had been an expression of my innermost humanity was nothing but a cloud of life-style signals, available to anyone at the click of a mouse" (114).
This conclusion struck me because 1. the speaker realizes that he has no humanity left, he is just a pawn (chess metaphor!) in the capitalist system, but more importantly 2. it made me question the role of "the click[s] of a mouse" in my life and whether they fulfill some sort of genuine self-defining role (which I view positively; this positive view of one's essential self as somehow pure and good and something to be preserved and fostered may be problematic, but for my purposes here I will accept this view as a given), or whether they are merely "life-style signals" (which is a negative in this model). Let's examine three internet activities I frequently engage in to try and answer this question.
1. amazon.com - My frequent amazoning is an essential part of my book-buying addiction. So the question is, is this addiction an integral part of myself, or is it just a "life-style signal"? While the search for knowledge, which I still prefer to gain from books rather than via electronic means, is certainly an essential part of who I am, I love emitting the persona of a well-read intellectual. I would like to think that I can actually claim this description of myself, but I have to admit that aside from engaging in activities (e.g., getting my doctorate) that help me fit in to this description, I like to also have my chock-full, sagging, meticulously organized bookshelves visible to everyone to help enforce this claim. Books are valuable to me as decor, not just as sources of knowledge. This is why I never use libraries except for professional research, preferring to buy my books rather than rent them. So I have to say that my online book-buying is more of a "life-style signal" than a necessary expression of myself.
2. blogging - I think my reasons for blogging are fairly honorable - I do it to improve my writing, I'm not worried about whether or not I have a big (or any) audience (note my willingness to write often about sports, which nearly all of my friends disdain), and I do it to become a better writing teacher, since to be a good teacher you must also be a frequent practitioner in your field. So even though it may be fashionable to have a web presence, it is fair to say that I don't blog just to be hip or current.
3. facebook - While my initial ardor for facebook has cooled a bit in the past few days - I no longer feel a compulsion to check it every five minutes - I am still very much enthralled with it. I have to say that it was peer pressure which finally caused me to set up an account, not my own volition. So even though I genuinely enjoy facebook now, I can't escape that being a member is solidly in the "life-style signal" category.
Ergo, the majority of my internet activity is not motivated by an interest in self-definition and -improvement, but by attempts to appear cool. I will not deal with the question of what should be done about this state of affairs here, but it is interesting to note that the protagonist of Kunzru's story goes back to a "life-style signal" driven existence at the story's end because he cannot figure out how to escape this paradigm.
This conclusion struck me because 1. the speaker realizes that he has no humanity left, he is just a pawn (chess metaphor!) in the capitalist system, but more importantly 2. it made me question the role of "the click[s] of a mouse" in my life and whether they fulfill some sort of genuine self-defining role (which I view positively; this positive view of one's essential self as somehow pure and good and something to be preserved and fostered may be problematic, but for my purposes here I will accept this view as a given), or whether they are merely "life-style signals" (which is a negative in this model). Let's examine three internet activities I frequently engage in to try and answer this question.
1. amazon.com - My frequent amazoning is an essential part of my book-buying addiction. So the question is, is this addiction an integral part of myself, or is it just a "life-style signal"? While the search for knowledge, which I still prefer to gain from books rather than via electronic means, is certainly an essential part of who I am, I love emitting the persona of a well-read intellectual. I would like to think that I can actually claim this description of myself, but I have to admit that aside from engaging in activities (e.g., getting my doctorate) that help me fit in to this description, I like to also have my chock-full, sagging, meticulously organized bookshelves visible to everyone to help enforce this claim. Books are valuable to me as decor, not just as sources of knowledge. This is why I never use libraries except for professional research, preferring to buy my books rather than rent them. So I have to say that my online book-buying is more of a "life-style signal" than a necessary expression of myself.
2. blogging - I think my reasons for blogging are fairly honorable - I do it to improve my writing, I'm not worried about whether or not I have a big (or any) audience (note my willingness to write often about sports, which nearly all of my friends disdain), and I do it to become a better writing teacher, since to be a good teacher you must also be a frequent practitioner in your field. So even though it may be fashionable to have a web presence, it is fair to say that I don't blog just to be hip or current.
3. facebook - While my initial ardor for facebook has cooled a bit in the past few days - I no longer feel a compulsion to check it every five minutes - I am still very much enthralled with it. I have to say that it was peer pressure which finally caused me to set up an account, not my own volition. So even though I genuinely enjoy facebook now, I can't escape that being a member is solidly in the "life-style signal" category.
Ergo, the majority of my internet activity is not motivated by an interest in self-definition and -improvement, but by attempts to appear cool. I will not deal with the question of what should be done about this state of affairs here, but it is interesting to note that the protagonist of Kunzru's story goes back to a "life-style signal" driven existence at the story's end because he cannot figure out how to escape this paradigm.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Facebook and the question of religion
I've been thinking over the past few days about what I should put in the "religion" field of my facebook profile, if anything. When I signed up, my initial impulse was to put "fuck religion," but I decided against that since I still have a few friends who are religious. Then I thought about "organized religion=terrorist philosophy," which I am currently leaning towards, but which again may offend some friends who I would like to keep. So I am not sure. I suppose that just leaving it blank would suffice, but there's a part of me that dislikes this option because it isn't interesting enough. So any suggestions would be appreciated.
The Times Square bombing
I was shocked when I heard on NPR this morning that the military recruiting station in Times Square was bombed last night, I thought I must have heard wrong or was still dreaming. I'm still flabbergasted - I can't believe someone rose above the apathy and decided to make that kind of '60s-esque political statement. I do not condone the violence of it, but at the same time it makes me wonder if real change could be on the horizon, if Americans will start caring enough again that this country has gotten ridiculously far away from its idealistic roots to begin to take (preferably nonviolent) action. Maybe if Obama is elected we will begin to head in the right direction.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Free books
Today and tomorrow is the Northern Illinois University English Department's book fair, which means that instructors such as myself get to persuade publisher reps to give us free books that we will supposedly consider using in the courses we teach. Of course at least two-thirds of the books we (instructors) request copies of are really for our personal use, we have no intention of considering them for course usage. But this common-knowledge fact is part of the dance - they throw books at us, and if we think they are quick enough to do so we seriously consider using one of their books (of the half-dozen or so they've given us).
Most of the publisher reps know their role in the dance and play it well, but the guy from W.W. Norton is a notorious miser. This is especially vexing because Norton has the best books - I would actually consider teaching with some of them, but he often won't give out examination copies even if they are legitimate requests. One must be at one's persuasive best to score off of him.
But aside from the evil Norton guy, the book fair is wonderful. It is always in early March, so it feels like a harbinger of spring.
Most of the publisher reps know their role in the dance and play it well, but the guy from W.W. Norton is a notorious miser. This is especially vexing because Norton has the best books - I would actually consider teaching with some of them, but he often won't give out examination copies even if they are legitimate requests. One must be at one's persuasive best to score off of him.
But aside from the evil Norton guy, the book fair is wonderful. It is always in early March, so it feels like a harbinger of spring.
More thoughts on facebook
I am completely in love with facebook so far. I am now at the point where I feel angry at my friends who aren't on it. Come on people, get with the program! This may not be an especially helpful attitude. We'll see whether this enamored state will last, or whether I am simply in a honeymoon phase. Stay tuned ...
Monday, March 3, 2008
Creating a digital self
Well, I finally broke down and joined facebook last night. I feel very ambivalent about this - on the one hand, I want to cling to my love of all things analog (especially books, which it is obvious that no one under the age of 25 reads anymore if my students are any indication, they wouldn't recognize a book if I smacked them in the head with it), but on the other hand, I realize I should probably get further education in the digital realm if I want to be marketable - C.R.E.A.M. So I went ahead and joined. (This blog is also a part of this new digitizing campaign.)
So far it is really cool to see the kind of connections I've been able to make - I could very easily get addicted, it has been a huge time-suck already. But I'm also feeling cyber-shy now, like these connections are too much intimacy with too many people all at once, even though because it's electronic intimacy it's not really intimacy at all. Lo, I am like a sheep without a shepherd in the world of facebook. Whither shall I go?
So far it is really cool to see the kind of connections I've been able to make - I could very easily get addicted, it has been a huge time-suck already. But I'm also feeling cyber-shy now, like these connections are too much intimacy with too many people all at once, even though because it's electronic intimacy it's not really intimacy at all. Lo, I am like a sheep without a shepherd in the world of facebook. Whither shall I go?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Mets by the Numbers and baseball cards
I began reading Jon Springer and Matthew Silverman's Mets by the Numbers yesterday, which is a print version of the excellent website http://www.mbtn.net. The book is also quite good. My favorite feature of it so far, however (I've read through #17), is not the writing, but the reproductions of Topps baseball cards from throughout Mets history. All of the cards have photos with visible uniform numbers. Tom Seaver, David Wright, Keith Hernandez, and Darryl Strawberry have cards on the cover, but lesser lights are also represented, e.g., Bobby Valentine (as a player, p. 3), Tim Teufel (p. 56), Felix Millan (my favorite '70s Met aside from Seaver and Lee Mazzilli, p. 89), Kevin McReynolds (p. 115), Hank Webb (p. 150), and so on. My only complaint about this feature is that the 1990 set - by far the ugliest Topps set ever - is represented seven times: Gary Carter (p. 39), Todd Hundley (p. 46), Bob Ojeda (p. 99), Howard Johnson (p. 104), Kevin Elster (p. 110), Frank Viola (p. 139), and Jeff Innis (p. 200). All of these players were with the Mets for multiple seasons, you would think that their uniform numbers would be visible on at least one of each of their cards from other years. But maybe not. Anyway, thank God the card reproductions are in black-and-white, because if they were in color the hellacious color combos of the 1990 set would give some readers seizures.
The book's card reproductions make me nostalgic for my childhood, when I spent virtually all of my allowance during the summer on baseball cards, much to the chagrin of my parents, who thought I should save money instead. I began collecting in 1987 because I wanted cards of the Mets' 1986 championship team. Back then a wax pack of 15 Topps cards and a stick of gum cost 45 cents (I never liked Fleer or Donruss; in 1991 I bought Score instead of Topps, probably because my eyes were still traumatized from the aforementioned 1990 Topps set). One time (1989) I bought an entire box of wax packs, and it only cost $14. Now, you're lucky to find a pack on sale for less than $2, and you get fewer cards (12? I'm not even sure anymore) and no gum. Also, you used to be able to buy baseball cards everywhere, and now they are very hard to find. Not even Wal-Mart sells them. This saddens me - baseball cards were my introduction to baseball literature, they were how I grew to love the game itself (not just the Mets), but now a generation of children are growing up without this resource.
The book's card reproductions make me nostalgic for my childhood, when I spent virtually all of my allowance during the summer on baseball cards, much to the chagrin of my parents, who thought I should save money instead. I began collecting in 1987 because I wanted cards of the Mets' 1986 championship team. Back then a wax pack of 15 Topps cards and a stick of gum cost 45 cents (I never liked Fleer or Donruss; in 1991 I bought Score instead of Topps, probably because my eyes were still traumatized from the aforementioned 1990 Topps set). One time (1989) I bought an entire box of wax packs, and it only cost $14. Now, you're lucky to find a pack on sale for less than $2, and you get fewer cards (12? I'm not even sure anymore) and no gum. Also, you used to be able to buy baseball cards everywhere, and now they are very hard to find. Not even Wal-Mart sells them. This saddens me - baseball cards were my introduction to baseball literature, they were how I grew to love the game itself (not just the Mets), but now a generation of children are growing up without this resource.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)