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.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)