If I had to state my occupation in retirement, I guess it would be amateur historian, with the emphasis on amateur. What I mean by that is that I have no professional training in the field - actually I have never had professional training for my two career jobs, banking or not-for-profit finance. When you don't have professional training, in the history case, graduate level education, sometimes you learn things the hard way.
One thing that fits into that category is something I learned just recently. One of my projects is to publish the Civil War letters of William Lloyd of the 33rd New Jersey. Somewhere between 30 to 40 of his letters to his wife, Mary, survive and, as anyone who read "The Mutinous Regiment" will know Lloyd expressed his opinions without any inhibitions of any kind. That is why the working title is "I May As Well Speak Plain."
As is fairly typical with Civil War letters, while we have all these letters from Lloyd to his wife, none that she wrote to him seem to have survived. In editing the letters one of the things that I wanted to do was try to speculate about Mary's experience at home in New Jersey while Lloyd was away in Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas. One way to get a sense of that is to examine the newspaper accounts of the regiment's battles and campaigns that Mary most likely read. From Lloyd's letters we know that she must have seen the New York newspapers on a regular basis.
Since the New York newspapers from 1863-4 are available either on microfilm or on the Internet I have been making copies of some of those accounts. Only after doing that did I decide to get via inter-library loan the definitive book on the Northern press - "The North Reports the Civil War" by J. Cutler Andrews. That's actually where I should have started since several chapters give a clear picture of how the war was covered, but more importantly from my perspective, how long it took detailed accounts to be published in the New York papers. So this lesson, learned the hard way, is that in areas like this, the first step should be to look at secondary sources that summarize primary sources and than, as necessary, consult the primary sources.
Of course, that isn't always possible as I am finding out in my other area of research, early base ball in New Jersey. As I have posted before I am writing a history of the Eureka Base Ball Club of Newark for the pioneer project. The Eureka made their first extended road trip in September of 1863 visiting Philadelphia for what was to be three matches with Philadelphia teams before rain intervened. If I hadn't already written "The Mutinous Regiment" I probably wouldn't have been aware that just before their trip, Newark was struggling to meet its quota for the 33rd New Jersey.
The fact that the Eureka, almost all of whom were in prime age for the military, were planning this trip at the same time that Newark was struggling to find volunteers for the 33rd says something about the isolation of the young men who made up the Eureka from the impact of the war. A few of the Eureka did serve in the Union Army either before or after 1863, but this to some level suggests that military service was not a priority for the kind of young upper class men who made up the Eureka.
If I hadn't already written about the 33rd, the most likely source for such information would have been a history of Newark during the Civil War. Unfortunately no such book exists, Bill Gillette's "Jersey Blue" is a fine book, but its focus is more on politics not life throughout New Jersey during this era. There are histories of Newark, but they were written a long time ago and tend to be less critically written. This reminds me again of how understudied New Jersey history really is - something that needs to be remedied. So if I have learned anything in the process, in the future I should look for general secondary works for some issues and be mindful of what else is happening in the period I am researching and writing about.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Poets - Not Only Dead But Unknown
The BBC "Age of Kings" production of Shakespeare's history plays which I saw as a freshman in high school (1960-61) first sparked my interest in English literature. That interest got another big boost my junior year in high school in Robert Ruffing's English literature class. The first thing we read was "Beowulf," or as I now realize a small section of the epic poem. I remember Mr. Ruffing telling us that 20 or 30 years ago (I forget exactly) we would not have read "Beowulf" because it had either not been re-discovered or perhaps translated.
Anyway we read what was obviously a fragment of the whole work and I don't recollect a lot about it. The piece we read was Beowulf's struggle with the monster Grendel and I remember, or at least I think I do, the line "In the darkness dwelt a demon sprite," which illustrated for us the alliteration typical of such epics.
I currently work with a high school student on English and part of his summer reading is the Seamus Heaney translation which was so popular when it came out about 10 years. Having read almost all of it, I understand why it was so popular it is a great work - some of it feels almost Shakespearean. I read that the turning point in "Beowulf" being taken seriously as literature came with an essay by J.R.R. Tolkien - the author of "The Hobbit" and the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. I hope to get that essay out of the Rutgers library tomorrow. Reading this translation it isn't hard to see where Tolkien got a lot of his ideas for his great works.
I haven't seen the "In the darkness dwelt a demon sprite" line which means either this is different in translation or my memory is bad - which happens more and more these days. As most people know the Heaney translation has the old English on one page and the translation on the facing page. Since the old English is almost entirely different I haven't been spending much time looking at the original. But I am reminded that a lot of colleges now offer a year long course where one studies old English in the first semester and then reads Beowulf in the original in the second semester. If I could work that out I would love to try something along those lines.
Last year a similar translation came out of another anonymous poem - "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," written many years later this in middle English. I haven't read it yet, but will soon. As with Heaney's translation the original is on one page, the translation on the other. Since some of the middle English is the same as modern English, I will try to spend more time on the original.
I just told a friend of mine who is part of a book club that they should read this translation of "Beowulf." He looked at me like I was more than a little nuts, but I really meant it. An epic story told in an epic form with literary and dramatic devices that still work so many centuries later.
Anyway we read what was obviously a fragment of the whole work and I don't recollect a lot about it. The piece we read was Beowulf's struggle with the monster Grendel and I remember, or at least I think I do, the line "In the darkness dwelt a demon sprite," which illustrated for us the alliteration typical of such epics.
I currently work with a high school student on English and part of his summer reading is the Seamus Heaney translation which was so popular when it came out about 10 years. Having read almost all of it, I understand why it was so popular it is a great work - some of it feels almost Shakespearean. I read that the turning point in "Beowulf" being taken seriously as literature came with an essay by J.R.R. Tolkien - the author of "The Hobbit" and the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. I hope to get that essay out of the Rutgers library tomorrow. Reading this translation it isn't hard to see where Tolkien got a lot of his ideas for his great works.
I haven't seen the "In the darkness dwelt a demon sprite" line which means either this is different in translation or my memory is bad - which happens more and more these days. As most people know the Heaney translation has the old English on one page and the translation on the facing page. Since the old English is almost entirely different I haven't been spending much time looking at the original. But I am reminded that a lot of colleges now offer a year long course where one studies old English in the first semester and then reads Beowulf in the original in the second semester. If I could work that out I would love to try something along those lines.
Last year a similar translation came out of another anonymous poem - "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," written many years later this in middle English. I haven't read it yet, but will soon. As with Heaney's translation the original is on one page, the translation on the other. Since some of the middle English is the same as modern English, I will try to spend more time on the original.
I just told a friend of mine who is part of a book club that they should read this translation of "Beowulf." He looked at me like I was more than a little nuts, but I really meant it. An epic story told in an epic form with literary and dramatic devices that still work so many centuries later.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Baseball History - Evaluating a Past No One Has Seen
This week the Baseball Hall of Fame announced the nominations of players who played before 1943, the nominations are the work of a History Overview Committee of the Baseball Writers Association of America. The committee is made up of veteran sports writers aided by the staff of the Research Library at the Hall of Fame. There was one name of interest to Dead Ball fans, that of Sherry Magee an outfielder who played primarily with the Phillies and the Boston Braves.
Magee certainly had an illustrious career with a life time batting average over .290, more than 2000 hits and one batting title. But I for one was more than a little surprised that Magee would be nominated before Jake Daubert, first baseman for the Dodgers and Reds. Daubert had more hits, won two batting titles and had a career batting average over .300. Others who post on the SABR Dead Ball list had other nominees including Bill Dahlen and Stuffy McInnis and, I am sure, others had their favorites as well.
I am sure the committee did its best to be objective, but it becomes a subjective process, if for no other reason, because no one on the committee ever saw any of them play. Nor, of course, did those of us who are advocating for someone else. Evaluation of Dead Ball players has to based on historical research - my feelings about Daubert are based research done on our forthcoming book, "The Major League Pennant Races of 1916."
The whole question speaks to something that started to concern me when Paul and were working on this book. How do those who talk and write about baseball to the largest audiences - ie, sportswriters and broadcasters, include in their thinking those played the game from the founding of the National League in 1876 through whatever point people living today actually saw games and players. Of course, the latter date will move forward every day expanding that period where there is no eye witness experience.
In my opinion the problem is that unless sportswriters and broadcasters are aware of the game's history and especially its great players, they will tend to make judgements based more or less on their own experience and that of those had eyewitness experience. For example, the belief that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter in baseball history is literally carved in stone in his statue at Fenway Park. Yet if we are talking about life time batting average, Ty Cobb, Shoeless Joe Jackson and several others had higher averages.
Williams may get the nod on the combination of power and average, but there are other more egregious examples. I think it was in 2006 I heard some Mets announcers anoint Jeff Kent as the greatest offensive second baseman in baseball history. Somehow I doubt that they even considered Nap Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby and/or Frankie Frisch in those evaluations - all of whom have better numbers than Kent.
I am not trying to argue that earlier ball players were superior, some were some weren't and, in large measure, it is a matter of opinion. But opinions should be grounded in fact which can't happen if 50 or so years of baseball history aren't even part of the equation. At some level this isn't a new problem, it is just that the period of time is greater.
Billy Hamilton, of Newark New Jersey, was a great 19th century player in the Hall of Fame who still holds a number of records including consecutive games with a stolen base and stolen bases in a game. Yet Hamilton wasn't elected to the Hall of Fame until the 1960's some 30 years after it opened and from what I have read in his file, the efforts of his daughters to honor their father's memory had a lot to do with that. On my long list of books to write is a biography of "Sliding Billy" and when I do, this whole issue of how we honor those we never saw play is going to be part of the story.
On the reading front, the good news is that I am 400 pages into Robert Remini's fine biography of Henry Clay, the bad news is that there are almost another 400 pages yet to go, but I am enjoying it. I am also approaching the mid point of Jane Austen's third novel, "Mansfield Park." It is very different from "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" so I need to reserve judgement, but hopefully in a few weeks will have something to say.
Magee certainly had an illustrious career with a life time batting average over .290, more than 2000 hits and one batting title. But I for one was more than a little surprised that Magee would be nominated before Jake Daubert, first baseman for the Dodgers and Reds. Daubert had more hits, won two batting titles and had a career batting average over .300. Others who post on the SABR Dead Ball list had other nominees including Bill Dahlen and Stuffy McInnis and, I am sure, others had their favorites as well.
I am sure the committee did its best to be objective, but it becomes a subjective process, if for no other reason, because no one on the committee ever saw any of them play. Nor, of course, did those of us who are advocating for someone else. Evaluation of Dead Ball players has to based on historical research - my feelings about Daubert are based research done on our forthcoming book, "The Major League Pennant Races of 1916."
The whole question speaks to something that started to concern me when Paul and were working on this book. How do those who talk and write about baseball to the largest audiences - ie, sportswriters and broadcasters, include in their thinking those played the game from the founding of the National League in 1876 through whatever point people living today actually saw games and players. Of course, the latter date will move forward every day expanding that period where there is no eye witness experience.
In my opinion the problem is that unless sportswriters and broadcasters are aware of the game's history and especially its great players, they will tend to make judgements based more or less on their own experience and that of those had eyewitness experience. For example, the belief that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter in baseball history is literally carved in stone in his statue at Fenway Park. Yet if we are talking about life time batting average, Ty Cobb, Shoeless Joe Jackson and several others had higher averages.
Williams may get the nod on the combination of power and average, but there are other more egregious examples. I think it was in 2006 I heard some Mets announcers anoint Jeff Kent as the greatest offensive second baseman in baseball history. Somehow I doubt that they even considered Nap Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby and/or Frankie Frisch in those evaluations - all of whom have better numbers than Kent.
I am not trying to argue that earlier ball players were superior, some were some weren't and, in large measure, it is a matter of opinion. But opinions should be grounded in fact which can't happen if 50 or so years of baseball history aren't even part of the equation. At some level this isn't a new problem, it is just that the period of time is greater.
Billy Hamilton, of Newark New Jersey, was a great 19th century player in the Hall of Fame who still holds a number of records including consecutive games with a stolen base and stolen bases in a game. Yet Hamilton wasn't elected to the Hall of Fame until the 1960's some 30 years after it opened and from what I have read in his file, the efforts of his daughters to honor their father's memory had a lot to do with that. On my long list of books to write is a biography of "Sliding Billy" and when I do, this whole issue of how we honor those we never saw play is going to be part of the story.
On the reading front, the good news is that I am 400 pages into Robert Remini's fine biography of Henry Clay, the bad news is that there are almost another 400 pages yet to go, but I am enjoying it. I am also approaching the mid point of Jane Austen's third novel, "Mansfield Park." It is very different from "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" so I need to reserve judgement, but hopefully in a few weeks will have something to say.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Palliser Sextology
I finished reading "The Duke's Children," the last of Anthony Trollope's six novels about 19th century British politics and the families involved in them - known as the Palliser novels. I don't think I had ever heard of Anthony Trollope until just after Carol and I were married and a television version of the Palliser novels was on the local PBS stations. As I recall they were on too late for me to watch, but there was an article about them and Trollope in Time magazine that really impressed me.
Basically the article talked about all the people who are addicted to Trollope's works and how they are almost narcotic in their effect - I remember something about them being like Valium in book form. Certainly that has been my experience, all I have to do is start reading almost any Trollope novel and I am lost in that world little (countryside) or large (London) forgetful of whatever had been stressing me out. Trollope wrote over 40 novels, after "The Duke's Children" I have read 17 (I think) and own another 18 (or it may be the other way around).
Shortly after I learned of them in the mid 1970's I bought a paper back edition of the Palliser novels, but was a long time getting into them. Shortly thereafter I had learned about the Barsetshire novels which have a Church of England focus in an imaginary English county. Since I was just become active in the Episcopal Church, they had more appeal and I quickly read the first two, "The Warden" and "Barchester Towers." After that I had a problem finding the remaining four novels in that set or his other novels as well. Hard as it may seem to believe in the days before Amazon.com and even Barnes & Noble and Borders it wasn't always that easy to find books that had been written that long ago.
Eventually I found the remaining four in paperback form and gradually read them. I remember that I aggressively pushed ahead to read the last two because I felt that I had too much unfinished business in my reading. There is the tension that exists (or at least exists with) me between wanting to read multi-volume works, but also not wanting to finish and realize that there are no more. The latter feeling probably dates back to having read every Sherlock Holmes story before I finished my freshman year in high school.
I was even further behind with the Palliser novels having read only two of the six before the end of 2005. That means I had the books for almost 30 years and had read only two! I read the third book, "The Eustace Diamonds" over the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 (these are not short books). It didn't give me a lot of incentive to move forward as it is one of the few Trollope works that I really didn't care for. I guess retirement gave me the incentive to get on with it as I read "Phineas Redux" mostly while Carol and I were in England in February and then started on "The Prime Minister" before moving on to "The Duke's Children" just this month.
In reading the introduction to the last book (which I always read after I read the book), I learned that this was one book that Trollope cut a great deal from in the editing process - reducing it to a mere 630 pages or so. Apparently the original ending left open the possibility of a seventh novel, but he recognized that he was too close to the end of his career to go on. Imagine finding that out at the same time I was dealing with the emotions of the reality that I reached the end. Of course, there is still more Trollope to read since even with 17-18 under my belt, I am not even half-way. First, however, I think I am going to finish all of Jane Auten, after all there are only six and I have already read two. Then I can go on and read/watch things like "The Jane Austen Book Club."
Basically the article talked about all the people who are addicted to Trollope's works and how they are almost narcotic in their effect - I remember something about them being like Valium in book form. Certainly that has been my experience, all I have to do is start reading almost any Trollope novel and I am lost in that world little (countryside) or large (London) forgetful of whatever had been stressing me out. Trollope wrote over 40 novels, after "The Duke's Children" I have read 17 (I think) and own another 18 (or it may be the other way around).
Shortly after I learned of them in the mid 1970's I bought a paper back edition of the Palliser novels, but was a long time getting into them. Shortly thereafter I had learned about the Barsetshire novels which have a Church of England focus in an imaginary English county. Since I was just become active in the Episcopal Church, they had more appeal and I quickly read the first two, "The Warden" and "Barchester Towers." After that I had a problem finding the remaining four novels in that set or his other novels as well. Hard as it may seem to believe in the days before Amazon.com and even Barnes & Noble and Borders it wasn't always that easy to find books that had been written that long ago.
Eventually I found the remaining four in paperback form and gradually read them. I remember that I aggressively pushed ahead to read the last two because I felt that I had too much unfinished business in my reading. There is the tension that exists (or at least exists with) me between wanting to read multi-volume works, but also not wanting to finish and realize that there are no more. The latter feeling probably dates back to having read every Sherlock Holmes story before I finished my freshman year in high school.
I was even further behind with the Palliser novels having read only two of the six before the end of 2005. That means I had the books for almost 30 years and had read only two! I read the third book, "The Eustace Diamonds" over the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 (these are not short books). It didn't give me a lot of incentive to move forward as it is one of the few Trollope works that I really didn't care for. I guess retirement gave me the incentive to get on with it as I read "Phineas Redux" mostly while Carol and I were in England in February and then started on "The Prime Minister" before moving on to "The Duke's Children" just this month.
In reading the introduction to the last book (which I always read after I read the book), I learned that this was one book that Trollope cut a great deal from in the editing process - reducing it to a mere 630 pages or so. Apparently the original ending left open the possibility of a seventh novel, but he recognized that he was too close to the end of his career to go on. Imagine finding that out at the same time I was dealing with the emotions of the reality that I reached the end. Of course, there is still more Trollope to read since even with 17-18 under my belt, I am not even half-way. First, however, I think I am going to finish all of Jane Auten, after all there are only six and I have already read two. Then I can go on and read/watch things like "The Jane Austen Book Club."
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Eureka Base Ball Club of Newark
Last February right before Carol and I left for England I had an e-mail from Brad Shaw the leader of the Flemington Neshanock, a New Jersey vintage base ball team (19th century spelling). Brad, Ron Colonga and others had decided to start a new vintage team based upon the Eureka Base Ball Club of Newark, one of the premiere base ball clubs of the 1860's. I already been working without success to start a team based upon the Newark Peppers (1915) so it seemed to make sense to work with them. The Neshanock had grown to the point that there were enough players to fill out two lineups so that major obstacle was already overcome.
Based on age and infirmities, I decided not to try to play, but to serve as the score keeper (tally keeper in 19th parlance) and unofficial historian. Then in an unusually serendipitous moment, I read on SABR's 19th Century baseball e-mail list about the pioneer project. The pioneer project is an effort led by Peter Morris, John Thorn and other noted 19th century baseball historians to compile a book of histories of the prominent teams of the pioneer period - roughly 1855 to 1870. They were looking for volunteers for teams in New Jersey so it made perfect sense for me to volunteer for the Eureka. At the moment the list has expanded to include the Newark Base Ball Club and the Olympic Base Ball Club of Paterson with the Irvington club probably to be added.
Since no one else has volunteered at this point, I am basically writing the New Jersey chapter of the book. And a good thing I might add since a book about this era without the New Jersey teams would be a tragedy both for New Jersey history and the project itself.
My research into the Eureka has been focused on the Newark newspapers of the era which I had used quite a bit when researching "The Mutinous Regiment." The Eureka were founded in 1860, playing sparingly in 1861-63 before really taking off in 1864. The Eureka and other Newark teams of the era were initially hampered due to men serving in the Union army, but interestingly after 1863 it wasn't much of an issue. Ironically at the same time the 33rd New Jersey was off to the "seat of war" in September of 1863, the Eureka were on their way to Philadelphia for their first extended road trip.
Base ball exploded in New Jersey after the war and the Eureka had their best season in 1865 going 10-5, but the five losses were to the best teams of the era. This included two-one run losses to the Brooklyn Atlantics who went undefeated that season. The Eureka played full seasons in 1866 and 1867, but became less active in 1868 and basically dropped off the face of the earth in 1869. Surprisingly the same thing seems to have happened the Olympic Club of Paterson. I have some theories as to what happened to the Eureka, but it needs more work.
An important part of the pioneer project histories is the lives of the players after they stopped playing base ball. The Eureka are interesting group including several who went on to play professional base ball as well as those who enjoyed considerable success in later life. One became a New Jersey assemblyman while another became the head of New Jersey's National Guard. Sadly with one minor exception none of their obituaries mentions their role with the Eureka during this formation stage of base ball in New Jersey. That makes the telling of the Eureka story for this project even more important. A book about the Eureka is also a possibility, but needs further consideration.
Based on age and infirmities, I decided not to try to play, but to serve as the score keeper (tally keeper in 19th parlance) and unofficial historian. Then in an unusually serendipitous moment, I read on SABR's 19th Century baseball e-mail list about the pioneer project. The pioneer project is an effort led by Peter Morris, John Thorn and other noted 19th century baseball historians to compile a book of histories of the prominent teams of the pioneer period - roughly 1855 to 1870. They were looking for volunteers for teams in New Jersey so it made perfect sense for me to volunteer for the Eureka. At the moment the list has expanded to include the Newark Base Ball Club and the Olympic Base Ball Club of Paterson with the Irvington club probably to be added.
Since no one else has volunteered at this point, I am basically writing the New Jersey chapter of the book. And a good thing I might add since a book about this era without the New Jersey teams would be a tragedy both for New Jersey history and the project itself.
My research into the Eureka has been focused on the Newark newspapers of the era which I had used quite a bit when researching "The Mutinous Regiment." The Eureka were founded in 1860, playing sparingly in 1861-63 before really taking off in 1864. The Eureka and other Newark teams of the era were initially hampered due to men serving in the Union army, but interestingly after 1863 it wasn't much of an issue. Ironically at the same time the 33rd New Jersey was off to the "seat of war" in September of 1863, the Eureka were on their way to Philadelphia for their first extended road trip.
Base ball exploded in New Jersey after the war and the Eureka had their best season in 1865 going 10-5, but the five losses were to the best teams of the era. This included two-one run losses to the Brooklyn Atlantics who went undefeated that season. The Eureka played full seasons in 1866 and 1867, but became less active in 1868 and basically dropped off the face of the earth in 1869. Surprisingly the same thing seems to have happened the Olympic Club of Paterson. I have some theories as to what happened to the Eureka, but it needs more work.
An important part of the pioneer project histories is the lives of the players after they stopped playing base ball. The Eureka are interesting group including several who went on to play professional base ball as well as those who enjoyed considerable success in later life. One became a New Jersey assemblyman while another became the head of New Jersey's National Guard. Sadly with one minor exception none of their obituaries mentions their role with the Eureka during this formation stage of base ball in New Jersey. That makes the telling of the Eureka story for this project even more important. A book about the Eureka is also a possibility, but needs further consideration.
Monday, August 18, 2008
"Living on the Black"
When I wrote that the next book I would be writing about would be one of Anthony Trollope's Palliser novels, I should have realized that I would finish John Feinstein's latest book, "Living on the Black" first. I wanted to read this because of the New York flavor of the book plus I had recommended it to a friend for a graduation gift. Paul read it over Memorial Day weekend and kindly lent it to me. The book gives an inside look at major league pitching through the story of the 2007 seasons of Tom Glavine of the Mets and Mike Musina of the Yankees.
Feinstein is a good writer who has incredible access which makes any of his books an interesting read. I did learn about pitching from the book and enjoyed the inside look at such a recent season including the Mets devastating collapse at the end of the season. I also wonder sometimes, if Feinstein is such a popular writer that his publishers subject his books to minimal editorial review. I probably wouldn't think about this if I wasn't an author (possibly some jealousy here), but first of all there is the length of the book - over 500 pages. I can't help feeling that almost anyone else would have been asked to tighten the book considerably.
The other editorial issue is that one can count on finding errors in Feinstein's book sometimes egregious errors. At the end of the book, he writes that the Mets and the Washington Nationals are tied for the division lead - he meant the Phillies. It is not such a terrible mistake, but I wonder how editors and proofreaders can miss something like that. Much more serious in my opinion is when Feinstein writes that Joe Torre remembered the time in the 1957 World Series when Birdie Tebbets pitched two games on two days rest. Three problems with this statement - Tebbets was a catcher not a pitcher, he had retired by 1957 and was not even with the Braves as he was manager of the Reds in 1957. My guess is that Torre probably told the story, got the name wrong (could he have meant Lew Burdette?), but neither Feinstein or anyone else bothered to check.
Some of this may seem like quibbling, but I am bothered by serious errors of fact in any book - including my own. I do recommend "Living on the Black" for any serious baseball fan especially anyone who wants to learn about pitching. I would also say that in my opinion, Feinstein's two best books are "A Year on the Brink," his first book about Bobby Knight, and "A Civil War." The latter book is about one year of the Army-Navy football rivalry and I highly recommend it. Now back to Henry Clay (almost 200 pages into a 700 page plus book) and "The Duke's Children" which I again predict will be the next book I write about.
Feinstein is a good writer who has incredible access which makes any of his books an interesting read. I did learn about pitching from the book and enjoyed the inside look at such a recent season including the Mets devastating collapse at the end of the season. I also wonder sometimes, if Feinstein is such a popular writer that his publishers subject his books to minimal editorial review. I probably wouldn't think about this if I wasn't an author (possibly some jealousy here), but first of all there is the length of the book - over 500 pages. I can't help feeling that almost anyone else would have been asked to tighten the book considerably.
The other editorial issue is that one can count on finding errors in Feinstein's book sometimes egregious errors. At the end of the book, he writes that the Mets and the Washington Nationals are tied for the division lead - he meant the Phillies. It is not such a terrible mistake, but I wonder how editors and proofreaders can miss something like that. Much more serious in my opinion is when Feinstein writes that Joe Torre remembered the time in the 1957 World Series when Birdie Tebbets pitched two games on two days rest. Three problems with this statement - Tebbets was a catcher not a pitcher, he had retired by 1957 and was not even with the Braves as he was manager of the Reds in 1957. My guess is that Torre probably told the story, got the name wrong (could he have meant Lew Burdette?), but neither Feinstein or anyone else bothered to check.
Some of this may seem like quibbling, but I am bothered by serious errors of fact in any book - including my own. I do recommend "Living on the Black" for any serious baseball fan especially anyone who wants to learn about pitching. I would also say that in my opinion, Feinstein's two best books are "A Year on the Brink," his first book about Bobby Knight, and "A Civil War." The latter book is about one year of the Army-Navy football rivalry and I highly recommend it. Now back to Henry Clay (almost 200 pages into a 700 page plus book) and "The Duke's Children" which I again predict will be the next book I write about.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
"Once more unto the breach"
At the end of my last post, I mentioned the possible need to write something about Shakespeare's history plays. This came in response to an item on the e-mail list - Shakesper regarding a "new" movie version of Henry V. New is in quotes because supposedly the DVD is about to be released, but to my knowledge the movie has never been shown in theaters in this country. When I saw the topic, my instinctive reaction was that this was going to be another extremely negative portrayal of Henry so I wasn't surprised when I saw "cold-blooded killer" as a description of the title character.
There was also some mention of this being different from the more "patriotic" movie versions of Shakespeare's last history play. To be fair both Olivier and Branagh played fast and loose with the text, both cutting something like 50%. Olivier's version is clearly slanted on the "patriotic" track, but he deserves some slack for that given that this was during World War II. Actually I don't like the Olivier version and I find Olivier himself totally inadequate for the part because he cannot convincingly portray Henry's agon in the Act IV.
My problem with all of this is that I think Henry V is far too complex and too important a play to simply be put into "patriotic" and counter versions. Before writing this I reread part of Ron Rosenbaum's introduction to this book "The Shakespeare Wars." Rosenbaum writes about how a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream changed his life almost 40 years ago. I had a similar experience almost 50 years when I was required to watch "An Age of Kings" - a television version of the eight history plays - presented in regnal order. These plays have been an important part of my life ever since with one of the high points coming earlier this year when Carol and I went to Stratford-upon-Avon to see all eight of the plays again in regnal order - the first time I had ever seen the Henry VI plays on the stage.
In his introduction Rosenbaum talks about why he wants the reader to care about Shakespeare including "the question of why you think Shakespeare's work is worth caring about." In my case it is because the subject matter of the history plays is worth caring about, primarily because that subject matter is still important to us today. I think that is especially true of Henry V which to me is not about the extremes of the movie versions, but how this young king with everything going against him finds a way to turn an imminent disaster into a great triumph.
The essence of that issue is played out in Act IV which in my opinion has to be looked at as whole not as a series of scenes which allows some writers/scholars to pick one scene to make final negative judgements about Henry. Ultimately I think the history plays are about leadership - national leadership and that Shakespeare is exploring the keys to such leadership in terms of the real world, not the world as some people would like it to be. I want to write a whole lot more about this - to be honest I want to write a book about it. It will be a difficult book to get published because I lack the academic credentials, but I feel so strongly about it that it is something I need to do. I will write a lot more about the history plays in this blog, but felt the need to write this in response to what I believe is another negative, simplistic view of Henry V.
There was also some mention of this being different from the more "patriotic" movie versions of Shakespeare's last history play. To be fair both Olivier and Branagh played fast and loose with the text, both cutting something like 50%. Olivier's version is clearly slanted on the "patriotic" track, but he deserves some slack for that given that this was during World War II. Actually I don't like the Olivier version and I find Olivier himself totally inadequate for the part because he cannot convincingly portray Henry's agon in the Act IV.
My problem with all of this is that I think Henry V is far too complex and too important a play to simply be put into "patriotic" and counter versions. Before writing this I reread part of Ron Rosenbaum's introduction to this book "The Shakespeare Wars." Rosenbaum writes about how a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream changed his life almost 40 years ago. I had a similar experience almost 50 years when I was required to watch "An Age of Kings" - a television version of the eight history plays - presented in regnal order. These plays have been an important part of my life ever since with one of the high points coming earlier this year when Carol and I went to Stratford-upon-Avon to see all eight of the plays again in regnal order - the first time I had ever seen the Henry VI plays on the stage.
In his introduction Rosenbaum talks about why he wants the reader to care about Shakespeare including "the question of why you think Shakespeare's work is worth caring about." In my case it is because the subject matter of the history plays is worth caring about, primarily because that subject matter is still important to us today. I think that is especially true of Henry V which to me is not about the extremes of the movie versions, but how this young king with everything going against him finds a way to turn an imminent disaster into a great triumph.
The essence of that issue is played out in Act IV which in my opinion has to be looked at as whole not as a series of scenes which allows some writers/scholars to pick one scene to make final negative judgements about Henry. Ultimately I think the history plays are about leadership - national leadership and that Shakespeare is exploring the keys to such leadership in terms of the real world, not the world as some people would like it to be. I want to write a whole lot more about this - to be honest I want to write a book about it. It will be a difficult book to get published because I lack the academic credentials, but I feel so strongly about it that it is something I need to do. I will write a lot more about the history plays in this blog, but felt the need to write this in response to what I believe is another negative, simplistic view of Henry V.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
