"To compensate a little for the treachery and weakness of my memory, so extreme that it has happened to me more than once to pick up again, as recent and unknown to me, books which I had read carefully a few years before . . . I have adopted the habit for some time now of adding at the end of each book . . . the time I finished reading it and the judgment I have derived of it as a whole, so that this may represent to me at least the sense and general idea I had conceived of the author in reading it." (Montaigne, Book II, Essay 10 (publ. 1580))

Monday, December 26, 2011

Baseball in the Garden of Eden - The Secret History of the Early Game (John Thorn, 2011)


Simon and Schuster book; gift from CCG (thanks!)  I hadn't even been aware that the book existed.

It was surprisingly interesting - an entirely new take, at least for me, on the origins of baseball.  I had last paid attention to this topic probably 40 years, give or take - when MLB observed the 100th anniversary of the Cincinnati professional team in 1969.  So I was familiar with the debunked status of Abner Doubleday, but otherwise had heard mostly about Alexander Cartwright (who also didn't "invent" anything, though at least was involved in rules development and the like).  This author goes into much more background.

Thoughts:

1.  I like how the author starts the book with the story of a commission that was charged with determining the origins of the game; its report, issued in 1910, identified Doubleday on flimsy evidence.  The author then pushes back in time to show other sources of the game, plus devotes time to explaining why Doubleday might have been entertained as a putative parent of the game.

2.  Interesting stories about "town ball," "old cat," base ball", etc.  Newspaper clippings or town records reference this going back to the 18th century (usually in reference to banning play near windows, or somesuch).  The "New York" version coming to the fore, the "Massachusetts" version fading.

3.  If one tries to think back to the origins of the game - quite an amazing chain of events - somehow it developed that people were willing to pay money to watch a game that was barely known.  The Civil War helped spread it.

4.  I liked how he links the development of formalized rules, statistics, etc. to gambling.  How the game was shaped in so many ways by those who would use it to make money (like there was anything wrong with that).  How the game sought to sell itself as a pure, amateur endeavor - similar to college sports, and just as big a joke.  19th century "amateur" players were busted for holding sinecures with boosters or owners - just last week one of the football factories was busted for the same practice.

5.  Lengthy, interesting discussions of the origins of the reserve clause, the notion of free agency, salary caps, designated hitters, prohibition of blacks, formation of rival leagues, etc.  Good run-up to how the American League finally survived to join the National League. 

6.  Getting back to the Doubleday fabrication - there is an odd connection to the Theosophist group - some weird cult-like organization that had some following in the 19th century and into the 20th.  Albert Spaulding was involved, as were his second wife and other figures tied to the sport.  Civil War figure Doubleday also was heavily involved with the Theosophists.  After surviving some rough patches, the powers that be in charge of baseball in 1910 were highly interested in proving an all-American, high-integrity, glossy paternity for the game.  Doubleday was a great candidate (plus attractive to the Theosophists).  The case for his paternity rested almost entirely on the recollections of an old man who was five years old when Doubleday invented the game in 1939 (i.e., the evidence was a joke).

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

The Anatomy of Influence - Literature as a Way of Life (Harold Bloom, 2011)


This is a very recent book that has received great reviews and is appearing on a number of "best of" lists for 2011.  The author has taught at Yale for decades while also being a very well-known (though not to me) literary critic. 

I found the book very interesting - but I still don't know why, because I simply don't understand what he's talking about most of the time.  This is an entirely different level of engagement with literature.

The basic premise here - and in other of his works - is the role of "influence" - how writers were influenced by others.  But I can't follow the influence threads very well; perhaps because much of the book is focused on poetry, which is a foreign land to me.

And he keeps talking about things that are inscrutable to me (and, I suspect, unhelpful):  gnosticism, Lucretianism, etc.

Something I liked: he's 80 and recently experienced very poor health - this comes through - he suspects this is his last hurrah, probably isn't filtering opinions, etc.

Something that was clear to me:  I need to take another run at Shakespeare.  This author just loves Shakespeare - he ranks him way above all others (giving Walt Whitman somewhat similar acclaim in the American market).  And he quotes plenty of others who share his views of Shakespeare.  Emerson said, "He [Shakespeare] wrote the text of modern life."  Bloom:  "I can think of no one except Shakespeare and Montaigne who has such wisdom beyond tendentiousness." Bloom:  "The miracle of Shakespearean representation is its contaminating power:  one hundred major characters and a thousand adjacent figures throng our streets and sidle into our lives." Now that's influence.

Bloom:  "I keep returning to Shakespeare in the chapters that follow not because I am a Bardolator (I am) but because he is inescapable for all who came after, in all nations of the world except France, where Stendhal and Victor Hugo went against their country's neoclassical rejection of what was regarded as dramatic 'barbarism'."  That quote sounds cool but I need to think more about what the last part means.

Bloom thinks "Nostromo" is Conrad's best book:  good choice.  He admires Proust, Milton, quite a few others.

So I will start spending some time with Shakespeare.  Not sure I care about exploring Whitman's stuff, maybe later. 

And maybe I'll read this book again in a decade or so and see if it makes some sense to me.


Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Railroaded - The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America (Richard White, 2011)

Brand new book, very well reviewed.  Usually I'm very careful about book selection - far too many from which to choose, time is precious, and I feel guilty if I don't finish a book once I start it (which is odd when you think about it).

Made a selection mistake this time, so this was the unusual case where I happily dumped the book (after 150 or so pages in this instance).  The title - "Railroaded" - perhaps should have tipped me off.  The author came across like a New York Times editorial page contributor - he seemed unduly proud of having discovered the thoroughly unoriginal notion that government officials and large-scale businesses look out for each other (with demonization focused on the business side, of course).

I don't get tired of reading about the manner in which railroads transformed societies worldwide, and I was hoping the book would be interesting in that direction.

But no.

Saturday, December 03, 2011

Faust, Part I (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, preliminary 1806, revised 1828)

Goethe's version (Penguin paperback here) of a well-known tale with centuries-old roots.  It's interesting that Goethe (bio here) was struggling with the story for much of his adult life - Part II wasn't even published until after his death.  Part I came out in preliminary form in 1806 and was issued in revised form in 1828.  So "different" Goethes were working on different parts of the work.

I ordinarily don't read plays, and have trouble getting through them.  Should work on that.  But this one was short.  Faust is frustrated with his inability to possess knowledge; cuts the famous bargain with the devil (signed with a drop of blood, per picture); starts hanging out with Mephistopheles and having various adventures (including the scene where wine is tapped from the barroom table); corrupts Gretchen; kills Gretchen's brother; attends the witch-gathering; seeks to spring Gretchen; etc.

The devil seems to be the most "human" character in these types of stories, which I find interesting.


Numerous stage versions, numerous adaptations.  I think the critics generally considered this a great work though flawed in construction, I read that Part II doesn't flow well.