Showing posts with label major league baseball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label major league baseball. Show all posts

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Kevin Varrone's BOX SCORE: An Autobiography of Zeroes

[I'll be delivering this talk in Ottawa, Kansas on Friday. In the meantime, I highly recommend Kevin's book; I've read it a dozen times now, and it has rewarded every go around the bases.]


Kevin Varrone’s Box Score: An Autobiography of Zeroes

On April 20, 2007, the Cardinals played the San Diego Padres at Aloha Stadium in Honolulu. They won the first game, 2-1, in front of a crowd of 37,382; the game lasted two hours and 34 minutes and was played in 80 degree weather, clear skies, with no wind. Mostly I remember the strange shape of the field, modified from football; there were acres of foul ground, lots of cheap outs. I remember that it was billed as a home game for the Padres, but that at least a third of us wore red. At least half of what I just remembered came from the box score, which can be found on-line. The other half of my memories are mostly emotional: I was excited to see Willie McGee, and I attended the game with my future husband, a new baseball fan. Meanwhile, behind us a long conversation transpired between two older colleagues. In slow and looping fashion, and by way of baseball, they told each other the story of their lives: games they’d watched, events that had occurred during games, one father’s stroke. As my one now retired colleague, Arnold Edelstein, had written in a review (Biography 14:3, 1991) of The Baseball Encyclopedia, edited by Rick Wolff, and published in 1990: “Proust had his petite madeleine; baseball fans have the Encyclopedia.” The only World Series game Arnie attended occurred while his father, an ardent baseball fan, was dying at home; he used a ticket proffered by a relative to distract him. At the game he attended, played on October 3, 1953, Mickey Mantle homered with the bases loaded. In his brief but profound review, Edelstein argues for the importance of the encyclopedia not so much as a repository of information (Mantle’s heroic feat) but as goad to intense emotions (like the association of that home run with his father’s stroke and later death).

Arnie and his friend were practicing the oral form of story-telling, but baseball’s stories are also recorded in writing. The box score is not narrative; it’s short hand; in fact, there are no sentences, only lists of line-ups, what each player did in the game, and summaries of batting, fielding, and pitching. A box score is fossil to the game’s living body. But like a fossil, it’s a guide to memory. A game I remember better, albeit very imperfectly, is the 6th game of the 2011 World Series, the crazy game won by a David Freese homer in the 11th inning. I remember that Series, in part, because I have a line-up card pencilled in by David Freese from the 7th game on my wall; I bought it for the Pencils for Promise charity. The line-up card reminds me of the drama’s characters; a box score tells me the significant plays of the game; the full DVD set of that World Series holds in its silence on the shelf underneath our television the promise of total recall. Each version of the game, the one dimly remembered, the one pencilled into the box score, and the one watched again, liberates an emotional field for me. I remember my son slamming his door during Game Six when we’d all given up hope. I remember screaming with joy at the end.

Kevin Varrone’s Box Score: An Autobiography is a book of prose poems about becoming a Phillies fan. As he wrote to me in a facebook message: “The book was meant to end with the end of spring. Box Score had a mind of its own. Long story short: I clearly can’t write a short poem about baseball. Also, 6/18=a fairly important date in Philly history (day the Brits left the city during Revolusion; official day of ‘founding’ of Philly by William Penn, etc.), but I wanted the game itself to be insignificant, historically. Just important in the ways all baseball games are, for those of us who love the game. Anyhow, it was as close to the end date of Spring that year that the Phils had a home game I could attend.” The game he chose was between the Phillies and the Twins, June 18, 2010, a game won by the Phillies 9-5. In the book, this game unfolds in blurts between other observations about personal and political history.  It’s fragments of a box score set against the ruins of every other obsession in the book: his father, his two sons; his poetic lineage by way of quotations from the poets who helped form this book; the eephus pitch; several cases of the yips, and floating quotations from Goodnight Moon, by Margaret Wise Brown. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHI/PHI201006180.shtml The full-length book came out first as a free app. It featured collages, audio of friends reading the poems, and included a shuffle function. The book itself, published by Furniture Press in 2014, has no page numbers, a(nother) fact that encourages the reader to open the book at random, wander around, find his or her own route to the ball.

Let me have Kevin to read the first two prose poems. I’ll then talk us through what he’s doing.

This opening poem can be compared to the abstract at the opening of Williams’s Paterson; in this short poem, we find many of the elements of the whole. You could read any section and have the same effect. Rather than follow linear chronology, these poems trace the circular history of our emotions; the circle that encloses the box where we find the score, before we realize that, “what happens between innings [hence not in the box score] is pretty much what life is all about.” What is a box inside a circle but a stadium built around a baseball diamond? What is history, but passed time or pastime: “when I’m sure there is nothing going on I step inside: the way you enter history a pastime”[.]

The second prose poem contains the keyest of the key words, spinning like mantras, in this book: “father.” Ray Kinsella plays with his father’s ghost, a comic revision of Hamlet playing with his. Varrone’s father, a NYC policeman based in Queens, introduced him to baseball and coached him in Little League. He’s quoted throughout the book. The phrase, “my dad used to say,” occurs at least 15 times in 82 pages. Varrone’s sons appear often, as well; Asher has three appearances in the text, while the older Emmett has twelve. If you’re keeping score, that makes for over 30 references to fatherhood in the book, one on more than every third page. Here’s a passing down, lineage of stories and poetic puns (“are we going home,” one son asks; the other says, “we’re playing catch ball”). They both hear their father (or mother) read Goodnight Moon to them, as do we. The poet’s dad tells his son to play baseball “the right way”; he’s also a compelling story teller, just as his son is a brilliant poet. The form of the book suggests that lineages are not fast balls but curves, or even the eephus, curving slowly up in the sky like a seagull and then coming down toward the home plate. Both baseball and its eephus “disrupt the flow of time & are tied to it.” As such, their lineages are also poetic.

I’ve seen seagulls at ball games (dozens of them once in Detroit), but not “a nightingale’s pastoral evasions.” Unless it was played outside John Keats’s cottage on Hampstead Heath, no one’s seen or heard a nightingale at a baseball game. So whence the nightingale’s pastoral? Clearly this is a bird that never wert (Shelley now!) at any MLB game, but lived in a poem, “Ode to a Nightingale.” “Cold pastoral” comes to us from Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn” and references eternity. Just as players come to us in long lines of “begats,” so do poets. Harold Bloom’s notion of the younger poet mishearing the elder occurs when, for example, “George ‘Will’ Oppen” is quoted as writing that baseball “does not & never did have any motive but to achieve clarity.” Or when, in a typical elision of baseball and word poet, when Varrone writes of the “nothing that is not there & the nothing that is is pretty much what the eephus is all about sd mark fidrych or wallace stevens.” Poets and birds have often been equated, so here a pitcher (Fidrych's nickname was "Bird") might be a bird and a poet’s lines might fold into baseball’s language. More surprising perhaps is the entrance of Emily Dickinson onto the field: “those evenings of the brain are pretty much what night baseball is all about sd Emily Dickinson” who then throws to the next poet, quoted as saying “or the apparition of those faces in the stands at Shibe Field,” namely Ezra Pound. There’s an all-star team of poets playing on Varrone’s team, because “language is pretty much what baseball is all about” [.] Among these poets are Bill Lee and Fidrych, quoted as saying, “I’m a little flakey . . . people say I should be a lefty” [.] (Varrone and I both write right handed and throw left, a flakey combination.) It’s all one big game of catch ball between poets and baseball players.

A short list of all-star poets includes Dickinson. Oppen, Moore, Stevens, Olson, O’Hara (if only by allusion), Hopkins, Walcott and others. What these players throw around are words, and words blur together. Take the name, Williams. There was William Carlos and there was Ted: “marianne moore called william carlos williams the splendid pencil :ted williams sd to rip sewell (whose real name was truett banks sewell) throw that blooper sewell bill dickey told williams to kind of run at it williams sd & he did & hit a dinger (no ideas but in eephus) it was all stars 1946 & williams was between stint as a marine corps aviator” [.] Between stints, between names. The word “eephus,” which comes up obsessively in the book, becomes the “thing” of William Carlos Williams’s “no ideas but in things.” Ted Williams should have been out for running toward the super slow pitch that he hit out in an All Star Game. That fact is, of course, lost in the box score to the game. There’s grainy video to think on, but it doesn’t count.

Video hasn’t counted for much except bad feeling until the recent replay rule was instituted in most rudimentary form in 2008 (only by umpires for disputed home runs) and later in 2014, when the call for replays by managers was instituted. That accounts for one of the many moments of failure that haunt the poet. He’s concerned mostly with the yips, but he writes often about the game pitched by the Tigers’ Armando Galarraga in 2010 that would have been perfect had the umpire, Jim Joyce (who wept in public the day after), not mistakenly called a runner safe with two outs in the ninth. To Varrone, obsessed as he is with memory (either private or set on the page as a box score), failure is important because it’s so memorable. It’s also one of the great tropes of American literature. Late in the book he writes, “would anyone remember jim joyce if he’d gotten the call right & armando galarraga hadn’t made that smile break into blossom across his face”[?] That memory is a bit different from the one that follows in this poem, namely the one that fixes Rick Ankiel in our memory because only he and Babe Ruth had 10 wins and 50 home runs in the majors. The latter is a box score memory. But my memory of Rick Ankiel is all emotion. His five wild pitches for the St. Louis Cardinals in the 2000 playoffs, when he was tasked with pitching the first game because he’d been so phenomenal during the year, are five pitches I watched then, but cannot watch now without a visceral response. I flinch in horror, more horror than any game merits. There is redemption in the Ankiel story, because he came back as an outfielder, making some world-historical throws to third and home from center field. That, too, is compelling, more than his 11-7 record in the 2000 regular season, or his lifetime .240 batting average. It’s compelling because it’s a biblical story of failure and redemption, not because you can find it in the box score, except perhaps as WP (wild pitch) followed by HR.

In the book review of The Baseball Encyclopedia that I talked about earlier, Arnold Edelstein mentions Moonlight Graham, a real player whose story became the subject of W.J. Kinsella’s famous novel, Shoeless Joe. Graham’s first appearance in the majors was on June 29, 1905; his last appearance was that same day. Though he played right field in that game, his line score is empty. Kevin Varrone finds another such player, another such box score, in Harry O’Neill who, in 1939, caught in one game for the Philadelphia Athletics. He had no plate appearance. His line is all zeroes. In Varrone’s book, the box score appears under the first line: “the box score an autobiography”[.] That is the title of the book, and the poem he told one of my students once over skype was his favorite poem in the book. If this is autobiography, what does it say, especially considering that Harry O’Neill died in 1945 at Iwo Jima? He was in a major league game once, but he had no effect on the game (except to make the throw from the catcher to the pitcher, without which there would be no game, as Marianne Moore has pointed out). It says that the box score fails.


On the one hand, the box score, like poetry, "makes nothing happen." On the other hand, the box score opens up to autobiography as pure emotional possibility. Zero is to the box score what white is to all colors. Anything or nothing could have happened. A box score can indicate a perfect game, or it can tell us that someone with a name played and otherwise left no trace of himself. Varrone’s notion that a baseball stadium is a church moves us past the pastime of baseball and into eternal time. He is running the bases, yes, but he is also saying goodnight to the moon and sounding out a hush to his sons. The lights have come on; they are electric lights, but they also belong to that larger light that unites us to history and to something beyond it. The imperfect, as Wallace Stevens once wrote about baseball, is our paradise.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Resources for thinking about Kevin Varrone's BOX SCORE

I'm working toward a talk on Kevin Varrone's Box Score: An Autobiography, finding video clips to go with some of the significant moments alluded to in the book. Some of these videos I find I can't watch--there's Ankiel throwing five wild pitches in the 2000 post-season for my Cards, and there's Andres Galarraga losing his perfect game to the umpire, Jim Joyce--neither of which I can bear. It's like baseball error porn, especially when you add on some of baseball's other world-historical errors, either inside or outside the game.

Kevin Varrone reads beginning and end of his book: start at 16:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHrR_xSs954

Eephus: Ted Williams hits homer off Rip Sewell in 1946 All Star game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDdwshL_Oxg

Eephus: Bill Lee to Tony Perez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJRXlCeAXPY

Eephus: Clayton Kershaw: http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/21753540/v608498583/ladatl-kershaw-throws-an-eephus-pitch-to-flowers

Steve Blass, the yips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa2uWYVaIbc

Mackey Sasser, the yips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwjR5CNkr8

Rick Ankiel, the yips, 2000: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDZX525CSvw

Rick Ankiel from center field in 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSFkhzpTnVU

NYer article on the yips from 2014: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/26/the-yips

3/24/01: Randy Johnson kills bird with pitch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwpRHrAh3pk

Andres Galarraga loses his perfect game to Jim Joyce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlDTBDJbNE4

Galarraga and Joyce the day after: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRxEF-V4fio

Box Score of the game Varrone weaves through the whole: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHI/PHI201006180.shtml

1997 game between Padres and Cardinals at Aloha Stadium: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/boxscore?id=13600

Box score of game six, 2011 World Series: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-scores/boxscore.php?boxid=201110270SLN

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Baseball Sutra, for Norman Fischer.


Because all green mountains walk, they are permanent.
What does the green mountain do at 3-0? Does it take the pitch & trust in permanence, or does it swing?
Although they walk more swiftly than the wind, someone in the mountains does not realize or understand it.
The green mountain is a catcher, sad in the knees, who reads the pitch & runs.
In the mountains” means the blossoming of the entire world.
It means the beauty of a passage from first to third on a single to the opposite field. It means the exfoliation of diamond into water, of water into cloud, of cloud into radio voices reduced to silence, the audio's on-deck circle.
People outside the mountains do not realize or understand the mountains walking.
They are on streets or in shops, praying at other altars, staring at their apps, as just past their eyes the mountain walks toward the mound, nursing its fork balls and cutters, change ups and sliders.
Those without eyes to see mountains cannot realize, understand, see, or hear this is as it is.
The vendor in Hiroshima started every call “ICE COLL, ICE COLL.” In the seventh, balloons littered the field, wafts of cigarette smoke ascending into a cacophony of trumpets & drums.
If you doubt mountains' walking, you do not know your own walking: it is not that you do not walk, but that you do not know or understand your own walking.
I do not doubt that the pitcher gives up walks, or that the batter takes his walks, or that the umpire walks to the mound, which walks toward the outfield, away from sharply hit liners or drag bunts, or that whoever walks walks the same path as all those who walked before. The genealogy of walking scatters chalk in its walk.
Since you do know your own walking, you should fully know the green mountains' walking.
My mother said she counted steps, though not for long. My father & I marched down corridors while he barked numbers & hut-huts, chanted martial mantras. I walk with my children, when I'm not driving them. A walk without aim finds counsel under the Koolau.
Green mountains are neither sentient nor insentient.
Our sentience gathers in neurons, ganglia, prions. We are ourselves and not. Our machine becomes us when we walk through letters that on the typewriter end with a ding! Return.
You are neither sentient nor insentient.
I am the sentence that I write. My sentence walks across the screen like a mountain in its folds. Clouds were white-out before that paradigm-shift.
At this moment, you cannot doubt the green mountains' walking.
I choose not to doubt Michael Wacha. He stands on a mound that resembles a mole on the steep mountain's green skin. We hope the rain delay does not last.

Italicized sentences by Zen Master Dogen
[Norman Fischer, a Giants fan, bet me a poem on the Giants-Cardinals game two days ago. I lost, so this is my poem for Norman.]

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Poems for my children



In the aftermath of the long witnessing of my mother's Alzheimer's and death, I've written a couple more light-hearted poems for my children on the occasions of their birthdays and remembering their adoptions. Sangha adores the St. Louis Cardinals, as do I; Radhika is a terrific soccer player. So here's the one for Sangha, which appeared in Talisman a while back:

http://www.talismanmag.net/schultz.html

and here the one that just came from DUSIE for Radhika:

http://www.dusie.blogspot.ca/2014/04/tuesday-poem-53-susan-m-schultz-rules.html


Sunday, November 10, 2013

My coda to Tony's coda to the Spirit & World Series conversation

Aloha Tony--

As I begin to write my coda to our Spirit & Series dialogue, it feels as if the statue of limitations has run out. Or, perhaps not: my life's time-line includes many years that I don't remember well (at least not as themselves), but those years during which the Cardinals won or lost the World Series seem better punctuated than most. The punctuation I'm now most deeply immersed in, as a teacher of English composition, is the semi-colon, but there's also the exclamation point (the one I'm reminded was a single quote, backspace, period on a manual typewriter). The Cards were in the series twice in the late 60s, when I was a child, three times in the 1980s, when I was in graduate school, then four times again since I've lived in Hawai`i. These Series gather other memories together, like snowballs (though where I live there's a snowball's chance in hell that there are snowballs), fleshing out my various lives, re-casting me in places where I watched games, re-joining me to friends from each era. I'm reminded of the ways in which my emotional lives have changed; the intensity of the losses and the wins is lesser now than it was, though I do confess to losing a couple of days to this most recent loss, catching up on needed sleep while luxuriating in my grump. Insofar as there are real continuities to our emotional lives, I've carried these emotions, attached to this team, to every place I've lived since I was an 8 year old in Virginia. When the emotions revive I'm in a restaurant in Charlottesville watching one of those old projection televisions, or I'm in my car asking my son to call the game for me, or I'm in the living room sharing the joy and sadness with my family.

While the Series was going on, I was teaching a unit in my Honors class on the Khmer Rouge. We read Chanrithy Him's memoir, When Broken Glass Floats, and had a guest speaker, Hongly Khuy, come talk to us about his own experiences during the genocide of the 1970s in Cambodia. One of my students in that class is also a Cardinals fan--by way of his grandfather--and we would attend to the grim task of talking about genocide until class ended. Then, in ritual fashion, I (sans smart phone) would ask him quickly what the score was. After the Series ended, we talked briefly about how odd it was to move between these two subjects, their relative weights so utterly different in our minds. He noted that part of the reason he got over the loss so quickly was the comparison he made between these two events.

Something moves me to look up a poem I remember reading, though the content escapes my memory. It's William Carlos Williams's "At the Ballgame." Written in the late 1930s, this poem directly addresses the conflict between game and genocide. But Williams doesn't address it as opposition, rather as part and parcel of the same phenomenon, that of the crowd.  His poem can be found here, but I'll quote some of it now. After describing the baseball crowd, its "spirit of uselessness," its attention to detail, its excitement, Williams makes a horrifying turn:

The crowd at the ball game
is moved uniformly

by a spirit of uselessness
which delights them—


He warns against the very beauty he sees before him, not as he sees it, but as it reminds him of 
another crowd.

The Jew gets it straight— it
is deadly, terrifying— 

It is the Inquisition, the
Revolution

It is beauty itself
that lives

day by day in them
idly—  


Like the Adrienne Rich poem we read in class on Friday, "Eastern War Time," Williams juxtaposes two scenes, the one in the United States (where a girl goes to school, a crowd to the ball game), with one of genocide, holocaust. He isn't interested in evil--the evil our guest Hongly said was in all of us--but  in spectatorship as a lack of thought:


It is summer, it is the solstice
the crowd is

cheering, the crowd is laughing
in detail

permanently, seriously
without thought 


The ballgame might take an afternoon, but the crowd is permanent. Just as our emotional lives are permanent in their own ways, the human tendency to look on, even to look for beauty (what is purity
but a perfect totalitarian desire), to look on as others suffer and die.


This is getting far more grim than I'd intended. So let me, for now, suggest that while Williams noticed a permanence across the continuum from sporting event to totalitarianism, we can also imagine a disjunction between them. We are discontinuous, as well as consistent, characters. If we know, or can imagine, the differences between these polar similarities, we can create lives for ourselves that combine joy with ethical fitness. In whatever small way, our discussion of the Series has struck me as an extended reading of this poem I'm ending with. We choose the beauty, even the 
grief, of the Series, but we also aim to refuse the apparent beauty of ideological purity. Baseball is not an ideological sport, but one that depends on chance events, on knowing that identities are not bound up in your last action on the field, that a loss can be as good for you as a win, no matter how awful that feels.

 I'm now back to watching the off-season news.  What can the Cards do about the shortstop position?  Will Matt Carpenter play third, while Kolten Wong plays second? Does that mean that 2011's hero, David Freese, will be moving elsewhere? What pitcher can we do without? Which must we hold onto? These are not rhetorical questions; they're real ones that members of my Cardinals hui are mulling over, just as we once thought hard about the Albert Pujols question.

So, Tony, good luck to your Sox next year, but watch out for the Cardinals!  Young pitching, lots of talent in the field, and we might just have another contender. 











Monday, October 28, 2013

Spirit & Series: A continuing dialogue between Tinfish Editor & Tony Trigilio.



Game Three Thread:

Dear Tony--

I understand what you mean by wanting “the game to dissipate like a dream you can’t remember five minutes after you’ve awakened,” but one of the lessons I've taken from my blogging practice (funny phrase, that) is that writing in that moment before memory takes hold, before memory-as-interpretation alters the event, at the moment before dissipation, is as necessary as allowing things to sift out. I remember a Ph.D. poetry student saying at her defense that she wanted to wait for events in her life to sit for a while before she wrote about them, and realizing how much a part of our regime as poets that has been. Of course I understand that this particular moment was one you didn't want to write from! What fascinated me about The Play is that it hinged on action and not intention. That the third baseman Middlebrooks stuck his legs in the air, ever so briefly, as Allen Craig tried to navigate his way past third, running as if he needed a GPS, or at least a walker because of his bad foot, didn't matter in the least. My family and I were yelling “interference!” at the tops of our lungs in the living room, and then I remember saying, “the ump saw it! He saw it!” For a Buddhist, intention matters. If Middlebrooks's intention was pure—if he had not intended to trip Craig, as perhaps he did not—then that matters a great deal. But in baseball, it does not. (I love this comment in the FOX stream, from the twitter feed of one Old Hoss Radbourn: “If you can't trip a guy at third base then I weep for America.” Here's the rule:

The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered "in the act of fielding a ball." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.
While the play still re-runs (or re-hobbles) in my mind—Allen Craig at third, Jose Oquendo, red hoodie down his back, windmilling for him to run home as the ball goes into the left field foul area (again!), Allen Craig trying to start running, but tripping over the third baseman, Allen Craig hobbling home, lying on the ground, his face blank, not knowing what had happened, the Cardinals running out to pick him up, gently—the rule has its own majesty. It's about action and judgment, like so much in baseball, about accident and result, about the moment and then the memory of that moment. (I mean to devote the better part of one of these epistles to the role of memory in our baseball lives.) My husband, Bryant, loves the random chance of baseball, especially when the teams are both so good. One foot, or inch, one way or the other and the play would have been made. But the rules do not mention accident; they only allude to what happened. In this case (“an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground”) the rule book called the play, even if the third baseman didn't have time to move away. McCarver and Buck could have called it no better than that!

You wanted to talk about our attachments to our teams; I want to tell you about mine, then open that conversation up to how our attachments to our teams lead to our connections to other people. To move from attachment to connection seems a step in the right direction. I became a Cards fan in 1967 (another Series between the Cards and the Red Sox) when I was on the cusp of turning nine years old. I don't know that I yet knew much about baseball, but I heard about the Series; because I'd been born in southern Illinois, I decided to cheer for the Cardinals. The first “word” I read was the TWA sign at St. Louis's airport, where we'd drive my dad, who traveled a lot since he was in the Air Force. So there's also a linguistic tie. When a friend said she'd made a bet on game seven that the score would we 7-3 and wouldn't I hope the Red Sox scored that third run so she'd win her bet, I said no, I wanted the score to remain lower. Oh my, the arrogance of youth!

That was the team of Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Curt Flood, Orlando Cepeda and—I nearly always forget—of Roger Maris. A later iteration of the team included Willie McGee, who threw the ball out last night, a symbolic act that Fox chose not to carry. Sangha showed me this morning: the highlights from McGee's 1982 Series, when McGee and I were rookies (I in grad school), and then the rather older, but still very thin man walking to the mound and quietly lobbing the ball to Ozzie Smith, sporting a bright red jacket. Somehow my loyalty to this team has stayed with me, has strengthened. “Oh, it's an identity issue, is it?” Leonard Schwartz once put it to me. Yes, the nostalgia of origins—the nostalgia I generally am extremely skeptical of—has its place in me, too. When I'm asked what my home town is now, I sometimes say “Busch Stadium.” Whichever stadium happens to be there . . . I wrote more about my fandom http://www.hawaii.edu/vice-versa/archive/issue_3/issue_3/schultz/schultz.html, edited for that issue by Tim Denevi, a great baseball guy.

From attachment to connection: my (pre-)husband became a baseball fan the first time I took him to a UH game and he realized he could drink beer and talk to people. He's evolved into a maniacal Cardinals fan, though he won't admit it publically. Our son, Sangha (named for the spiritual community and—as it turns out—for being “handsome,” which is what the word means in Khmer), rivals me in his intensity about the Cardinals. At 14, he is not always patient with his parents; yesterday, when Bryant and I commented that Holliday had made a very dumb base-running play, he got angry with us, accused us of “hating on Holliday.” Another moment of judgment, another moment of being reminded that Holliday is one of our best players in this Series. When the Cardinals were playing game five against the Pirates the other week, I couldn't find the game anywhere (I do not have a smart phone). It was not on the radio (which was carrying a talk show about our hapless football team), nor could I use the orthodontist's wifi, as I waited for my daughter to get her bands tightened. So I called home on my rather prehistoric cell phone, and Sangha called the game for me. When Radhika and I got into the car to drive home I put the speaker on and Sangha kept calling the game for me. The 45 minute ride home brought home to me the ways in which we create sanghas of a sort around this game.

My other baseball community is on-line. Several years ago, after starting to collect writers who are also Cards fans at AWPs here and there (Aaron Belz and I found Kyle Semmel in Austin first by wearing our caps at the Tinfish table), I launched a Cardinals Hui (or group, in Hawaiian) on facebook. This time of year the Hui is very busy, sharing articles, photos, laments (the media hates our team!), predictions (one among us, Harold Anderson, called a walk two pitches before it happened during one game, and now gets frequent questions about “the future”), and play by play commentary. Community also rules in Hawai`i's baseball world; for the first time ever, there are two Hawaiian players in the Series, Shane Victorino, who got the Sox in with a grand slam, and Kolten Wong, who has been terrible since coming up in August for the Cardinals. But last night—oh my!--he had a great play in the field and he got a strong single to left. I'm hoping all those Sox fans here noticed.




On 10/27/13 4:05 AM, Tony Trigilio wrote:

Hi Susan—
I’m writing in the wake of another Sox loss—probably something I shouldn’t do.  I should allow the game to dissipate like a dream you can’t remember five minutes after you’ve awakened.  Saltalamacchia threw to third base again?  Or did he—I had a wild dream that he botched another throw, then I got up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, and by the time I went back to bed, I’d forgotten everything.  This is where I should begin writing: start by forgetting what I was dreaming.

Earlier tonight, Liz and I watched the 1950 noir film Highway 301 with David Trinidad—lots of hoodlums talking trash in their postwar gangster-ese, complaining about “nosy dames” and telling getaway-car drivers to “shove off” at the first sound of police sirens.  Afterward, walking through the alley, the pavement damp with splotchy puddles glaring under receding rows of streetlights on either side, we felt like we had walked into a generic Warner Brothers noir set.  All we needed was a cop swinging his flashlight and a thug in double-breasted suit and fedora hiding behind a trashcan.

Then we went home and watched the Sox lose.

Like you, I want to write about the beauty of the game—those moments that are like Emerson stepping in a puddle, all mean egotism vanishing.  Actually, I don’t know if I feel right invoking Emerson.  If Emerson were alive today, he’d spend 20 pages arguing sabremetrics.  Wins-above-replacement are signs of natural facts; natural facts are signs of higher, spiritual Pythagorean Expectations.  I’m not saying that beauty in baseball only comes from the brush-cut grass and portly managers spitting chaw on the dugout steps.  I’m obsessive about numbers, and sometimes the combination of batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage just gives me a sublime chill.  But I can’t find beauty in the deliberate evasiveness of sabremetrics. Sabremetric categories seem like ungainly closed systems—for instance, I just want someone to explain to me how “replacement” is defined in “wins-above-replacement.”  I love numbers, yet I’ve never been able to find a lucid explanation of how the phantasmic “replacement player” in the “wins-above-replacement” formula is defined.  While Emerson makes the game into mathesis universalis, Thoreau grows his beard and forbids anyone from washing his uniform.  Hawthorne makes an errant throw to third (probably the fault of his ancestor judge who served at the Salem witch trials).  Dickinson rewinds over and over the Fox super-slow-motion shots of the bat hitting the ball.  She pauses at the fiery red moment when you can see the vibration on contact traveling up the batter’s forearms.  She could stare at this for hours.

It doesn’t matter, though, because they’re all buried in New England and they would’ve been Sox fans and they’d be really disappointed tonight.

But what if I really could watch the Red Sox with a realization of no attainment and no non-attainment?  I loved what you wrote about Lance Berkman’s remarks on his clutch 11th-inning hit in 2011.  Berkman stayed inside himself, as baseball players always explain to reporters—a persistently inscrutable phrase, but maybe something clearer now, if, as you say, I think of it as a description of why we sit on our meditation cushions.  Tomorrow, I’ll go to the Zen temple, where the sangha will stay inside itself.  I don’t mean this phrase in a privatizing way that walls off the rest of the world—not Paul Ryan forcing everyone in his office to read Ayn Rand, not Rand Paul braying about the Voting Rights Act—but instead, “staying inside oneself” as a gesture of mindfulness, coming back to the breath 101 times after being distracted 100 times.  This is a thing of beauty—and maybe the pause between each pitch, like the pause between inhalation and exhalation, creates the conditions for this kind of beauty.  Each windup is the breath touching the nostrils as it enters the body; each thud of the ball in the catcher’s mitt is the tickle of the breath against the upper lip as the body exhales.  But maybe the breeze I felt coming from a few hundred miles south of me, in St. Louis (Saltalamacchia’s wild, flailing bat, swinging at a neck-level pitch)—maybe this is really the breath tickling my upper lip.  If so, I need to remember there’s beauty there, too, a beautiful mindfulness like in Williams’s poem, “Thursday,” which ends with the poet “feeling my clothes about me / the weight of my body in my shoes / the rim of my hat, air passing in and out / at my nose—and [I] decide to dream no more.”

I’d planned to write about why we have so much passion for our teams—why our friends and colleagues notice red iPads (odd coincidence, I sat through a meeting on curriculum changes this week, too), or why they text congratulations to us when our teams win, as if we played in the actual game ourselves.  I hope to get to this in my next email.  This one, now that I look back, really was an effort to continue the thread you started, about what makes the game beautiful.  It’s when Lance Berkman and William Carlos Williams stay inside themselves—equally aware of the materiality of the mind and body and the illusory self-presence of both—and decide to dream no more.

Best,
Tony

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Sox vs. Cards: Dialogue with Tony Trigilio (Sox fan & Buddhist)

[The second installment of my conversation with Tony Trigilio; this time I'll put it in the order of call and response.]


Aloha Tony--the morning of game three has arrived; it's sunny here, with big white clouds out past the dark green trees, and the sheer Ko`olau mountains we live next too are clear and corduroyed. I was thinking first of how the subject of our first conversation continued into my Thursday afternoon experience of Game Two and attending a rather gory department meeting. And then I wanted to move into perhaps happier territory, namely what in baseball seems to beautiful to behold.

So, Thursday I was able to adjourn to my utility closet for the first hour of the game, just long enough to see that Wacha was on and there would be no re-run of the disastrous first game. That game earned me heckles and jeers from colleagues, custodians, and students alike; I had to duck my head walking down the halls of my bare-knuckled, industrial, needing-massive-renovation building. At 3 p.m. The department meeting started, and I'd been advised to go. On the plate are changes to the curriculum (down-sizing, because we are a “dwindling” faculty), a proposal to end the mandatory teaching of English 100 by all members of the faculty, and (contrary to both, seems to me) a proposal to get full-time tenure-line faculty a 2-2 load (we now teach 3-2, for the most part).

I sat in the back row, my bright red iPad cover noticed by the associate chair ("is THAT a Cardinals' iPad? You mean you don't have a logo on there?"). I do have the logo on my small red Dell computer, but he need not know that. The iPad was open to two tabs: one, the box score, and two, my facebook Cardinals hui, a group of us writers who love the Cardinals, along with some of our friends. The hui promised to be my eyes (or, as Ned Stuckey-French put it, my tickertape) during the meeting. My nerves were singing, as the game was close. For a while it was 1-0 on the strength of Matt Holliday's triple. On one tab he was a red dot on third; from the hui, I got the report of a “LOOOONG” hit. Another colleague was pretending to root for the Red Sox, just to get my goat. The meeting began with a long discussion of the future absence of Bible as literature and all the 300-level lit courses, including poetry (about which I spoke, as I always do, thinking that regular lit courses often leave poetry out all together). Then we moved on to the 2-2 load and the 100-rotation and, as the game continued to be very close, my nerves humming, I spoke up wondering how, if we are dwindling, we can cut our own teaching load. I started speaking (rather loudly as I remember) about adjunct labor, or what we used to be good at avoiding. To make a long story short, when one politically enlightened colleague spoke up to say “we are not a charity” about the adjunct situation, I walked out. The next day, I found my two pens in my mailbox; I gather I had trailed them behind me as I left.

I walked to my office, angrier than I've been in a long time, only to find that Ortiz had hit a home run off Wacha, and my team was now down by a run. So I trudged to the parking structure and began my long slow commute home with ESPN radio on (Hershiser is brilliant, but pompous). Somewhere on H1, the Cards start getting singles. And then: a surprise! Kozma, who had almost got picked off second a couple minutes before, led a double-steal with Jon Jay, and they ended up on second and third. Wow. A surprise to this fan, the announcers, everyone! When Carpenter hit his sac fly and all hell let loose on the base paths and in the skies over the infield of Busch—the brilliant Yale pitcher depositing his throw to third into the left field stands and the Cards taking the lead—I pumped my fists and yelped in traffic.

Nothing of the spirit so far, I presume, except acknowledgment of suffering and joy, but I do want to pause to remember other moments of surprise: Ozzie's home run in 1985, Edmonds's amazing catch in 2005, the craziness of the 2011 Series, when being down two outs and two strikes seemed to mean nothing to the Cards . . . these are moments that make a crease in time. The random chance of baseball, combined with the skill it takes to take advantage of it, appeals to my avant-garde leanings. To pluck a certain hit out of thin air, to dive and stop a ball headed for the outfield, to block a ball at the plate, to do something impossible under incredible stress, oh my. When Lance Berkman was asked about his two out two strike hit in 2011's 11th inning, he responded that he had stood at the plate and had no thoughts at all. He was there, the ball came toward him, he hit it, but without any cognition. Is that not the moment we sit on our pillows for, Tony?

Anyway, I got home the other day in time to see the end of the eighth inning and then the ninth with my son, Sangha. First Carlos Martinez, who later showed up for the presser in turquoise shirt, turquoise bow tie and nerd glasses, threw 98 mile an hour fastballs (with great movement, Hershiser had said on the radio) and got his outs. Manager Mike Matheny did what Tony LaRussa would never have done; he kept Martinez, a righty, in to pitch to Ortiz, a lefty, and it paid off. Then Trevor Rosenthal (Closenthal, we call him) finished the game.

My friend Kyle Semmel says he has a strong and strange feeling about today's game, how crucial it is. We'll see in a few hours. Hope you're relaxing before the excitement begins, Tony. I'm just pleased now that Willie McGee will be throwing out the first pitch. Oh how I loved him in center field and on the basepaths.

More later--Susan


Hi Susan—
I’m writing in the wake of another Sox loss—probably something I shouldn’t do.  I should allow the game to dissipate like a dream you can’t remember five minutes after you’ve awakened.  Saltalamacchia threw to third base again?  Or did he—I had a wild dream that he botched another throw, then I got up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, and by the time I went back to bed, I’d forgotten everything.  This is where I should begin writing: start by forgetting what I was dreaming.

Earlier tonight, Liz and I watched the 1950 noir film Highway 301 with David Trinidad—lots of hoodlums talking trash in their postwar gangster-ese, complaining about “nosy dames” and telling getaway-car drivers to “shove off” at the first sound of police sirens.  Afterward, walking through the alley, the pavement damp with splotchy puddles glaring under receding rows of streetlights on either side, we felt like we had walked into a generic Warner Brothers noir set.  All we needed was a cop swinging his flashlight and a thug in double-breasted suit and fedora hiding behind a trashcan.

Then we went home and watched the Sox lose.

Like you, I want to write about the beauty of the game—those moments that are like Emerson stepping in a puddle, all mean egotism vanishing.  Actually, I don’t know if I feel right invoking Emerson.  If Emerson were alive today, he’d spend 20 pages arguing sabremetrics.  Wins-above-replacement are signs of natural facts; natural facts are signs of higher, spiritual Pythagorean Expectations.  I’m not saying that beauty in baseball only comes from the brush-cut grass and portly managers spitting chaw on the dugout steps.  I’m obsessive about numbers, and sometimes the combination of batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage just gives me a sublime chill.  But I can’t find beauty in the deliberate evasiveness of sabremetrics. Sabremetric categories seem like ungainly closed systems—for instance, I just want someone to explain to me how “replacement” is defined in “wins-above-replacement.”  I love numbers, yet I’ve never been able to find a lucid explanation of how the phantasmic “replacement player” in the “wins-above-replacement” formula is defined.  While Emerson makes the game into mathesis universalis, Thoreau grows his beard and forbids anyone from washing his uniform.  Hawthorne makes an errant throw to third (probably the fault of his ancestor judge who served at the Salem witch trials).  Dickinson rewinds over and over the Fox super-slow-motion shots of the bat hitting the ball.  She pauses at the fiery red moment when you can see the vibration on contact traveling up the batter’s forearms.  She could stare at this for hours.

It doesn’t matter, though, because they’re all buried in New England and they would’ve been Sox fans and they’d be really disappointed tonight.

But what if I really could watch the Red Sox with a realization of no attainment and no non-attainment?  I loved what you wrote about Lance Berkman’s remarks on his clutch 11th-inning hit in 2011.  Berkman stayed inside himself, as baseball players always explain to reporters—a persistently inscrutable phrase, but maybe something clearer now, if, as you say, I think of it as a description of why we sit on our meditation cushions.  Tomorrow, I’ll go to the Zen temple, where the sangha will stay inside itself.  I don’t mean this phrase in a privatizing way that walls off the rest of the world—not Paul Ryan forcing everyone in his office to read Ayn Rand, not Rand Paul braying about the Voting Rights Act—but instead, “staying inside oneself” as a gesture of mindfulness, coming back to the breath 101 times after being distracted 100 times.  This is a thing of beauty—and maybe the pause between each pitch, like the pause between inhalation and exhalation, creates the conditions for this kind of beauty.  Each windup is the breath touching the nostrils as it enters the body; each thud of the ball in the catcher’s mitt is the tickle of the breath against the upper lip as the body exhales.  But maybe the breeze I felt coming from a few hundred miles south of me, in St. Louis (Saltalamacchia’s wild, flailing bat, swinging at a neck-level pitch)—maybe this is really the breath tickling my upper lip.  If so, I need to remember there’s beauty there, too, a beautiful mindfulness like in Williams’s poem, “Thursday,” which ends with the poet “feeling my clothes about me / the weight of my body in my shoes / the rim of my hat, air passing in and out / at my nose—and [I] decide to dream no more.”

I’d planned to write about why we have so much passion for our teams—why our friends and colleagues notice red iPads (odd coincidence, I sat through a meeting on curriculum changes this week, too), or why they text congratulations to us when our teams win, as if we played in the actual game ourselves.  I hope to get to this in my next email.  This one, now that I look back, really was an effort to continue the thread you started, about what makes the game beautiful.  It’s when Lance Berkman and William Carlos Williams stay inside themselves—equally aware of the materiality of the mind and body and the illusory self-presence of both—and decide to dream no more.

Best,
Tony


Thursday, October 24, 2013

Tony Trigilio's response to the WS dialogue on matters of baseball and the spirit



While you were watching Game 1 in the English Department utility room, I was asking my students to call to their minds the imaginary room in their homes that they all go to -- the secret sanctuary room in their heads that no one else knows about.  Let’s all go into that room, I said, and write everything we see.  A few looked at me strangely, with facial expressions that suggested I should slow down, take a step back, because, hey, what if we don’t have secret imaginary rooms in our heads (but of course they all do, and they all had a lot to write about).  In that moment I recalled the recurring dream I used to have of an imaginary room in an apartment I inhabited in Boston.  You had to step down into it, like a sunken living room, and it had a couch that always seemed beautiful in the dream but was mostly bland when I’d wake up.  Gray, cheap vinyl -- really, a disappointing object for my unconscious mind to care about.  The secret room I wrote about had a 100-gallon fish tank and a chrome kitchen countertop with a pineapple on it.  But nothing that would allow me to watch a baseball game.
Because of the night class, I had to record the game on our DVR.  I watched the first pitch around 10:15 central time, which I’m guessing was around the 7th inning in real time.  Around the third (DVR’d) inning, I started getting text messages.  I knew this meant the game was over.  With the Sox leading 5-0 at that point (in unreal, DVR time), I hoped the texts were from friends celebrating a win, but years of Sox misery creates ridiculous fatalistic habits, and I worried that the texts were condolences to make me feel better about a historic Cards’ ninth-inning comeback.  I guess my awe at St. Louis’s glorious back-from-the-dead win over Texas in the 2011 World Series -- ensuring a winter of well deserved misery in the George W. Bush household -- still wasn’t enough to erase my memories of the ‘86 World Series against the Mets.  If you’re a Sox fan of a certain age, you feel like an evil deus ex machina is always waiting in the bushes to sabotage you.
I thought about just fast-forwarding to the end, or just reading the texts and getting it over with, but then a calm came over me, too, and this made me think of the serenity you felt during the NLCS.  This was the same calm I mentioned in one of our Facebook emails -- an equanimity I felt when Koji Uehara was pitching to Austin Jackson in the ninth inning of Game 5 of the ALCS.  I watching the DVR’d version of the game, but I knew it already was over because I’d received a few text messages.  The game was too tense for me to dare read them.  As Jackson came to the plate, I paused the recording.  I was too anxious to continue watching.  But then a soothing understanding came over me.  The game was already over in real time, and I wasn’t feeling ecstatic or despondent.  The game was over in real time and I didn’t feel a thing. 
I was thinking of the old Zen story of the sailors who anchor their ship inside a dark cave to protect themselves from a dangerous storm.  They’re suffering from horrible thirst, so one of them casts down a bucket into the cave water, hoping it might be drinkable.  It’s delicious – he’s dying of thirst, and this is the best water he’s ever tasted.  Bucket after bucket, he gulps down the cave water.  The next day, with more light filtering into the cave, he looks down and sees that the cave is actually a burial ground, and the water he had been drinking is tainted with ooze from decomposing bodies.  As soon as he realizes this, his stomach turns upside-down and he starts puking violently.  Once he’s recovered -- weak and dehydrated from vomiting, but no longer sick -- he comes to a sudden, calming realizing of emptiness.  “Nothing happened between last night and this morning,” he says.  “The water was delicious last night, and it’s the same water this morning, even though I’m aware now that the water is tainted by corpse putrefaction.  But the only thing that really happened was my mind.”
So I restarted the recording.  Koji was pitching to Jackson, but the game was already over.  The only thing happening was my mind.
Well, shantih shantih shantih, if only I could maintain that equanimity.  It lasted until the first pitch of Game 6.  All my own base instincts came back right away.  To make things worse, my extended in-laws are all Tigers fans -- they all grew up around Toledo and Detroit.  My father-in-law, Stan, and I have a great rapport, but we both went dark during the ALCS.  When the Tigers won Game 1, he didn’t text me; when the Sox came back to win Game 2, I held back.  Neither of us wanted to gloat and make the other person feel bad.  But of course we wanted nothing more than to disappoint the entire city of Detroit (me) or Boston (Stan).  But by the time of Victorino’s grand slam, I can’t say I was feeling any equanimity at all.  I was attached to a Sox victory -- thoroughly attached, in the Buddhist sense, as in “addicted.”  I didn’t matter that my joy hinged on the disappointment of an entire fan base, including my wonderful extended family of in-laws.  Jose Veras is, I’m sure, loved deeply by his family and friends, and if I were truly living up to the Bodhisattva ideal, I wouldn’t want him to feel as horrible as I’m sure he did when he hung that curveball to the unspeakably intense Victorino, who then knocked it over the wall for the Sox’s second game-turning grand slam of the series.
But, like you, baseball is my place for base instinct.  No place for bodhisattva ideals.  I’m reminded of an email I sent a dear friend in Boston last month.  I was explaining to him that the emotional distance I’d cultivated during the Sox’s 93-loss, last-place plummet last season was disappearing.  This was around the same time that Mariano Rivera’s unending retirement tour took him to Fenway, where the Boston Cello Quartet played his signature song, Metallica’s “Enter Sandman,” and the team gave him a 1934 seat from Fenway park (with his number on it). I want to boo Mariano Rivera every time I see him take the mound.  He caused me irreparable baseball-misery over the years, and the bare fact that he reached baseball-retirement age doesn’t take away the pain.  Every time I hear announcers rending their garments over “Mo’s” retirement, I think of Kevin Millar’s walk and Bill Mueller’s single in the 2004 ALCS -- I still see Rivera sprawling on the mound after his futile attempt to stop Mueller’s hit from getting through the infield -- and I feel a twang of justice in my heart.  Literally, I call this “justice,” which I’ll be the first to admit is a total perversion of the word.  But here I am, suspending all my political anger at, say, the Republican party’s desire to let poor people die from lack of health care, and I’m saying it would be “unjust” if Rivera saved another game against the Sox.  It defies all spiritual reason, but there I go, right to my basest instincts, as Jonny Gomes starts his obsessive-compulsive rituals in the batter’s box, looking like he can barely contain the twitches and spasms of his central nervous system.
I get it, absolutely, how in the middle of the last night’s game, you could start to feel hostility toward the city of Boston.  Along with San Francisco, it’s the city of my imagination, but if the Sox were playing the Giants in the World Series, I’d want every single baseball fan in the Bay Area to be disappointed today -- even though I begin each day with a meditation session that (at least when baseball isn’t involved) is meant to create the conditions for me to be good, altruistic, and full of loving-kindness with everyone I encounter that day.
I planned to talk more about how we root for our individual teams -- I’m fascinated by what you said about the roots of your Cardinal-rooting, and I, too, came to my chronic Red Sox fanaticism through circuitous paths.  I grew up in Pennsylvania but I’ve lived most of my life in Boston and Chicago, the only cities that truly feel like “home.”  When I watch Fenway games on TV, I feel a pang, knowing that my apartment was about a 10-minute walk from Fenway, following the trajectory of the right-field foul line.  But I’ll save this for our next emails.
Best,
Tony

Dialogue ( & a poem) with Tony Trigilio (Red Sox fan) during the World Series, 2013

 [Tortilla on our Cardinals shrine]

[On the blog, the spacing of this prose comes out looking like poem. I'll leave it that way.]

Aloha Tony--I hardly know what to say after yesterday's disastrous performance by
my Cardinals, their/our fifth straight loss at Fenway in a World Series. Losing Beltran was the unkindest cut of all. But I've been thinking about the spiritual element of baseball, and the way
being a fanatic about the sport, especially in October, seems to go against many
of the principles we try to hold to: clarity of mind, detachment, acceptance of impermanence,
balance in all things.

As I told you in a facebook chat box (not a diamond, but a box), during the last game
of the National League Championship series I walked toward my office and away from
my last class of the day with a feeling of absolute serenity. I walked slowly even. That's
a rare feeling for me in October! Then, during yesterday's rout, what I saw of it, between
classes and other duties, I began to feel hostility toward Boston, its players, my friend
from MA who is suddenly emailing me about baseball, nearly everyone. When my husband
suggested I leave the utility room in the English department where I've spent many Octobers,
in favor of a public space, I said no, not with the score the way it is. Shane Victorino is from HI,
so everyone will be cheering for him. (So is Kolten Wong,but the guy has yet to prove he can hit.)
Add terrible self-consciousness onto the list of bad spiritual practices then, alongside
black and white thinking and sheer obsessiveness.

So why am I a fan? Apart from having made a decision to support the Cardinals in 1967, during
another series with the Red Sox, I wonder. I made that decision when I was eight years old, going
on nine. Most such decisions don't last this long, but here I am in 2013, with a 14-year-old son
who loves the Cardinals and a husband who played along until it took, and a daughter who at
least wants to watch the highlights. Some of it is that I find baseball to be a beautiful sport,
one that allows for meditative spaces in which to think about what happens next--on the field
or in my head. But some, quite frankly, is that it allows these "base" feelings free reign. I can
indulge myself in aspects of my character I usually steer around, and the results do not hurt
anyone. (Even if my dad, during the 1987 Series, once told me he was worried I'd have a heart
attack!)

Do we go with these feelings, exploring them in this relatively harmless space of sport, or do
we work through them as they occur, practicing detachment as we watch our Cards and Bosox
this afternoon/evening?  I have a department meeting at that time--an important one--so will
have to watch the box score on my iPad as I argue over the English 100 rotation and the hiring
of more adjuncts (that's a real problem).

Go Cards! Susan


Here's the poem I wrote after Carlos Beltran's injury yesterday.  If we lose him for the Series, we're sunk. He's waited 18 years for this chance . . .


(after Frank O'Hara)


Poem (Carlos Beltran has hit the wall)



Carlos Beltran has hit the wall!
I was watching Fox TV in a utility
closet alongside six hand trucks old plates
old microwave old coffee pot old tea
but I had a class to teach on Joe
(“I remember”) Brainard and I
was in such a hurry to get to moore
hall that I missed seeing you crash into
that low Fenway wall as you reached
for Ortiz's would-be grand slam so
my son had to tell me on the phone
CARLOS BELTRAN HAS HIT THE WALL!
there is snow on the television screen
there is rain in Honolulu
I have been to lots of ballgames and shouted
“dirt ball!” at the pitchers but I never actually hit the wall
oh Carlos Beltran we love you get up

--Susan M. Schultz