Sunday, June 19, 2011

Giants ' Woes on a Player-by-Player Basis










Usually a professional baseball team's chances aren't determined by injuries. The loss of a star player before or during a regular season can influence the course of events, but seldom determine them. In professional football or basketball, the loss of a high-scoring guard or center, or a star quarterback (around whom all the action revolves), may destroy the competitive potential of a franchise. But baseball is nothing if not a team sport. Nine men take the field at any given time. The presence of a star hitter is only 1/9th or 1/8th of a team's offensive strength. A star pitcher only pitches once in every five or six games, and even then, is only likely to account for as many as 18-24 wins in a single season.

But the removal of two key star players from a franchise is probably enough to seriously hamper the performance of a whole team, regardless of when in the year the players are taken down.

This year, the loss of Buster Posey, the Rookie of the Year in 2010, heralded from his arrival as a star catcher destined for great things, who led the team to a World Championship, could have spelled doom for the club. Yet the Giants are a team built around pitching, not a strong offense. Could the team have succeeded without Posey in the line-up? Probably.

But two developments since Posey's season-ending injury have shown that things are probably now worse even than before. It was commonly thought that Posey's value to the club was in his capacity as a good hitter. He even showed some power last year. But less remarked was his mature handling of the team's quality pitching staff. When Bengie Molina was traded away last year, there were moans about the loss of a seasoned veteran behind the plate, a catcher who could "settle down" those raw young arms, and keep games in perspective. Molina was a streaky, unreliable hitter, but he brought stability to the staff at the catching position. It was thought that Posey would not be the catcher Molina had been.

But the experts were proven wrong--again. Not only did Posey take charge in the clean-up spot in the order, he stepped up to the plate defensively, as well, playing his position with nearly error-free performance, throwing out base-stealers, and generally guiding the pitching-staff like a veteran. This was a complete surprise.

The loss of Posey, then, wasn't merely a blow to the offense, but it ripped a big piece of the mainsail out of the team's pitching as well. Posey's replacement, Eli Whiteside, has shown just how important Posey had become to the team--not merely with his bat, by through his strong presence behind home plate. Whiteside (and his back-up, Chris Stewart) comprise a pale shadow of what Posey had become to the team. Batting a combined average of under .200, Whiteside and Stewart look like the career minor-leaguers they clearly are. Stewart has shown skill in throwing in steal attempts, but otherwise the team lacks a major league catcher now.

If all that weren't enough, Freddy Sanchez, our National League batting champion and best clutch hitter on the team, went down 10 days ago with a dislocated shoulder, and is not expected to play again this year. Sanchez had been batting just under .300, but his clutch hitting had been more important than his average indicated. Lacking a true power hitter (Sandoval had been out for several weeks recovering from a broken bone in his hand), with Huff and Ross and Burrell all in power slumps for most of the year, the team had relied on Sanchez to get clutch hits in key situations, and he'd been fulfilling that need with stunning regularity. Huff, Ross, Burrell, Rowand, and Tejada had all been expected to supply more power and RBI production than they have. Even if only one or two of these players had produced as expected (or hoped), the team would have fared even better than they have so far.

With Sanchez gone, and Posey gone, and the rest of the veterans in a lingering power slump, the team's offense has fallen on its ass. Their average with runners in scoring position is the worst in the league. Despite above average pitching for most of the season, the Giants look very vulnerable now. Either Arizona or Colorado could go on a tear and knock them right out of contention.

Championship seasons are often the result of a collaboration of good years by a number of players. The coincidence of that happened last year, as everything came together in the right order, and the Giants peaked in the post-season. A few weeks into the current season, I compared the line-up as it had evolved from the putative starting day line-up as it was proposed at the season's first game.

Andres Torres
Freddy Sanchez
Aubrey Huff
Buster Posey
Pat Burrell
Miguel Tejada
Brandon Belt
Pablo Sandoval
Tim Lincecum

At the season's beginning, Cody Ross, Brian Wilson and and Mark DeRosa were on the disabled list. That meant that Aubrey Huff had been shifted from first base to right field, and Burrell (platooning with Rowand), was replacing Ross, last season's key late acquisition. First base belonged to very young Brandon Belt, the minor league phenom with high expectations; and shortstop was assigned to new free-agent signee Miguel Tejada. DeRosa returned briefly in early season, but re-injured his wrist, in what now seems a confirmed career-ending condition. Ross returned from the DL, forcing out Burrell and Rowand. Tejada began the year in a deep slump--both at bat and in the field. Then Sandoval went down with a broken bone in his hand, and the Giants platooned Fontenot and Tejada at third and short; and the team called up Burriss, and, later, Brandon Crawford, from the minors, when Fontenot was injured. And Zito too injured his foot. To replace Zito, the team acquired veteran Ryan Vogelsong, who's been a pleasant surprise, pitching much better than could be expected (much better than Zito certainly would have, if he hadn't gotten hurt).

Brian Sabean has refused to trade for any high-priced veterans to replace empty places on the squad. There were calls for the team to hire an experienced late-career catcher (such as Ivan Rodriguez) to fill the gap, but the team has done nothing outside the organization.

Right after Sanchez went down, Pablo Sandoval--who'd been leading the team in hitting when he went down--returned, so some of the slack of Sanchez's loss was tightened up.

But on balance, the team has been playing hurt most of the season, and now that two of its four or five best offensive batters are out for the season, the team's chances of repeating, even at the level of the National League pennant, appear slimmer. A team that can't hit more than 150 home runs, and doesn't have a legitimate challenge or two in the line-up when facing opposing starters, is living dangerously.

When Sanchez went down, that was the last straw. If we make it to the playoffs, as seems within the realm of possibility, I doubt we could be as competitive as we were last year. With this line-up--

Andres Torres
Emmanual Burriss
Pablo Sandoval
Aubrey Huff
Cody Ross
Schierholtz
Brandon Crawford
Eli Whiteside
The Pitcher

--instead of--

Torres
Sanchez
Sandoval
Posey
Huff
Ross
Schierholtz
Tejada
The Pitcher

--things are looking a little grim. Tejada has been a complete disappointment. Huff and Ross and Torres (just back from injury) have been hitting well below expectations, and seem incapable of picking up the slack caused by the loss of Sanchez and Posey. The whole team is playing below its previous level. This kind of performance chart is nothing new in team sports, but the Giants have had more than their share of bad breaks this year. Even the starters--Lincecum, Cain and Sanchez--have run into a streak of poor starts. Are these failings the cracks in the wall, presaging a long decline in a team that seemed destined for years of glory? The only pitchers earning their money lately have been Vogelsong and Bumgarner, though neither has enjoyed the kind of run support they deserve. Bumgarner's 3-8 record belies his performance.

Only Wilson, and Romo, in the bullpen, have been able to play at last season's level.

With Zito set to return, there's speculation that he'll be relegated to the bull-pen as a medium inning reliever--which wouldn't disappoint anybody. At this point, we could hardly endure another spate of his 3rd rate antics. Zito appears, by all accounts, near the end of his career--unable to raise his velocity above 88, and lacking control and concentration in tough situations. He may never be a regular starter in the bigs again, despite his huge contract.

Will any one of the veterans "step up" to the plate and start driving in runs? It seems unlikely. Hopes are fading. A repeat seems a remote thing these days.

The Man in the Maze




About 30 years ago, on a photographing trip through the Southwest, I passed through a town called Cameron, a little bend in the road about 75 miles north of Flagstaff in the high desert of Arizona. We stopped to get gas, and a bite to eat, and discovered a native arts and crafts co-operative goods shop called the Cameron Trading Post. I'm no aficionado of jewelry or native crafts, but I was very taken by the silver and pewter diadems and bracelets on display there. One design in particular caught my eye, a motif I saw repeated on several of the pieces. I bought the above pin, or diadem, that day, and carried it home as a present to my wife. It measures a little less than two inches in diameter--a sharply, precisely incised design on a polished, curved (convex) circle. Made of pewter, but it can be polished.

Circular labyrinths are an ages old design from classical times, which occurs all over the world, in different cultures at different times, familiar as the template for the Minotaur myth, in which a mythical beast inhabits a labyrinth. Confrontation with the Minotaur in the labyrinth symbolized a test of bravery, intelligence and skill. In Native American (oral culture) myth, the maze (or labyrinth) design depicts experiences and choices we make in our journey through life--in the middle of the "maze," a person finds their dreams and goals. When one reaches the center, we have one final opportunity (the last turn in the design) to look back upon our choices and path, before the Sun God greets us, blesses us and passes us into the next world. In other words, it's a passage myth into the kingdom of death (or heaven). Native American religious myths are various across the geographical spectrum of the New World.

On the back of our diadem, there is etched the following:

"Tuby
Honyaktewa"


My best guess is that "Tuby" refers to Tuba City, a small indian village about 40-50 miles east by northeast of Cameron. "Honyaktewa" is a Native American family (clan) name. When I Google it, I get several item references for native crafts auctioned on e.Bay. So, presumably, the diadem was made by someone living in or near Tuba City, within the Navajo reservation.

Native American arts and crafts is big business. Authentic craft items may be defined as artifacts which were either made for practical use by indigenous peoples, or made, early in the years following the European or American occupation of the New World, for use in trading and sale with the white peoples. Today, Indian artifacts made for sale as curiosities or to exploit the crafts market may be highly valued, despite the fact that they were not made for practical use. Contemporary, present-day crafts artifacts may also have value, but much less than the older, more "authentic" ones. Of course, artifacts sold as "old" "genuine" may be fakes. But I knew that the diadem was of recent vintage when I bought it--for about $75--circa 1980. I thought it was worth all of that at the time. I may have overpaid, but it didn't matter. I've always thought that people marketing genuine crafts objects to support themselves is a legitimate form of gain, and whatever mark-up they command may be regarded either as a kind of good charity, or as smart business-sense by the maker. Makers too may be exploited. How much time did the man or woman who made this piece of jewelry put into it? How much did they actually get in payment? I have no idea.

But I love the diadem. My wife calls him--the little man on the top--the "corn man" or "corn god." I call him the man in the maze. I think of him as a religious figure, whose spiritual journey is metaphorized by the maze, and it is his duty in life to journey through the difficult pathways--spiritual as well as geographical--and achieve the oneness or wholeness of some kind of fulfillment--what kind, exactly, I'm vague about.

Below is an ancient maze design.



Here is an old maze design in Germany.


Garden mazes are another expression of this theme, on the ground. Mazes on the earth are a direct application of the problems posed by man for his own pleasure or for meditation purposes. A maze as a test of memory, dedication, strength, courage, etc. There are all kinds of mazes. Mathematical. Verbal. Geographical. Astronomical. Puzzle mazes. Artistic (graphic).


People are fascinated by mazes, or labyrinths. It makes some people claustrophobic--being in a confined space where they may feel psychologically trapped or lost. I've always felt a sense of exhilaration when lost, but also frustration. When I'm traveling, I get quickly frustrated when I don't know just where I am, or what route to take. My wife, who can't read maps well, is of no help in these situations, as her sense of direction is several times worse than mine. Some great American cities seem designed to confuse a traveler. Others seem to "make perfect sense" on the ground. Venice, where our internet acquaintance Charles Shere (with his wife Lindsay) is staying these last few weeks, is a kind of maze, where one can easily get turned around and lose one's bearings. In a pedestrian precinct, like Venice, which was not designed for efficiency or easy access, this is regarded as a charming anomaly. Pre-industrial landscapes and city-scapes we find attractive to the degree that they don't adapt well to our modern lust for speed, efficiency, and vicarious regard. Parts of the world thus preserved, become like cultural parks, surrounded and protected, run for tourists and scholars to appreciate and study. But mazes, labyrinths and puzzles answer to a basic human need, to untangle the web of structure in the universe, in whatever exigent (expedient) form it presents itself. The human genetic code is such a labyrinth. The universal laws of physics is another. They may never be completely understood. The ultimate labyrinth is the meaning of life, for which there may never be a true "answer." We make up our own reasons, which become our creation myths, which we may choose to believe in, or regard with characteristic skepticism.


[492]

Friday, June 17, 2011

Women's Boxing Should be Banned


The movie Million Dollar Baby [Warner Brothers, 2004] introduced American popular audiences to the phenomenon of women's prize-fighting (boxing), glamorizing the sport and lending legitimacy to what has long been regarded as a travesty.

Boxing, it may be said, has tended historically to be dominated by a shadowed underground of dirty money and unscrupulous exploitation, preying on the lowest levels of society, appealing to the basest instincts, and perpetuating destructive myths regarding manly strength and fortitude.


As a child growing up in the 1950's, I can remember clearly the regular telecasts of professional men's prize-fighting--the Saturday Night Fights, as they were then called, with familiar announcers, referees, and even sponsors (Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, Gillette razor blades)--which were very popular among the older men of my father's generation. Though few of them would have imagined themselves actually engaged in any kind of fisticuffs, the acting out of aggression and "strategy" among contestants nevertheless found a responsive predisposition in men of that era.

In the decades since, boxing has undergone a series of boom-and-bust swings, while the actual ground where it flourishes has largely disappeared. There are few "clubs" or "gyms" where boxing is practiced, or taught. This may well be an economic phenomenon, a reflection of the post-War prosperity, where a steadily-paying job was as attractive as the promise of glamorous escape from the ghetto through the ascendancy of prize-fighting. Ultimately, of course, a sport like prize-fighting, like any other, feeds off of money, and the amount of interest which can be generated in the media. Throughout the 1960's, '70's, '80's, boxing was largely off screen, occasionally available (in its larger bouts) through closed circuit venues. It was apparent, certainly, by 1990, that the sport was going to wither away completely, if it didn't somehow rejuvenate its image, and build new audiences.

Boxing, as a legitimate sport, has always been a little edgy. It has been generally acknowledged that boxing--that is, what is commonly referred to by ring-fighting, where the contestants wear large padded gloves, and certain rules apply, intended to prevent gratuitous injury, such as head-butting, low punches, "kidney" punches, and the use of breaks during standing-counts and partial knock-downs, etc.--is a very dangerous sport, in which serious injury is almost a given. In the last 25 years, it has been established that most "career" boxers will eventually suffer various forms of dementia or other neurological syndrome, some as early as middle-age, other kinds of "minor" permanent damage notwithstanding (such as permanent facial scarring, broken bones in the hands, face, ribs, and damaged eyesight). In a sport in which the object is to disable one's opponent by disrupting his vision, mental concentration and coordination, and ultimately to cause him to become unconscious through severe blows to the skull, it would come as no surprise that professional medical organizations have historically had official positions against its (regulated prize-fighting) legalization.


When Million Dollar Baby was first premiered, I think few people who saw the movie realized that women's prize-fighting actually existed. I certainly didn't. The notion that women would voluntarily enter into organized fisticuffs would have struck me as a peculiarly bizarre and improbable potential. Women's bodies are designed differently than men's. Aside from the usual vulnerabilities of the head and vital trunk organs, men's genitalia--especially the testicals--are extremely fragile. One of the clichés of self-defense is kicking a man in the crotch, known to temporarily incapacitate him, though more severe trauma there can render a man permanently impotent. But with women, there are the additional issues of breasts, the reproductive organs in the lower abdomen, and the generally softer tissue throughout the body. Since blows exchanged between contestants are specifically designed to inflict injury, any "regulation" designed to "protect" boxers from each others' deliberate or accidental punches to vulnerable body parts would seem ironically ineffectual.

In life and death combat, there can be no rules. If you are trying to survive in a circumstance of war, or in a criminal invasion or confrontation, a man (or woman) may be justified in using any advantage at one's disposal, up to and including using any available weapon at hand. There is a millenniums-long tradition of fighting techniques for hand to hand combat, which soldiers, policemen, and partisans/guerrillas are taught as a matter of course. These techniques may be "practiced" or "staged" as training devices, but they're obviously not intended to be pursued for their own sake, as a popular "sport."

So now that Million Dollar Baby has raised the flag of legitimacy about women's boxing, I went looking around for information about it. Not being a follower of men's boxing, I would certainly never have encountered this information about women's boxing as a fan. Women's boxing first appeared in the Olympic Games in 1902, but it was banned for most of the 20th Century in most nations of the world. In the late 1980's, it began to be revived in Europe and America, and it's been announced that it will be included in the 2012 Olympics in London. Today, women's boxing matches are held in over 100 countries worldwide. I am frankly shocked at this sudden explosion of interest in something I would have thought most people would find simply unacceptable. And I don't think I'm alone.

In our time, the media continues to exert an enormous influence in how people think and act. If something like boxing continually shows up as a viable form of entertainment, there will be people who respond to it, just as there are people who respond to the nonsense of "professional wrestling" or to health gurus or to get-rich-quick-in-real-estate schemes or personal training or "green" automobiles. But that doesn't suggest that there may not be real social problems in promoting it, or that ultimately it's nothing but a crime-ridden arena in which real people are given permanent injury in the mistaken belief that they can achieve prosperity or fame though a violent display.

Our society is presently going through a period of self-examination regarding the meaning of various kinds of sanctioned violence. In the military, we now allow women to fight "alongside men" in battle, and in other areas as well, we're increasingly taking women "off the pedestal" and placing them in harm's way, in order to eliminate the "discrimination" that once prevented them from entering positions of power and participating equally across the spectrum of roles and duties once exclusively the province of men. But in our zeal to be consistent or uniform, we may be going too far. Is allowing women to "box" with each other really a sensible acknowledgement of the equality of the sexes? Is denying the physical structure of women's bodies an intelligent expression of our desire to be fair, democratic and disinterested?


Women are free to compete in almost all sports--at least to a limited degree--in our culture. They still don't play football, or professional hardball, or do much jockeying. But otherwise, they don't seem to be restricted from playing almost any kind of sport, competitively, they may wish. This is a good thing.

But encouraging people to take up an activity--designed to inflict mutual harm--which undoubtedly will cause them permanent physical injury--is really stupid.

I've never been a very great fan of Clint Eastwood. As an actor, he's always seemed one-dimensional to me, from his early days as a TV actor, to his days of "spaghetti Westerns" and the "Dirty Harry" roles, to his later days as a successful director and producer. The only film he's been involved (as director and producer) in that I thought admirable was Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil [1997], a film I've reviewed on this blogsite. Goodness knows how he brought that off--I would have thought him incapable of that much subtlety and charm. As a private person, his reputation is certainly less than outstanding. High-handed and even brutal with women, condescending megalomaniac in his business dealings, cocky and contemptuous to those he disagrees with. Not someone you'd want to meet in a metaphorical "dark alley" of the entertainment world. Million Dollar Baby won Oscars for Morgan Freeman (supporting actor), Hillary Swank (in the title role), Eastwood (director), and best picture. Why? Because it portrayed the riveting ambition and tragic accidental fatal injury of an intensely motivated young woman, in very dramatic terms, managing (along the way) to glorify and amplify the reputation of a phony "sport" which is a perversion of the concept of sexual equality.

The old Hays Code was a notoriously hypocritical system designed to preserve standards of behavior and decency in cinema. It was particularly concerned with sexually suggestive scenes and dialogue, and it successfully prevented (tacitly, if not through direct censure) thousands of scenes and lines of dialogue over the years it existed (1930-1968). I'm generally in favor of less censorship, not more. And yet my feeling when I saw this movie, was that I was viewing something which could do a great deal of very real harm. Portraying violence among women as it was depicted in the movie, as if this were a valid expression of sexual equality and determined individual achievement--only incidentally qualified by the death of the central character--moved me to believe that as a piece of "entertainment" the film was as corrupt in its ultimate meaning and use, as any part of the world it showed. Certainly gangster movies, sex comedies, and "ethnic" entertainments perpetuate cruel violence, crude (and deviant) sex and racial stereotyping. And there are good reasons not to elevate them as vehicles for exploitation along those lines.

Rewarding Eastwood for this picture with best producer and director Oscars definitely sent the wrong message to women, especially poor women low down on the economic scale. The glamor of professional boxing as a route to celebrity and financial gain was clearly foregrounded. That was a bad thing. Would I advocate censorship in cases like this? Given my stance on free speech issues, obviously my official position would be no. But there should be a common understanding, that attempts to exploit women in this way should prevent otherwise officially recognized "legitimate" figures like Eastwood from using a fake excuse--such as the desire to present a "real raw life" naturalistic story--or as a vehicle for the showcasing of a "woman's right to choose" a life of violence and pain--to market crap like this as a first-run feature.

We can be moved by terrible scenes in movies. Pain and violence and ugliness for its own sake can be moving--especially when it's of real events. Newsreels and video reports are crucial mediums for the transmission of information about the world. But fictionalized, romanticized versions of the dirty, corrupt world of "professional womens' boxing" are unwelcome additions to the library of sludge. Mickey Rourke's portrayal of a professional wrestler in The Wrestler [2008] was bad enough, though in his case, he'd actually lived the life of a professional boxer, and had the permanent scars to prove his cred. But Eastwood and Swank had no such convenient pretexts to fall back on. They made trash pay, and probably drew hundreds of misguided women into a nasty life-style that they'll regret having fallen for all their lives. What a travesty.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Last Generation of Bookstores


Bookstores are dying. Libraries are dying right along with them.

We all know why.

The material text had an admirable run. For six hundred years, beginning with the invention of moveable type printing in the West, books have been the ultimate repository and intellectual medium of man's knowledge and communication on every subject under the sun. They stayed around so long that we came to think of them as the permanent template of our culture.


But all that has changed. Bookstores around the country--around the world--are becoming increasingly irrelevant. It's true--or was, until recently--that there were more books manufactured each year.

What is a book? Without its physical manifestation, as a gathering of folded sheets of processed cellulose, does it even really exist?

We think of writing and speaking as fugitive phenomena, until being committed to the more permanent expression of a book. But we now know that books aren't the ultimate end-game of our culture--the more efficient, and probably more ephemeral realization--isn't the book, but electronic data storage. Accessing that data will become--is already becoming--the next big thing in the technological advance in the Age of Information.

We'd like to think that books will continually be produced for those of us who still enjoy them, either as convenient alternatives to computer projection screens, or as physical objects, familiar and convenient, like newspapers and magazines, which are also soon to become history.

Some people are pronouncing these doom-sayings as bogus, but they know in their hearts that books' days are numbered. The only question is what part of the publishing industry will survive, and what will support it?

Like film emulsions and light sensitive print paper in photography, now being rendered obsolete by digital imaging and printing, books will soon become harder and harder to find. And as they become scarcer, fewer and fewer people will regard them as essential and practical. Why would anyone pay $35 for a physical book, when they could rent an electronic version of it for half that price, and never have to worry about disposing of the object afterwards? Even if--as seems inevitable--electronic media ends up costing customers more to access electronic versions than it would have to obtain a physical book--the same way CABLE now costs people much more than old-fashioned commercial television once did--it's doubtful that people will ever "go back" to books. Books are heavy, perishable, and they nearly always decline in value immediately upon purchase, the same way cars and clothes do. Books are indeed luxuries in that sense: A car is a necessity in our culture. And clothes certainly are. Fashions may change, but people still have to get around, and wear clothing.

Could anyone have predicted the demise of print media, even 30 years ago? Who would have believed it?

For those of us who still maintain some affection for the old book culture, all this is very unsettling. The record of six centuries of thought and imagination and research is still with us. It's contained in the books which survive the ravages of time. But those will undoubtedly be reproduced in some expedient form in the future, just as we did in the past. The only question is whether or not these expedient technologies will be as durable as the original sources they were intended to supplant. Presently, all electronic technologies are proprietary, and commoditized. Books are commodities, but they stubbornly outlive the ephemeral use of their initial value as commodity transmitters. But proprietary software programs, and the hard drives that run them, will undoubtedly undergo rapid transformations in future. What will occur if we "replace" the old material texts with these new soft versions, only to see the later incarnations being rapidly made unusable, closed to access forever.

It seems likely that some newer technology, incorporating the content of the material book technology, without being trapped in a decaying form (like software files) will come along eventually. What will it look like? Will the Computer Age end up being a blip on the graph of time, eventually giving way to a consolidated system of exchange, as durable as rocks?

As I've said before, man falls upon the sword of his own vanity, in seeking to create a lasting vestige of his intentions. Matter can't hold the evidence of our having lived. Even stones eventually crumble. That was the point of Wells's Time Machine. All is fleeting. Given enough time, and pressure, the only permanence is change. Even our bodies, and our minds, are but temporary expressions of a genetic code whose formula and elaborations are undergoing constant, if incremental, change. People, like books, are temporary vessels.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Minimalism XII: Corman and the Collateral Tradition



No account of avant garde American poetry in the second half of the 20th Century would be complete without a discussion of Cid Corman. My earliest impression of Corman's poetry was his
Sun Rock Man [1962], a volume of poems he wrote while teaching in Matera, in Southern Italy. Corman's efforts on behalf of American poetry, through his editing and publishing of the literary magazine Origin, and Origin Books, as well as through his own writing and translating (from Oriental and European languages), and a wide correspondence, are probably unparalleled in his time. His promotion of a string of underground poets who would become post-Modern classic figures seems in retrospect to have been almost clairvoyant. Robert Creeley, Robert Duncan, Larry Eigner, Denise Levertov, William Bronk, Theodore Enslin, Charles Olson, Louis Zukofsky, Gary Snyder, Lorine Niedecker, William Carlos Williams, Paul Blackburn--Corman had a hand in bringing to light or of perpetuating the work of each of them. Typically, Corman wasn't the only one to realize how important this work was, but his confident commitment to his own taste and vision of good work, was immensely influential. Again, it's difficult to imagine innovative post-War poetry without him.




Nevertheless, I'm conflicted about the actual significance of Corman's vision, and what its actual effect has been, particularly since the 1950's in American poetry. When I came to literary consciousness in the mid-to-late 1960's, Corman's magazine wasn't easily obtainable in bookstores, and books he published had such small runs that they seldom showed up, even in places where new work was available.

Corman had a precious conception of poetry, and in addition, an interest in the physical (material) text which derived from the "little magazine" tradition in America, as well as the fine press book tradition--particularly the oriental traditions of book-making. Corman spent two years in Kyoto in the late 1950's, and returned to live there in the early 'Eighties, where he remained for the rest of his life. Corman has important ties to Boston, where he grew up, but his aesthetic connections were always characteristically oriental in character. His own efforts in translating from the Japanese and Chinese undoubtedly were crucial in guiding his focus on Asian imitations and contexts. He seems to have come to see himself as a sort of modern oriental sage, issuing haiku- or tanka-like miniatures in a countless series of quotidian occasions, many of which were self-published. The example of Pound was important to many of the experimental poets of the post-War period, chiefly through his encouragement to his followers to explore the literature of other languages and periods, and to expand their imaginative horizons away from the central canon of English literature. This was good advice, and Corman seems to have taken it to heart, as did Blackburn and Snyder.

Corman wasn't the only one publishing this kind of work. Jonathan Williams, a writer, publisher and promoter with Black Mountain connections, did the same through his Jargon/Highlands operation, and there was James Weil with his Elizabeth Press, James Decker (Decker Press), and so forth. The history of the relationship between writers, editors and publishers of the literary underground is still being written, but the map is already well-demarcated. Corman's taste was formed largely in the crucible of the late 1940's and 1950's, during the ascendancy of the William Carlos Williams late "variable foot" period, and the poems included in Williams's Collected Later Poems. What Corman saw in Williams was American speech, American homespun wisdom, straight-forward presentation, and the narrow line, the modestly-sized stanza. Creeley, Levertov, Blackburn, Bronk and Enslin also picked up on this aspect of Williams. And behind Williams Corman heard Frost, the quirky, country guru spinning out rural magic. Ultimately, behind Williams and Frost, there is Dickinson. A thread of formal style runs right from her, through Williams, H.D., Zukofsky, Oppen and Niedecker to Creeley, Blackburn, Levertov, and finally to Corman and his Origin nexus. Crucially, Corman featured the work of Zukofsky, Niedecker, Creeley, Snyder, drawing these figures into a specific constellation of common themes which exerted a powerful magnetic underground influence over the progress of work during the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, and after.

But personally, though he saw and appreciated important work across the spectrum of the Pound/Williams/Black Mountain vortex, Corman's bias was consistently narrower, confined primarily to Asian tropes and forms. By living abroad, Corman was able to maintain an objective separation from the chaotic richness of American life and art, to preserve a purity of regard that allowed him to think of his own work without the dissonance of competing attitudes, styles or possibilities.

Corman lived in Kyoto, where he ran a small coffee shop with his Japanese wife. In 1985, I spent two months in Kyoto, photographing the royal precincts, gardens, temples and architecture, living the while in a 500 year old ryokan. Even had I thought about it, I probably wouldn't have tried to visit Corman at that time. I was "out" of the poetry scene in those years. It's a beautiful city, surrounded by wooded hills, and it's become a tourist mecca, as well as a center for westerners wishing to pursue studies in oriental religion. Increasingly, over the decades, Corman's work looked and felt more and more like a tourist's version of Japanese and Chinese poetry. He never learned to speak Japanese or Chinese, and worked from cribs when he did translations. Corman published many of his own books, and they invariably felt oriental in binding and effect--not to speak of their contents.

The combination of dry American speech, eschewing complex concepts, linguistically inert--with the Buddhist practice of using koans or brief, arcane, enigmatic, cryptic sayings, observations or anecdotes--to inspire transcendent insight or meditative illumination. The combination of a Thoreauvian nature-preoccupation, with Eastern mysticism--long familiar to writers and artists of the West--found a coherent advocate in Corman.

The appeal of this kind of writing in the West isn't difficult to comprehend. In translation, much of the subtlety and nuance contained in the original textual manifestations of Asian poetry, are glossed over or synthesized into cliché'd attitudes and poses. Corman's work, at its most characteristic, exploits these simple effects in the interests of a persona and program which are not in the least innovative, or even original. There is an attitude about apprenticeship in the West that prefers imitation and the use of established forms (of, for instance, the sonnet), in preference to "free verse" or formally unfamiliar structures. Pound's injunction to try out forms from other literature, from earlier periods in history (including China and Japan) was useful in some cases (Blackburn's work with Provencal/Troubadour, for instance), but in the case of a figure like Corman, it's possible to see how this suggestion may have led to a dead end. A great deal of writing has been done over the last 100 years, in imitation of effects common to Asian literature, but very little of it seems likely to survive. If poetry is what fails to pass through the membrane of translation, then trying to make effective zen poetry originals, in English, would seem--given the inscrutable qualities of Eastern thought and art--to be a very difficult task indeed. Take, for instance, the work of Rexroth, a poet whose work never seems to have found a comfortable form, never more so than in his strained attempts to make creative "versions" of classic Japanese and Chinese poetry. The market for such aesthetic tourism has always been reliable, but seldom useful. Pound's Cathay may be one of the very few instances of a fully imagined recreation of a context within which the supposed spirit of the East is persuasively achieved.

Bearing all this in mind, I approach a book of poems which Corman published with Elizabeth Press, in 1976, titled, simply, 'S. Towards the latter half of his career, Corman indulged in precious little effects, intended, I am sure, to suggest the painterly qualities of Japanese or Chinese calligraphy. The problem with such cute effects, is that Western alphabets don't have the visual variability of Asian ones, so no amount of manipulation of the Roman alphabet can have the same complexity and nuance of the other system.

The poems in spring & all [1923] succeed in ways that have no counterpart in Asian poetry. Their energy, their functional rhetorics, establish a platform of expression and free variation which is spontaneous and formally eccentric. The notion of somehow combining the best aspects of Williams's apparent directness and simplicity, with the formal ambiguity and templated visual symbolism of Asian poetic traditions, is a contradictory program on its face. Even granting that the choice of late Williams (the Williams of Journey to Love or Pictures of Breughel) presents a model that does less than full justice to the purest example of his genius--the choice of uninflected American speech as a filter through which to conjure Eastern mystic visual simulacra is destined for drabness.

In the early 1960's, Corman thought of himself as the inheritor of a tradition of light lyrical form, in a manner very like Creeley. Here are two poems which Corman published in Poetry (Chicago) Magazine (1962):


THE REASON

glad to be
back be-
cause I am

like winter
and trees
are branches

unadorned
as--but
for them and

a few birds
and eyes--
the sky is


THE DAY

It clears. And the sun
throws light on the dust
on the windows, the

constancy of that
mist. To see "if the
weather is with us",

and it is. It is
amazing how much
a window lest in

or out. Part of a
cross from a tower
on a puddle on

a connecting walk,
white waterpipes that
sidle up sides of

white buildings to tie
tin cornices to
ground, other windows

polished by inde-
rections of reflec-
tions. Quiet. The sky.


Going back further in time is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope: Things get smaller and smaller the further away they are, which is more like how things should look, if we could indeed "see" into the past. Poems are one way of bringing the past closer to us, and reading an earlier poem by Corman yields clues to what he would become. The more complex a work of art is, the more tangled up in it the artist becomes, the more he tells us about who he is, what his limitations and talents are, and the ultimate meaning of his enterprise. This poem from Poetry was published in the early 1950's--


The Cockatoo

The lazy yellow cockatoo, at home
down under in antipodal cold, accepts

its outdoor cage with worn aplomb:
its narrow beak curved arrogantly.

Its sharply delineated claws exact
a hold and a half on the sanctuary bars.

Those of us who come to take a look
away with us of its resourcefulness

and lemon-thin skin are not aware,
and care less, that its given place in the air

is less than the usual dosage science requires
for perfect normal famil life; of course,

it has its choice of two between two kinds
of mongrel cockatoos and all the breeze

the cage can carry. Some of us, the best
of pets, cluck between the throat and palate,

arriving at a jest the cockatoo,
by natural affinity, may master,

and must, as a token to sex, flurry its crest,
the fan of feathers creating its head;

but when we offer only our goodbyes
and mash of words: guttural scraps of tone,

it pulls itself by the beak to the wire edge
closer and cocks it horntipped weapon, tense

with hospitality. It leans there locked,
until we start to go of; then it drops

back into its deep retreat, saying
something to itself we'd rather not hear.


Writing like this conjures up for me a whole milieu of artistic presumption, which dominated poetry in America in the 1950's. It has New Criticism--Brooks and Warren--written all over it, and it accepts the premises of its time, almost to the complete exclusion of personality and individual expression. It was good of Corman to abandon this kind of writing. But the choices he made do not, in and of themselves, suggest that mere rejection of one kind of bland, awkward ratiocination, in favor of a simpler, less complex poem modeled after Eastern minimalism led to a superior alternative. Succession is a quality of time only. By the mid-1970's, when 'S was published, Corman's familiar stripped-down Japanese poetic style was well in evidence.

Your apple's
for the
clayey.

how winter
over
without

that spur and
tonic
to flesh?

Food for
the scholar,
it feeds

the brains--
nor is this
all: a

rose when
it blooms and
a rose

when it
ripens:
the feast is--

when it falls--
ready--
a life.

.

The god in the word--
worm in the garden--
fertility's breath--

death. Reach up the child
now to the branch to
retrieve an apple.

.

I sit on
a rock
in the shade

and am
content not
to think.

why make more
of life
than death does?

.

Where was I
now? Let me
see. Lost in

the drift of
word coming
in on word--

a murmur
of waters
closing in--

confined here.
An ark in
the deluge

of silence.
Ararat.
Sh. Breathe. Breathe.

.

Sun in
the sky
from the earth
flowers

We are
what the light
through us
exists.


The shift in approach from those earlier ambitious attempts at acceptance defines the growth from a desire for approbation--to be recognized for the quality of one's effort and the elegance of one's thought--to one of petulant complacence. Corman's mature poems are like short-handed cribs from original haiku or tanka, but the original effect of the models is lost in his English version.

In my reading of James Wright, or Jack Gilbert, or some of the best of Creeley's work from the Sixties (Words, Pieces) there is an appropriation of feeling that is invented in English. The universal quality which these other poets perceived at the core of the best writing they knew was re-imagined inside the language they had mastered. But mastery isn't simply the ability to manipulate language; it's the skill to be in touch with the feelings that reach far down into consciousness, to tap into resources of awareness through the language. Corman's failure to penetrate into the sources of his own deeper creative awareness is evident throughout his work.

After the train's gone
it seems so far away
to be here.
Or here.


In thousands of poems just like this, Corman played out the string of imitations, each derived in a specific way from the cliché'd formality of the translator's cribs. His spiritual journey away from Western to Eastern consciousness followed a well-worn path in his time. Meditation was hip, and Americans dug the cool caption-like brevity of dimestore haiku, Basho sitting by the stream, listening to frogs belch in the mist.

Mountains at
the doorway

Welcome the
distances

Threshold and
summit meet.

.

Pointing out
each rain drop
in the field
the sun light

remembers
all is just
the smallest
part of it.

One might begin by pointing out that breaking up sentences into tight little enjambed arrangements like this is no guarantee of interest. What is accomplished by putting "Pointing out each rain drop in the field the sunlight remembers [all] is just the smallest part of it" into tight, little constricted stanzas--? If the poetic content of such a poem is its setting, how does its structure accomplish, or add to, the experience of feeling it wishes to convey? Corman, like Creeley (and a host of imitators), put great store in such precious "little boxes" (as RC called them half-ironically); but in Creeley, the sense is in the words, which speak directly to the resources inside syntax and sound and meaning, rather than, as with Corman, a preconception is proposed as a demonstration of another fact (derived from an "exotic" cliché). Corman's little zen poems all contain the same message. 'S is a book overshadowed, burdened, by the author's preoccupation with death, fragility, transitoriness, self-pity.

A man dies.
That's all. The
contraction
of that is.


But the dimensions of his aesthetic are only suited to underestimate the intensity of his probable desire. Western ambition and Eastern sagacity aren't necessarily happy bedfellows. During his life-time, Corman had a loyal following, and people often would speak affectionately of "Cid"--a name he adopted from his given name Sydney. He wasn't attached to institutions, and was politically outside the prevailing literary systems of his time. He had taken up people when they were still obscure, and enjoyed the notoriety of the excluded crusader. There's a certain advantage to being considered outside the Establishment--as Corman was, in faraway, exotic Kyoto--even when (or if) what's offered isn't any better than the culture you're escaping from (or disdaining). The real challenge for any artist isn't exile, but to inhabit the source in a way that either sustains (confirms) it, or methodically repudiates it. Repudiation (or acceptance) may begin in exile, but must conclude in return. In Corman's case, the self-exile led to a dumbing down of an aesthetic that had never been more than the quotidian aspiration. Corman's work was never better than the poems he wrote in Sun Rock Man. Between that book (written in 1956 but not published until six years later) and his death in 2004, he published a great deal (much of it by himself).

As an advocate of self-publication, I am in complete agreement with Corman's approach to total control over the means of text production. That independence allows one complete artistic freedom to present the meaning of one's vision, without the interposition of another screen of taste and framing. But Corman's abilities as a writer weren't as great as his editorial intuitions. He could recognize good work when he saw it, but--like many editors--his own work didn't have very much to recommend it. He wasn't an innovator, and he didn't have a powerful voice. You could make a case for his modesty of approach, and total commitment to the literary life, and the desire to bring better work into being. But the actual effect of conducting a guerrilla campaign that goes on for fifty years, is a little like the stale romance of partisans living a conflict well past its time, as some Spaniards are said to do in Catalonia. It can get to be a bit long in the tooth. In 1960, writing zen poems in English still held some cachet. And reviving the Objectivists in the Sixties clearly was an important task, that Corman helped get accomplished (Zukofsky, Niedecker). But those who look to him for wisdom or poetic example will make a fatal error.

In an earlier post, Minimalism Part VII - Joseph Massey & the Collateral Tradition, I posited a phenomenon of younger writers taking up inferior models as ultimate guides for imitation and emulation, suggesting that the young poet Joseph Massey had mistakenly bought into a poetic "tradition" spearheaded by Corman, and loosely buttressed by his later friends and compatriots as a second tier of writing, coming out of the 1960's. That discussion was largely dismissed as a sour grapes reaction to a complimentary piece on Massey in Silliman's blog. But I'd had these thoughts about Corman for many years. Reading the work of this young poet last year, I was uncomfortably reminded of how mediocre work can become the focus of aspiration for those just learning their craft--because it looks easy, it's attractive and tantalizing. Its modesty makes it seem noble. Its care makes it seem elegant. Despite these qualities, it may lack the ultimate currency of worth. The kind of approbation and mutual encouragement common among artistic wannabes and has-beens will occasionally be taken for the genuine. Early on in his career, Corman was helped by Marianne Moore to get him a Fulbright. No doubt she saw, in such poems as "The Cockatoo" (above) the sort of polite, well-intentioned effort at explanation and complex strategic methodology she herself cared so much about. But Corman was destined to do other things. Unfortunately, or fortunately, in his case, that "other" thing was his editorial effort. It would be best if the second rate work that Corman wrote (along with some of his friends, Enslin, Bronk, and Samperi, Tagliabue) were consigned to history, along with feng shui, and the pillow-talk of the palace concubines.