62 stories
1 follower

On This Date 42 Years Ago, I Went To Fenway Park For The First Time - And Took Pictures

1 Comment
I saw my first game at Fenway Park 42 years ago today.

On Saturday, August 22, 1976, the Red Sox lost to the Oakland Athletics 7-6 in 11 innings. My father and I were two of the 27,526 fans in attendance. I was 12 years old.
Athletics - 000 204 000 01 - 7 15  0
Red Sox - 100 005 000 00 - 6 15 2
I have written about this game before. Earlier this year, I (finally) converted the color slides I took that day. Here are some of them, taken from a blue wooden seat in Section 17:

The Red Sox take the field!
L to R: Butch Hobson 3B (4), Rick Burleson SS (7), Carlton Fisk C, Cecil Cooper 1B (15), Denny Doyle 2B (5), Fergie Jenkins P (31), Yaz LF (8), Dwight Evans RF (24).

Yaz in left field before the first pitch.

Yaz on deck.

Yaz was also pictured on the program being sold at the park that day (lower right).

The Red Sox wished Yaz a happy 37th birthday with a message on the brand new video board.

The day's lineup. Rice batted anywhere from 4th to 7th that season.

Yaz hikes up his pants and gets ready to hit.

Top of 3rd: Phil Garner has been caught stealing, Fisk-to-Burleson.

Scoreboard, after three innings. It looks very small and quaint now. Note that uniform numbers for the umpires are provided.

Fred Lynn, on deck.

Bill North takes a strike.

Tom Murphy warming up for the top of the sixth. He would record only two outs and allow four runs.

Jim Willoughby arrives via the bullpen car in relief of Murphy. This car was (and probably still is) housed in the Twins souvenir store across Jersey Street from the park.

Final score. Unfortunately, the previous ten innings of the linescore were removed so the 11th to 20th innings (if necessary) could be displayed.

I'm very surprised that in my old post about this game, I said nothing about the Angels/Yankees score. The Angels won 11-8 - and it was in extra innings. We had been watching all afternoon as the Angels kept scoring, eventually taking an 8-0 lead. In the ninth inning, the "0" next to N.Y. went down and I distinctly recall a measure of anticipation over what number would appear. Not everyone was aware of this development, of course, but it must have been a decent amount because when an "8" went up, there was low murmur that could only have been a heady mix of Are you kidding?/Jesus!/WTF? (My memory has that game at the bottom of the scoreboard where KC/MIL is.)

I also mentioned in that post that while I was at Fenway on September 9, 1978, which was Game 3 of the infamous Boston Massacre, I have nothing from that day. I was wrong. It turns out that when I converted the 1976 slides, I found a bunch of slides I had taken at that 1978 game. I'll post some of those shots on that anniversary.
Read the whole story
151 days ago
Attn Sox fans
Washington DC
Share this story

Dry-fried string beans + a Mother's Day card

1 Share

I know, St. Patrick's Day has barely come and gone, but you know what? Mother's Day will be here soon. And if you love your mom as much as you love dim sum (and you know you do), then have I got a suggestion for you!

Papyrus commissioned me to make them a Mother's Day card with a dim sum theme, and how could I resist? 

You can most likely find this in your neighborhood card shop, but if not, it's available here, too. I love Papyrus's stationery, so this was a dream come true. So give her a card and treat her to the perfect brunch. And then apologize for that thing that happened, you know the one I'm talking about...

*   *   * 

To my way of thinking, there is only one divine way to eat string beans, and that is dry-fried. The problem is that these sometimes can be nigh on impossible to find, even in a good Sichuan style restaurant.

That’s because nowadays too many cooks are skipping the first step, the most important step, the one that turns these beany flavored green things into olive strips of silk. Instead, they plunk down a plate of what can only be described as stir-fried beans, and if they really want me to see red, they’ll toss in some zhacai (Sichuan pickled tuber) and chile sauce and call it a day. This sort of thing will put me into a major funk for at least a couple of hours.

Fry 'em up!
So, what’s the first step? The beans are washed and carefully dried, and then they are deep-fried until the skins are blistered and the interiors have turned soft and squishy. And if you taste them at this point, you may think to yourself that these are ok, but nothing to write home about.

That is where the sauce comes in. Once the beans have been turned a toasty brown, they are then stir-fried in a savory sauce that gets sucked up by these now thirsty beans. But wait, there’s more: a genuine dish of dry-fried string beans will be robed with yácài 芽菜, a type of preserved mustard green (kind of like a pickle) from Sichuan.

Yacai is a terrific ingredient you should get to know, for it has a darkly savory flavor, a touch of piquance, and (something really unusual for salty preserved things) a super silky texture. And that is what is going to make this dish particularly delicious. You will be tossing in what will seem like a whole lot of yacai, and yet it will turn around and cosset each of the beans so that there is yet another layer of texture in here.
So good...

Yacai is becoming increasingly easy to hunt down in Chinese markets; just head to the pickle aisle, where they will usually be waiting for you in a small cardboard box. They will be either whole or chopped—get whatever you want. Their flavor and texture really is a game changer, as you will probably already noted in that noodle dish from a couple weeks back.

Also like that noodle recipe, this dish is heavily influenced by the cuisine of Yibin, a city in the southwestern corner of Sichuan. It straddles the headwaters of the Yangtze River and is just a stone’s throw from Yunnan Province. In other words, you should expect to eat really, really well here, and of course you do. 

Every Yibin dish I’ve ever devoured has offered wonderful textures and flavors. Nothing overwhelming to spoil my reverie, just a balanced symphony that makes me smile. And so, you should put finding a box of yacai at the top of your To Do list.
Yacai, chile peppers, garlic, & ginger

Frying the string beans ahead of time is highly recommended. That way you can have everything cleaned up and your wok ready for the quick braise. I let the blistered beans cool off and then stick them into a resealable plastic bag. Then, from fridge to table requires only a few minutes.

A note for the nerds out there: This recipe uses a character you won’t run across every day: biān . This is used almost exclusively in Sichuan cooking and refers to quickly stir-frying. It’s usually found in two verb combinations: gānbiān 幹煸 (dry-fried, as in today’s recipe, where only a bit of oil is used in the final step) or biānchăo 煸炒 (stir-fried, with the wok set on the heat before oil is added, and then the ingredients are flash-fried).

Leftovers are good, too. I even eat this cold, like leftover pizza. Don't judge.
Dry your trimmed beans

Dry-fried string beans
Gānbiān sìjìdòu 乾煸四季豆
Serves 4

Around 1  pound | 500 g fresh string beans
Frying oil, as needed
4 ounces | 100 g good quality ground pork or turkey, optional
½ cup | 50 g finely chopped yacai
4 dried Thai chiles
3 tablespoons finely chopped green onions
1 teaspoon finely chopped ginger
3 cloves garlic, minced
2 tablespoons mild rice wine (Taiwan Mijiu)
2 teaspoons regular soy sauce
2 teaspoons toasted sesame oil
Chop the meat until fluffy
½ teaspoon sugar

1. Rinse the beans and remove the stem ends, but leave them whole, if you like, and I like. Use a terry towel to rub off as much water as possible, since this will explode once it hits hot oil. Really now, get them totally dry. Have a spatter screen, a slotted spoon ready, and a clean medium work bowl ready.

2. First fry the beans: Set your wok over medium-high heat. Pour in about 1 inch | 2 cm oil. As soon as the oil starts to shimmer, insert a chopstick into the oil—it should be covered with dancing bubbles. Slide in a small handful of the beans. You don’t want too many, as these will fry up more evenly and quickly if you do this in smaller amounts. Adjust the heat as needed and stir the beans around as they fry. When they are browned and slightly crispy, use your slotted spoon to remove them to the work bowl. Repeat with the rest of the beans until all of them have been fried. Pour off all but about 1 tablespoon of the oil.

Readying the sauce
3. If you are using meat in this dish, first use the back of a heavy knife or two to chop it back and forth, up and down, as this lightens the meat and improves the texture. Rinse the yacai and squeeze it dry. If it is not already finely chopped, do so now. Break the chiles in half and shake out the seeds before tearing the chiles into smallish pieces.

4. Now fry the meat and other ingredients: Set the wok back over medium-high heat. When it is hot, add the optional meat, as well as the yacai, chiles, green onions, ginger, and garlic. Stir-fry these until the meat begins to brown. Add the rest of the ingredients, as well as the fried string beans. Turn the heat up to high and toss these all together until the sauce has been absorbed. Taste and adjust the seasoning, then serve.

Read the whole story
305 days ago
Washington DC
Share this story

The Death and Life of a Great American Building

1 Share
I am one of the last tenants of the St. Denis, a 165-year-old building on East 11th Street, just south of Union Square in New York City, that is in the process of being emptied and readied for gutting. For decades, the St. Denis has been a haven for psychotherapists of every sort, but a seismic shift is taking place and the therapist buildings are getting squeezed. Imagine a future Manhattan without shrinks. What will happen to the psyche of that city?
Read the whole story
308 days ago
Washington DC
Share this story

Is There Such a Thing as a Good Book Review?

1 Share

And how in the world do you write one?

The Blunt Instrument is an advice column for writers. If you need tough advice for a writing problem, send your question to blunt@electricliterature.com.

Dear Blunt Instrument,

I recently read a review that has me shaken and, if I am being honest, angry. The book of poetry it reviewed has received critical acclaim — deservingly so, I think — but the review in question appears to be a “take-down” of the poet and their aesthetic costumed as a review. As I read it, I felt as though I wasn’t learning anything new about the book, just the reviewer’s biases, their love of allusion, their thirst for a book-encapsulating soundbite. In short, it was easy to identify the review as a bad review.

This made me think about how easy it is to figure out when reviews are bad, often when the reviewer gets in the way of the review, foisting upon the text and reader often poorly articulated senses of what constitutes “good work.” But that made me wonder — what makes a good review?

I actually like it when someone intelligently brings their own ideas of aesthetics to a text, but that seems very subjective, doesn’t it? Is it possible I am getting in the way of my reading of reviews? Is there a way a reader should approach reading a review? And, if I were to write a review, how does that differ in how I approach the work? How do you write a good review? How does the whole idea of “reviewing” a work not become mired in aesthetic subjectivity?


Viewer Reviewing Reviews

Dear Viewer/Reviewer,

I’ve been a poet in the poetry world for a pretty long time, and the question of whether or not there should be “negative reviews” of poetry books has amazing staying power. When a “take-down” like the one you’re referencing appears, poets inevitably suggest that negative reviews are a disservice to poetry, since so few people read poetry as it is — the implication being that a negative review could hurt the book’s already meager sales, and therefore silence is more kind. I find this argument pretty unconvincing; surely even fewer people read poetry reviews than read poetry. An absence of reviews isn’t going to help a book’s sales either, and in any case it’s not the critic’s job to make sure a book sells.

W.H. Auden said that “attacking bad books” is “a waste of time.” But I don’t really agree, as long as the “attack” provides interesting, instructive perspective, because some books are bad in ways that deserve attention. What matters are the critic’s intentions — the point of a piece of negative criticism should not be to make sure that people don’t buy or read the book in question. Further the point of positive criticism is not to make sure that people do buy and read the book. Good criticism shouldn’t even fit neatly into the “good review”/“bad review” dichotomy — it should be more like an essay, with the book as the occasion, than a recommendation engine. Good criticism is worth reading even if you’ve already read the book or never plan to.

Good criticism is worth reading even if you’ve already read the book or never plan to.

So what is criticism for, if not to tell you what to read? A piece of criticism should illustrate an engaged and considered approach to a book and, by extension, other books like it; it should demonstrate what good reading and good thinking about reading look like.

The problem, then, with bad criticism is rarely subjectivity; subjectivity is inescapable. The problem arises when the critic’s subjectivity masquerades as objectivity, or when the critic’s subjectivity isn’t informed or isn’t interesting.

Good criticism is as difficult to write as any other kind of writing — but I realize it’s a bit abstract to say you can write better reviews by being smarter and more interesting (although it’s true!). So here are a few practical strategies in terms of how to approach a book that you want to write about, and some guidelines for what good criticism of any genre should and shouldn’t do.

  • When reading a book you might want to write about — but actually, if you’re serious about reading, and if you’re serious about criticism you need to be serious about reading, whenever you’re reading any book — keep a pencil or those little sticky tabs and a notebook nearby. Get comfortable with ruining your books; go ahead and dogear and write in them. Underline and marginalize (in the original 19th century sense: make marginalia). If you JUST CAN’T DO IT or you’re reading a library book, use sticky tabs instead, and write your thoughts and annotations in a notebook; just note the page number you’re responding to. Make this notebook your reading journal. These notes will be incredibly helpful to you later, but further, I think it tricks you into being a better, closer reader, and making more connections. Great writers notice a lot of things, and meta-notice what they notice. Cultivate your habits of observation.
  • A good review provides context: What tradition is this writer working in? Who else writes like this or about these things? What other books is it in conversation with? Does it represent a natural or surprising evolution in the author’s career? To provide this context you’ll need to do a little reading around the book you’re focusing on — an informed reader is usually a better critic. If that doesn’t appeal to you, consider that you might not be the best person to write about this book.
  • If you love a book, resist the urge to heap praise on it right away. It’s boring and looks blurby. I like criticism that shows me what a book is like before telling me how to feel about it.
I like criticism that shows me what a book is like before telling me how to feel about it.
  • Explain the book’s aim, form, and project, in a value-neutral way to start. Just tell us what the author and the book are trying to do. Be as generous as possible in your assessment of the book’s aims; don’t get mad at the book for not doing something that it’s not trying to do. What is the book about (in terms of its subject matter) and about (in terms of its larger themes)? What does the prose or verse actually look like on the page? (Focus on the writer’s choices, though, not the book designer’s or printer’s.) Describe their style, their tone and diction. All of this is basically a way of showing what it feels like to read this book: What are its effects on the reader’s mind, and how does it achieve them?
  • Back up your description with examples. This is where your notes come in. (As you read and start to make assessments of the book, you should be looking for quotes that are particularly illustrative of the book’s approach or style.)

Am I Still a Real Writer If I Don’t Feel Compelled to Write?

  • All of this attentive description and illustration will get a lot of the work done. With or without you adding in overt value judgments, readers will start to get their own sense of how well the book accomplishes what it’s trying to do.
  • Great critics have a compelling sensibility; their way of looking at and commenting on the world is what we go to them for, more than book recommendations per se. Their reviews are always cross-referencing each other through this common sensibility. So put yourself into your criticism; just remember that thinking is more interesting than feelings. If a book makes you mad, fine, you can say that, but then reflect on why that is.
  • Question yourself — your assessments and reactions and biases — as much as you question the book. Your questioning doesn’t necessarily need to appear in the finished review, but do the background work.
Question yourself — your assessments and reactions and biases — as much as you question the book.
  • If you can’t think of anything interesting to say about a book, don’t write about it! It’s very hard to write a good review of a mediocre, neither-here-nor-there book. So, write about books that make you think.
  • If you don’t like a book, don’t attack its fans, or the people you presume to be its fans, or their presumed reasons for liking it. It’s rude, for one thing, but you’re also probably wrong. And it’s not necessary for everyone to agree that a book is good or bad.
  • If you have some kind of preexisting, personal problem with the author (not their work), you are probably not the best person to write about the book. In general, don’t bring the author’s appearance or personal life into your criticism unless you’re really, really, really sure it’s relevant to how we read the work. It’s more permissible if the author’s dead.
  • Don’t make unfair comparisons. I recently read a piece of criticism that compared a book of personal essays by a debut author to a collection of reprinted essays, mostly criticism, by a much more mature author; this just didn’t seem like a useful comparison. One would come to these books with very different expectations.

Finally, as a corrective to the prescriptiveness of all these guidelines: Don’t feel hemmed in by a formula for a “good review.” For example, you needn’t begin — or end — by talking about the book directly. You can get away with almost anything if you’re smart and interesting enough. When in doubt, read more — both more books and more criticism.

Is There Such a Thing as a Good Book Review? was originally published in Electric Literature on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Read the whole story
351 days ago
Washington DC
Share this story

Too Many PhDs, Too Few Jobs: Proposals for Fixing a Broken System

1 Share
This week, graduate students across the country are sighing with relief – in the final version of their rushed, written-in-secret, barely intelligible tax plan, the GOP decided not to count graduate tuition waivers as taxable income. The inclusion of this provision in the House bill a month ago provoked loud protests and anxious conversations; these […]
Read the whole story
372 days ago
Washington DC
Share this story

The Brilliance That Was the Gender-Fluid Krazy Kat

1 Share

Reading Roger’s Sutton’s post about Patrick McDonnell’s Caldecott chances for his delightful The Little Red Cat Who Ran Away and Learned His ABC’s (the Hard Way)*, made me think fondly McDonnell’s  illustrations for the Mac Barnett-penned The Skunk which I, along with my follow jurors Marjorie Ingall and Frank Viva, honored with a New York Times Best Illustrated nod back in 2015. Both these books and other work by McDonnell had always felt to me full of sly homages to the George Herriman comic, Krazy Katz which ran from 1913 to 1944.  Today I did some poking around a bit and learned that MacDonnell is a longtime and serious fan, witness his 1986, Krazy Kat: the Comic Art of George Herriman (You can read an essay adapted from the book here).  And then I came across Gabrielle Bellot’s “The Gender Fluidity of Krazy Kat”  and Chris Ware’s “To Walk in Beauty”, reviews of Michael Tisserand’s recent award-winning biography Krazy: George Herriman, a Life in Black and White  and learned that both gender fluidity and race are aspects of this ground-breaking comic that so clearly inspires Patrick MacDonnell.

I mean, just take a look at McDonnell’s little cat:


Here’s a taste of Herriman’s strip, one from 1917 in which Krazy gives pal Ignatz a smooch.


Here they are side by side:






So another layer to this wonderful Caldecott-worthy book.


*Check out this delightful video of a book chat I was honored to feature, between Mcdonnell and Victoria Stapleton

Read the whole story
389 days ago
Washington DC
Share this story
Next Page of Stories