Dr. Metablog

Dr. Metablog is the nom de blague of Vivian de St. Vrain, the pen name of a resident of the mountain west who writes about language, books, politics, or whatever else comes to mind. Under the name Otto Onions (Oh NIGH uns), Vivian de St. Vrain is the author of “The Big Book of False Etymologies” (Oxford, 1978) and, writing as Amber Feldhammer, is editor of the classic anthology of confessional poetry, “My Underwear” (Virago, 1997).

DR. METABLOG’S
GREATEST HITS


  • The first:  I dreamt that I received a phone call from my deceased older brother's deceased first wife (who has, by the way, been dead for thirty or more years). She says, very clearly, "______ is dead" (I leave out the name of the person she mentioned because some people are squeamish or superstitious — but a person very much alive. I'm shocked. I say, "what happened."  There's no answer at the other end although I hear the sounds of paper rustling. I ask again and once more there is  no response. Then I say, "did he do himself in." There is quiet at the other end of the line. End of dream. I take the non-answer as agreement — yes, it was suicide  After a while, I wake up, less troubled than puzzled. How peculiar — how different from my usual "lost-in-the big-city" or "can't-find-the-classroom" fantasy.

    Later in the night, I dream that it's time for me to write a novel (remarkable in itself because I am a most unimaginative, uncreative person and not a writer of fiction). In the dream, I compose the first paragraph of a novel. I can't remember my exact words, but basically I set the scene in an old, tired, tumble-down country tavern where a couple of nondescript folks are sitting and drinking. It's all very fuscous, grey, washed out. (In retrospect, it seems as though I've plagiarized Thomas Hardy.)  But I complete the paragraph with this remarkable sentence: "A brindle cat supplied the color." A wonderful detail, even if I do say so myself. But here's an oddity. Even though my well-informed dreamatorium found and deployed the word "brindle," my conscious self is not familiar with the word. What a revelation!!

    I wake out of the dream and, immensely curious, immediately google the word "brindle" which turns out to mean something like tortoiseshell — a standard very familiar domestic cat color. My daytime self is therefore dazzled by the pertinent vocabulary of my night time self.

    I am also impressed by the use of the word "supply" — a brindle cat supplied the color" –where my more pedestrian daytime self might have said, "there was a brindle cat." 

    Once again, I find that although I'm a moderately dull kind of guy during the day, my unconscious or dream life is imaginative and daring.  How can this happen?

    Moreover, I wonder what would my life have been like if I had been granted easy access to the creative side of my brain? Is it possible that I would have written many a sentence as accomplished as "a brindle cat supplied the color." 

    [Addendum April 24 

    Just a few minutes ago I woke out of the usual troubled sleep.  I must have been dreaming, but I can't recall a single detail except that the name "Karlheinz Stockhausen" came vividly to me.  I even said the name out loud (there's a witness). But why in the living blazes would Karlheinz Stockhausen be in my mind, or unconscious mind, or dream life?  I am aware that KS was a composer of electronic music; that is to say, I've heard his name. But I'm not interested in electronic music and as far as I know I've never heard a single note of any of his compositions. He's not a figure to whom I've given a moment of conscious thought. And yet there he was in my mind and in my mouth. Without the slightest inkling of context. 

    Minds (especially my very own) are mighty mysterious.] 

  • State of the Person

    If there can be a "state of the union" address, and in Colorado a "state of the state," why should we not have a "state of the person" — specifically, the state of this person, i.e. me. An annual report. Today seems like a good day for it — inasmuch as I have just now passed a weighty milestone, my 85th birthday. 

    On the whole, let me say, without bragging, that this particular person is in a surprisingly good state.

    My Brain: it's still working. I believe that I am as competent as ever at analyzing problems and drawing conclusions and planning appropriate actions. Nor have I lost a significant amount of language. There is even an occasional moment in which I wow myself with a well chosen word or a smidgeon of wit. That's the good news. The downside is that my recall system has definitely lost ground. Noun loss, it's called. My memory for names has woefully declined, so much so that it's become a considerable annoyance. I can recognize an acquaintance on the street, or, say, actors in a film, or an athlete, but I cannot bring up a name. I test myself when I watch NBA basketball on the TV.  A familiar player appears on my screen: I know where he went to college and who he played for last season and the strengths and weaknesses of his game, but by golly I can't recall his name. I find this to be highly frustrating — and perhaps a scary harbinger of future debility. Sometimes the moniker  bobs to the surface a day later, making me aware that my storage system is still working. No question but that my celebrated, prize-winning instant recall is a thing of the past. Also starting to fail: short-term memory. Nowadays, when I read a long novel, by the time I come to the conclusion I've forgotten details from the first chapters. A couple of times now, when I've read a good new novel or a classic old one, I've turned right around and gone through a second time. Trust me, this was not a characteristic of my younger brain. I also find it difficult to acquire and retain new knowledge. I spent four years studying Italian and made no more than a year's progress. I had to complete the same lessons over and over again just to make it stick — only to have the expression or the conjugation or whatever evaporate in a month. I can't memorize poetry — which I once did so effortlessly. So I've mostly given up new areas of information — although this last month I'm taking a crack at learning Etruscan — a challenge even though it's an extinct language with only about 250 known words. No struggles with pronunciation, thank goodness! 

    My mood: generally positive and cheerful, except between 2 am and 4 am, when I lie awake filled with real and imaginary dread. I experience sadness, of course, but not depression. No need for anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, thank goodness.v I'm optimistic, on the whole, still taking pleasure in small things,

    My Body: still functioning although some routine tasks have become difficult. Putting on socks and shoes, for example. I'm just not limber — not even as limber as I was at 75. When things fall to the floor in the morning I tend to let them lie until later in the day when I'm slightly more supple. When I work in the garden, I keep a long stick next to me so I have something to help me arise. Sometimes I feel myself starting to shuffle, the way my father did in his last years — and then I make a determined effort to lift my feet. I have almost all of my own teeth (a couple of fakes) and with the help of specs and hearing aids my eyes and ears are valiantly continuing to do the job.   

    Your older body has accumulated some deficits: a touch of cancer, four kinds of heart peculiarities, the threat of another TIA or UTI. But I do as I'm told and take the pills that my various doctors recommend. I asked the fine serious woman who serves as my cardiologist, "what is going to kill me?" She replied that at my age, and given my state of health, the most likely causes were a) a fall, and b) an infection. Consequently I've become mighty careful about where I set my feet. I don't know what to do about infections except to be vigilant. But it would be foolish not to recognize that at this age life is precarious and that anything can happen at any time. I could keel over before I finish the next sentence. One undeniable symptom of deterioration is that my stamina is much diminished. Much more resting between tasks, many more naps.

    The hardest part of the day continues to be the nighttime. I've aways been a bad sleeper and I'm no better now. Lying awake can lead to alarmism: is that pain in my knee a bruise or is it a blood clot that will go to my heart, or is it a symptom of a metastatic cancer?  But alarmism is not as troubling now as it was in days of yore — no matter what happens now, they can't take the first 85 years from me. Frankly, I'm more worried about living too long than I am about dying.

    I'm always been troubled with nightmares and continue to be so. I envy those who turn out the light at 11 and wake up at 7. It would be blissful to be one of those elect. On most nights, instead of sleeping I roll and twirl like a rotisserie chicken. It's wonderful that the Widder Malkinson is able to ignore my tossing and turning.

    Family: I'm most pleased about my family and family relations. Although I was not a perfect father, I was a hard-working and serious one, and I think that my children would acknowledge such. I love all three of my children more than they can know — or at least, more than they could know until they had children of their own. I like all my kids and grandkids and on the whole they like me. I believe that I grew closer to my kids during the years of A's long decline. I have good conversations, or at least polite ones, with the older grandchildren but the three younger ones treat me with no more interest or respect than if I were an orange cone — which is probably appropriate for their age; I certainly did not engage with my grandparents or people of their generation when I was 9 or 11. I hope to live until the the young guys are in their twenties when they might find it consequential to talk with their aged GP. 

    I've made an effort to keep in touch with cousins — especially cousins on my father's side. After all, I am by far the oldest member of my extended family — the "patriarch," I like to say. 

    Love: here's a great success story. My relationship with the Widder has been near-miraculous — a ten-year honeymoon, although it may seem soppy to says so. Of course in some ways it's easier to form a relationship at this age of little responsibility — no conflict over children, no careers, no declining parents, no money worries, very few obligations. Both Lynn and I appreciate this much simpler life. Her and my offspring have been generous with us — a boon that we do not take for granted. Moreover, it's common knowledge that people in a loving situation live longer than singletons — so we're both, in theory, keeping each other alive.

    Friends: very important to me at this stage of life. I work at keeping in touch. But every month, it seems, some 50-year friendship comes to an end. The death and diseases of my friends and family and former colleagues are the most painful feature of this octogenarian life.

    Intellectual life: I read a lot and write a bit, but I no longer read books about books. I like writing this blog. At this point in my life, I read at least 9 non-fiction books for every novel. In addition, I've become fascinated by the films of the 40s and 50s and watch as many as two or three a week. There's something reassuring about the black-and-white cinematography,  the ubiquitous fedoras, the coast-to-coast trains, and even the ever-present curl of cigarette smoke. 

    The world: quite a mess. A period of great reaction. There's a real danger of losing our democracy. And losing our planet. But I'm cheered that there are so many people of good will in the world and in my life.

    When I was a young fellow peering at the calendar, I thought "the year 2000 is a long way off. If I should live to the new millennium, I'll be 61 years old and I'll have lived a long life."  Now I'm a quarter century beyond that marker, still going strong. Who ever would have guessed?  My principal emotion at this point: gratitude. Gosh I've been fortunate.

  • Basketball, volleyball, punchball, stickball, dodgeball, box ball, box baseball, baseball, softball, stoop ball, touch football, handball, kickball, wall ball. Ping-pong. Hit the penny. Never played tennis or tackle football. Never even heard of soccer.

    What have I forgotten?

  • The Piacenza Liver

    It's humiliating for me to confess that until a few weeks ago I had never heard of the Piacenza Liver, which is a life-size bronze Etruscan replica of the liver of a sheep, and unquestionably European civilization's most heralded metal liver. How could I not have known? 

    The PL was unearthed in 1877 and dates from the first century BCE. Here's a picture of this most important artifact:

    Because my knowledge of sheep livers is so appallingly slim, and because most readers of this blague are not doubt similarly ignorant, let me quote an expert description of the object: "In the Etruscan model, the liver is reversed, with the convex part of the gallbladder pointing down. On the right side of the gallbladder, we find a pyramid-shaped structure that was referred to as the processus pyramidalis corresponding with the caudate lobe in humans. On the other side of the gallbladder, we see a protrusion that was called the processus papillaris corresponding with the paracaval part of the caudate lobe." In other words, it's one heck of an accurate liver model. Yet It is not its fidelity to the shape and form of a sheep liver that makes the PL so crucial: it's the markings and inscriptions on its face. As you can see, the surface of the PL is divided into segments, on each one of which is inscribed a word or two in the long-extinct Etruscan language.
     
    This find is obviously not one of your run-of-the-mill uninformative liver sculptures. It's brimming with meaning. Let us recall that Etruria was an advanced and prosperous civilization that dominated northwestern Italy from about 800 BCE to 500 BCE until it  gradually fell under the sway of the ambitious militaristic Romans. In the ancient world, Etruscans were famous not only for their arts and commerce, but also for their skill in consulting the gods through the process of haruscopy — divination by examining the liver of a sacrificed sheep. The Etruscans passed along this accomplishment to the Romans who rarely made important decisions without the advice of the gods, which they acquired through the medium of a professionally certified haruspex. Inasmuch as the Romans, employing haruscopy, ruled the world for a thousand years, the power of the sheep liver-and-haruspex team cannot but be acknowledged. 
     
    I have no idea, nor do scholars of the Etruscans, know when or why haruscopy originated. Etruscan civilization is replete with mysteries and moreover the Etruscan language is not fully understood. It's an "isolate" — like Basque –an island in a sea of Indo-European languages to which it bears no relation. Etruscans arrived in Italy a long time ago — long before they possessed a written language. When? From where did they come? How did it happen that they became proficient in haruscopy?  No one knows and there are not even any decent theories — it's all lost in the dark backward and abysm of time.

    It's shocking to me that the tourist-oriented website of the city of Piacenza advertises its Duomo, a 12th century Romanesque church, its Passerini-Landi Library, and the Palazzo Farnese, a 16th century great house, but offers not the slightest mention of its foremost liver (which is housed in the palazzo). An inexplicable omission.

     

  • Although The Magnificent Ambersons was first published in 1918, it was still admired and almost canonical in the 1950s when I was coming to awareness. It was the sort of unchallenging social realism novel in the Sinclair Lewis or John Marquand tradition that was then school-and-societyy approved. Did I read it then? I can't say for certain. I can swear that I read Tarkington's Penrod series which was specifically targeted to young people. I would have thought that this week's reading of The Magnificent Ambersons was a return to familiar territory, but it doesn't much matter because I didn't recognize a single word of it. All was newer than new — and disappointing to boot.

    Tarkington's reputation, once sky-high (two Pulitzer prizes), has plummeted since the 50s and I doubt that my grandchildren or their co-eval friends have ever heard his name. Strange to say, the edition that was on the shelf at the Boulder Public Library had all the marks of a high school text, with commentary, footnotes, and sample questions designed to challenge those dedicated young folks who were diligent enough to make it to the end. I suspect that students and their teachers will find themselves repelled not only by the superbly snobby, unattractive, and bratty central figure but also, and especially, by the frequent and offensive use of the slur "darkies." Mighty off-putting, I'm afraid.

    The Tarkington mini-revival was precipitated by a viewing of Orson Welles' 1942 The Magnificent Ambersons – a film that deserves to be called "rivetting" — but rather for the cinematography than for the disturbing, perverse family drama that it depicts. Welles thought it was his best work. Audiences will neither be able to concur or disagree with his assessment because some forty minutes of his completed film were cut and destroyed by a studio editor in order to make the work more commercial and more palatable. Moreover, a happy ending was sutured onto the film — the original had been much "darker." Though how much darker is hard to imagine, because even as it stands it's a gloomy story of perverse values and gratuitous tragedy. In the edited and "improved" version, George Minafer survives his automobile accident and reconciles with attractive Lucy Morgan. In the novel and apparently in Welles' version, George dies of his injuries. In both novel and film, George is a self-centered prig and frankly, when the film came to conclusion, I myself would have been quite willing to let him die. In no way had he earned the favors of such a self-respecting and intelligent young lady as Lucy. Hadn't paid his dues, even though to make some money he had taken up a dangerous work involving "nitro-glycerine." I do wonder what might have been depicted in those purged Welles minutes because the film follows the novel closely, almost slavishly.  What did Welles include that the novel passes over, or more suggestively, what did Welles invent and add? 

    I think that one of the reasons that Booth Tarkington has sunk without much trace is because of his exceedingly short-sighted and reactionary stance. The Magnificent Ambersons is anti-modern, but not out of any deep ecological, philosophical or psychological conviction. Tarkington idealizes the Indiana of his childhood and doesn't much like change. People are moving into his town (Indianopolis though he never uses the name) from Eastern Europe and they're outworking and displacing the good old solid Americans — those established families with their shared values and small-town friendliness. These new arrivals make money and build large ugly house and instead of horse-drawn carriages they drive automobiles. The new auto industry is a particular bete noir for Tarkington. The Ambersons lose their money investing in it and George gets himself run over by a vehicle that was plunging down the street at 20 mile an hour.  Autos bring speed and soot and social disruption.

    At this moment, I do not feel a need to read any more novels by Booth Tarkington.

  • I have just finished reading Sybille Haynes comprehensive study, Etruscan Civilization, A Cultural History (2000). It's not only a window into a remarkable extinct world, but also a trove of exciting words new to me. And as readers of this blague are well aware, vocabulary excites Dr. Metablog.

    For example: a skyphos is a two-handled cup for drinking wine. Here's an especially handsome one from the 5th century BCE.

    It's decorated with a portrait of a hoplite, a Greek soldier. 

    Then there's the versatile word symplegma, which sounds suspiciously like a noxious bodily discharge — but isn't. If one searches for the word symplegma, the first meaning that one encounters is a "genus of ascidian tunicates in the family styelidae." What the heck are any kind of tunicates doing in a volume on  Etruscan civilization? But on further investigation it emerges that symplegma has a second and more pertinent definition. It's a word that is used by art historians and archeologists for a depiction of sexual intercourse. Honest to Pete, who would have guessed?  How the two symplegmata — the tunicate and the fornicate — are related, is, I must say, quite a mystery.

    Another word with two distinct significations is tibia. We all know that the tibia is the bone that connects ankle and knee. I did not know that for students of ancient world it also refers to a brooch or clasp.  

    Bucchero is the name of typical and common Etruscan ceramic distinguished by its burnished black glaze. Here's a bucchero oinochoe (or jug for wine).

    Speaking of jugs, there's also the aryballos, which is a "globular flask" used to contain perfume or oil. Another kind of jug is the "canopic jar", which was used by the ancient Egyptians to store a guy's (or gal's) inner organs during the process of mummification. I have no idea how mummies were processed, nor have I any desire to be enlightened.

    A coroplast was, in antiquity, an artisan or sculptor who created terracotta figurines. Here's a lovely example of such a one's work.

    Nowadays, Coroplast, Inc. is the name of a large company that produces corrugated plastic sheets used in packaging and signboards.   

    A felloe or felly is the outer rim of a wheel to which spokes are attached. I imagine that this word is well known to bicyclists and wheelwrights, but I had never encountered it. My chagrin, my apologies. An acroterion is an architectural ornament mounted at the apex of corner of a building, a kind of rooftop gargoyle. An anthemion or palmette is a design consisting of radiating petals. Sometimes anthemia are carved into acroteria. If two anthemia are set back to back they are said to be addorsed.

     
  • A dvandva compound is a formation in which two individual nouns are joined to form a new word. Wik offers the example "singer-songwriter." I think that "barber-surgeon" is therefore a dvandva, although I am confident that I am the first person ever to denominate it as such. Anaptyxis is a term in linguistics for the demotic insertion of a vowel between two consonants, as in filim for film or realitor for realtor. A calque a word-for-word translation from one language to another. Clausula is a term in ancient rhetoric for a consciously-contrived rhythmic ending to a long sentence. If I've ever employed a clausula, I am sure that it's been entirely fortuitous.

    A suffete was a Carthaginian official or magistrate. A groma is a Roman surveying instrument that had plumb lines hanging from four arms at right angles. I do nor know how it was employed but it must have worked very well because the Romans did some remarkable surveying. A gromatic text is therefore a record of a survey. An ostracan is a fragment of ancient pottery onto which writing has been scratched or incised. Since ostraca are durable they are a primary source of archeological information. A cippus was a cylindrical stone used as a gravestone by the Etruscans and as a boundary marker by Romans. Here's a handsome old cippus.

    Limestone cippus of Olympianos | Roman, Cypriot | Imperial | The  Metropolitan Museum of Art
  • Autobiographers from Brooklyn divide, on the whole, into two camps. There are the discontented, who yearned from day one to get the hell out of the neighborhood as quickly as possible; and then there are the nostalgics, perpetually romanticizing those great days of spaldeens, stickball, and chocolate egg creams. Martin Levinson's privately-published memoir Brooklyn Boomer, Growing up in the Fifties (2011) is most decidedly of the latter group. But what a thin and disappointing piece of work it is!!  Gosh, were we all quite so shallow! Levinson's book displays no sense of life's complexities and contradiction and ambiguities. Perhaps it's because he didn't or wouldn't read — no exciting trips to the Brooklyn Public Library in this sterile memoir. Nor even to the movie palaces.  

    The best word for Brooklyn Boomer is, I'm sorry to say, superficial. Also padded.

    Also unoriginal. 

    Plus the account of public school "assemblies" is shamelessly cribbed from a 2006 entry on this very blog.

  • Many years ago, in what sometimes seems like an earlier life, I taught Shakespeare courses to both young and "mature" students. When we reached Othello, halfway through the semester, I would, of course, point out that the play did not take the traditional form of tragedy– of a great man or king gone awry as in the case of Macbeth or Richard III. Othello instead introduced a formula that was innovative for its time but which has become commonplace in ours. Othello is a domestic drama in which a marriage falls all to pieces. I liked to tell my captive audience, only slightly facetiously, that the whole of life is divided into two parts: the comic, which begins with birth and ends with marriage, and the tragic, which begins with marriage and proceeds to death. A statement which is a kind of shorthand, simplified version of a cliche of criticism. Like many such abbreviations, this formula contains a dollop of truth. Othello in fact begins with a marriage — or more accurately a defiant elopement — and comes to conclusion with Desdemona strangled in her bed and her husband the Moor a suicide. It's the sole play of Shakespeare's that follows the strict marriage-to-death path, although Romeo and Juliet is comic until the secret wedding but becomes tragic afterwards, while the wondrous Winter's Tale begins with Leontes and Hermione already married and pushes through some desperate circumstances only to come to a miraculous comic climax with the restoration of a woman presumed dead and a glorious second-generation wedding. Both RJ and WT sometimes seem like two different and opposite kinds of plays condensed into one — and yet are all the more triumphant for being so.

    These musings were precipitated by the film that we watched a couple of nights ago — Nora Prentiss (1947), which Wikipedia characterizes as a film noir, but which is better thought of as two films in one — a film that starts as an instance of domestic drama or "bourgeois realism" or even soap opera and doesn't become a murder mystery until two-thirds along the way. In a limited sense, it's not unlike Shakespeare's hybrids, but alas does not successfully yoke or blend its disparate plots. As a result, the last section of Nora Prentiss, I'm sorry to say, becomes not intriguing but unbelievable and ludicrous. It's an odd and interesting film, although not a good one, but it's worth watching for aficionados of TCM not only for its manipulation of genre expectations but also because it is one of a large group of films that are so very common and ordinary in twentieth-century America where such enormous value is attached to a happy and fulfilling marriage — and to the disappointment that arises when the marriage comes a-cropper. In Nora Prentiss, a midlife couple with a pair of kids, who live in an orderly picket-fence house, ought to be living a happy life, but, by golly, both husband and wife are discontented and bored. They are afflicted with the whole package of suburban anxieties. It's Cheever-land or Updyke-land: demanding children and divorcing friends, the stultifying daily routine, the unsatisfying jobs, the dull obligatory social events, and especially the lack of sexual excitement which is signified in these Code-burdened movies by the gulf between the twin beds and the sterile head-to-toe sleepwear and also by that pathetic chaste kiss before husband and wife turn away from each other as they extinguish the cute matching bedside table lamps. Gosh, it's a scenario that is familiar from dozens and perhaps scores of postwar (and later) films. 

    Melodramatic Nora Prentiss follows the fortunes of steady-Eddie Dr. Richard Talbot, enacted by Kent Smith, who meets nightclub chantoosie Nora, played by Anne Sheridan. Flirtation turns into an affair, and the affair evolves into true love or at least into genuine sexual passion. But all goes from bad to worse when Talbot, instead of seeking a divorce from his stern unlovely wife, concocts a dumb whopper of a plot that makes Friar Lawrence's harebrained sleeping-dram waking-up-in-the-tomb plan seem brilliant in comparison. Talbot fakes his own death and disappears — causing the film to turn police-procedural. And then, through a series of hard-to-credit mischances and gimmicks, Talbot finds himself in his newly assumed fake guise indicted for murdering — oh no yes indeed! — his very own self. Nora Prentiss by this time has metamorphosed into a film that by rights should be renamed City of Naked Death or Shadow of Evil Night. Even so, the film might have been salvaged had not so much depended on the acting skill of Kent Smith, who is perfectly fine in the first part of the film, but incapable of managing the switch from reliable doc to nervous fugitive. It's not entirely his fault: the role puts too much pressure on the actor. I doubt whether such a transition could have been handled by Roscius or Burbage or Garrick or Sir Laurence Olivier himself.

    Here is a picture of Ann Sheridan and Kent Smith. Sheridan wisely holds on to her hat; Smith's chapeau dominates the scene; very 1940s. 

    Nora Prentiss (1947) - Photo Gallery - IMDb
    Here's another still. I am in utter disagreement with Kent Smith's pencil mustache. It's a mistake. He wears it when he's a straight suburbanite and shaves it off when he goes underground — an infranasal situation highly out of synch with the psychological trajectory of the film; by rights, he should have been clean-shaven when he was domestic and hirsute when he was a criminal.
     
    A Scene From Nora Prentiss Photo Print (8 x 10)
     
    Just to bring these ramblings to conclusion, I should add that the evening after we watched Nora Prentiss, we gambled on a newish HBO film called Date Night (2011) only to experience a moment of extreme cultural convergence. Once again, a suburban couple (this time Steve Carell and Tina Fey) are stuck in a boring suburban marriage –  same sheaf of symptoms as in Nora P. They jointly decide to liven things up and before push comes to shove, they find themselves in a big city world of traditional noir tropes: mistaken identity, guns and gangsters, police on the take, a corrupt mayor, deserted dark buildings, death threats. Date Night even flirts with old archetypes: in order to renew themselves, the couple must pass through an underworld (not Hades this time, but the criminal underworld) where Acheron is played by a lake in Manhattan's Central Park). It's not credible, of course, but then, it's not meant to be so.
     
    DATE NIGHT TINA FEY, STEVE CARELL DATE NIGHT     Date: 2010 Stock Photo

     
    No mustaches this time, I'm glad to say. But just like RJ and WT, two films in one.
     
  • "Joint" is a word that in the course of my lifetime has engaged in some serious shape-shifting. When I first encountered the word, joint (derived from the Latin jungere, to join) was simply a place where two pieces of wood were glued together or where one's bones were articulated to produce a wrist, elbow, or knee. Mighty simple and uncomplicated, it would appear — but even then "joint" had begun to accumulate variants. Rick Blaine's sentence in Casablanca was an early warning: "of all the gin joints in all the towns in the world, she has to come into mine."  A "joint" was apparently a nightclub or bar. "Gin joint" suggests that  "Rick's Cafe Americain" was louche or sleazy, and perhaps it was, what with all the crooked gambling going on and with the mysterious "letters of transit" stuffed into Sam's piano. But why "joint"?  It seems fanciful to suppose that a joint was a place where various people "joined" together, but I can't think of a more persuasive etymology.    

    Another use of joint came to my attention in the late 1960's when I became seriously interested in Jacobean oak furniture. Here's a handsome "joint stool":   

    Early Oak Joint Stool, circa 1690-1720 For Sale

    A joint stool was the most ordinary kind of chair during the period when Shakespeare was wielding his quill. Why "joint"?  Apparently because it was a joined stool, and therefore of higher quality than one that was merely glued. A joiner was a skilled craftsman before mass-produced nails and screws became inexpensive and commonplace.

    Shakespeare knew joint stools very well: "Cry you mercy, I took you for a joint-stool," says the Fool to a joint stool. Fool humors mad hallucinating Lear by pretending that the joint stool is the king's daughter Goneril. Shakespeare, by the by, played many a variation on "joint," employing or inventing  such terms as "joint-servant," "joint-laborer," "joint-ring," "jointress," "unjointed," "injointed," "short-jointed," "conjointly," and "disjoint."

    But even Shakespeare would not have imagined the transfigurations of the word in these our latter days. Nowadays, a joint is a prison, though I don't know why one would call it so when such colorful appellations as "hoosegow," "clink," "stir," "slammer," and "pokey" are all on the tips of our collective tongues. Nor would he have imagined "joint" as a marijuana blunt or spliff. He wouldn't have known but might have appreciated "joint" as a term for the male sexual organ.

    All of which makes it possible, theoretically, to say, "I was in a joint, smoking a joint, figuring out how to exercise my joint."

    As for me, I use the word "joint" everyday — in the most useful phrase "joint card."

    Other words of my life:  slouch, cishet, yips, ramps, jot and tittle, worship, mucilage. spatchcock, umpire, stopper.

  • Alou

    I read Felipe Alou's autobiography, My Baseball Journey (2018). It's not a literary masterpiece, but nevertheless a solid book that "does the job." It's particularly valuable for its story of the brutalities faced by a black Dominican pioneer coming to segregated America in the early '50s. A good reminder of a part of our ugly racial history that is so easy to forget or ignore. In an afterword, Bruce Bochy calls Alou the "Jackie Robinson of South America." My Baseball Journey is also a good reminder of the daily hardships faced by the professional athlete. True enough that they're well paid, but also true that they're subject to injuries and decay and insecurity and have to fight for their job every day. There's no such thing as tenure in sports. Alou was smart and resilient and proud and enjoyed a career that can be justly celebrated — but not all do. 

    Here's my favorite paragraph: "I missed playing when I retired. Every retired ballplayer goes through the same things, the same thoughts and emotions. I still miss playing. To this day, I have dreams that I'm still playing. Sometimes I have nightmares where I"m late for a game or I've missed a team bus to the ballpark." I understand this sentiment very well; like many of my peers, I still dream that I'm either late for class or am standing in front of a large audience and have absolutely no knowledge of the subject about which I'm required to discourse for an hour. 

    One weakness of My Baseball Journey: though Alou managed through the steroid years, and knew Barry Bonds and others, he gives the drug problem mighty short shrift. His book turns a blind eye toward that painful period.  

  • It's that time of year once again — time to get 2024 out of the starting gates with force and vigor. I'm all into self-improvement, as everyone knows. So here are my resolutions.

    1). Sleep longer, and stay in bed later in the morning. No need to bounce out of bed. It's warm and cozy in there. Breakfast will wait a few minutes longer.  Related resolution: take more and better naps. Nothing more pleasurable than a lie-down after a satisfying lunch.

    2). Eat more ice cream. We are fortunate to live in an age of ice-cream abundance and variety. I intend to take advantage of the circumstances.  And by ice cream, I mean Ice cream: no ersatz concoctions of soy, whale-oil, kefir, oatmilk, yoghurt, tofu, or coconut oil. Cream, as from a cow. 

    3)  Walk more slowly. What's the rush?  Why is everyone in such a gol-durn hurry?

    4)  Avoid responsibility. Let others do their share. At this point in life, there's no shame in shirking.

    I hope this program is not too ambitious. I wouldn't want to fail at it and embarrass my friends and supporters. I'll do my best.

  • To most readers of this blague, Norman Podhoretz is a nonentity, but for a while there, he was a big deal in certain intellectual circles. His youthful autobiography, Making It (1967), elicited howls of indignation. Nowadays, it's impossible not to read Making It retrospectively, because it's undeniable that the author, who began life as liberal or progressive, has metamorphosed, over the years, into a monster. He is now a full bore Trumpian fascist. In the Podhoretz universe, abortion is infanticide and homosexuality constitutes a danger to the polity. Although the child of shtetl Jews, Podhoretz is now stridently anti-immigrant. In 2010, he ridiculously proclaimed that "I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama." He has called the Trump presidency "a kind of miracle" and announced  that Trump is "a vessel chosen by God to save us from the evil on the Left." Such a sentiment is not just echo-chamber conservative twaddle: it's nutso insanity pure and simple.

    How much of Podhoretz's wandering in the wilderness can be traced to his Brownsville Brooklyn childhood and youth is hard to say?  Making It is a most peculiar autobiography. It's beautifully written — in the sense that the arguments are finely deployed and the sentences are lucid, sometimes even lyrical. But it's also clear that Podhoretz, from the start, was the kind of obnoxious guy who delighted in provocation. It's not uncommon for Brooklynites of his generation to wish to leave Brooklyn behind. Podhoretz is shameless about his ambition: he had "a vulgar desire to rise above the class into which he was born."  

    Most megalomaniacal autobiographers want to be liked. Not Podhoretz. He strives to be disliked, even hated, and in this he succeeds. He had a fear of becoming an "inauthentic WASP" but that's exactly what he became. The further to the right he went, the further away from his mother's embarrassing Yiddish accent. A sad life.

    The character in literature who Podhoretz most resembles is Johnny Rocco in Key Largo, who wants "more."  

     
  • Books I Read, 2023

    Ian McEwan, Black Dogs; Ian McEwan, Saturday; Julian Barnes, The Noise of Time; Ian McEwan, Amsterdam; Marcia Davenport, East Side, West Side; Thomas Halliday, Otherlands; Joseph Sassoon, The Sassoons; Jane Austen, Persuasion; Jane Austen, Mansfield Park; Thomas Hardy, Tess of the d'Urbervilles; Jonathan Raban, Bad Land; David Thomson, Sleeping with Strangers; Michael North, The Baltic; Niall Williams, This is Happiness; James Vincent, Beyond Measure; Larry McMurtry, Lonesome Dove; Andrea Wulf,The Invention of Nature; Oliver Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield; David Hone, How Fast Did T. Rex Run?; Richard Klein, Cigarettes are Sublime; Claire Keegan, Foster; Howard Koch, Casablanca: Screenplay and Legend; Jeremy Dauber, Jewish Comedy, a Serious History; Caroline Pennock, On Savage Shore; The Best of Sholom Aleichem, ed. Howe and Wisse; Richard S. Laub, Two Acres of Time; Susan Rubin Suleiman, Daughter of History;  Rachel Brownstein, American Born; Mabee Weinstein, Ferns; Jane Austen, Emma (2x); Margo Jefferson, Negroland; Marsha Gordon, Becoming the Ex-Wife; Judith Hicks Stiehm, Janet Reno, A Life; Elliot Willensky, When Brooklyn was the World; Pete Hamill, A Drinking Life; Roger Cohen, The Girl from Human Street; Dorothy B. Hughes, In a Lonely Place; James Sturm, The Golem's Mighty Swing; Ian Smith, Black Shakespeare; Robert A.M. Stern, Between Memory and Invention; Paul G. Bahn, Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art; George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia; Barry Manilow, Sweet Life; Jonathan Balcombe, Super Fly;  Eric R. Kandel, There is Life after the Nobel Prize; Barry Menikoff, Stone Mother; Norman Podhoretz, Making It;  David Scheel, Many Things Under a Rock; Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises; Eric Kandel, In Search of Memory; Timothy Garton Ash, Homelands.

  •  In the late 40s and 50s, Marty Glickman was the radio voice of the New York Knicks. As a basketball announcer, he was simply the best. Most of us from that era, especially Brooklyn guys, can still recall in our mind's ear his melodious, accurate and rapid-fire recreation of the game. "Gallatin to Braun on the left wing. Swish."

    Until a couple of days ago, I did not know that Marty Glickman had written (in an "as-told-to" kind of way) an autobiography called The Fastest Kid on the Block (1996), and that, believe it or not, one copy of this book is among the holdings of the Michener Library of the University of Northern Colorado, in Greeley, Colorado — and is now in my very own hands. A warm thank you to UNC and to Interlibrary Loan.

    Glickman was not only an announcer; he was also a student at fabled P S 217, my own not-so-"alma" mater, which he attended from first through sixth grade. He was born in 1917 so that would be in the 1920s. He was, get this, the fastest kid on the block in my very own neighborhood. 

    He was not just a voice but an athlete, best known as a two-way football player at Syracuse University. He was also a top of the class sprinter who once ran a hundred yards in 9.5 seconds (the great Jesse Owens held the world record at 9.3). In 1936, Glickman was scheduled to run the second leg of the 4 x 100 at the Berlin Olympics.  He was scratched at the last minute for reasons that are still murky, but Glickman's opinion, and mine is that Adolf Hitler didn't want a Jew to win a medal, so he had Goebbels whisper to Avery Brundage, who was the head of U. S. Olympic committee, that Glickman not be allowed to run. (Brundage was a notorious racist, misogynist, and Jew-hater, known as "slavery Avery." (There's an unverified report that Brundage spoke at the February, 1939, Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden; it would nor have been out of character for him to have done so.)

    Glickman is philosophical about not being allowed to run in the Olympics. It would have been good to show his grandchildren his gold medal, he says. I myself am indignant for him.  

    Once, when I was still a Brooklyn yoot, a rumor swept the P S 217 schoolyard that "Marty Glickman is going to be here this afternoon."  He appeared, but all that I can remember is that he spoke to a knot of kids. I remember nothing more.

  • I met Barry Menikoff a couple of times. The first time was at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California and the second time when he was a visiting professor here in Boulder. A Robert Louis Stevenson specialist, he was; I've had a fondness for RLS from my childhood, and I've read a substantial percentage of his voluminous works, so we had something to talk about. Menikoff was then teaching in Hawaii and mighty anxious to find his way back to the mainland.

    I knew nothing of his childhood except that like me he was a Brooklyn boy. Then, a while ago, I heard through a mutual acquaintance that he had written a memoir of his childhood and youth. And so he has. It's called Stone Mother, and it's privately printed but available on Amazon, and it's a damn good book that might with a few judicious edits have been a successful commercial publication. 

    I used to tell my friends that I was the most naive boy in the history of the known universe ever to arrive on a college campus. But now I have a competitor. Menikoff knew a lot of things — principally how to survive the death of his mother and the disappearance and neglect of his father, so he was not without resources. Socially, he was behindhand, and in terms of books and intellectual life, he was nowhere. It was quite an achievement for him to get from Brownsville to Brooklyn College and then on to a successful career as a teacher and scholar. 

    I think that what I liked best about this memoir is its honesty.  It tells the truth and by doing so creates a strong, credible picture of Brooklyn life back then,

  • My father, who was born in 1904, was a basketball enthusiast when the game was in its infancy. He played guard on Eastern District High School's team and later played as a freshman at CCNY under legendary coach Nat Holman. But Dad came from an impoverished family and left college after one year because, he told me once, "I couldn't see how I could stay in school when my family needed so much." So while his formal education went by the wayside, he was able to make up the difference by a lifetime of reading. And although he was not a complaining sort, it was clear to me and I think to my brothers that he felt a bit grieved that his formal athletic career had been cut so short. He kept at it, though, on his own. Well into his forties, he was absent from family dinner one night a week. "Wednesdays," my mother explained, long before I could understand what the words meant, "your father goes to the gym." And Saturday mornings, in warm weather, were reserved for tennis. Dad very much wanted his three sons to carry on his athletic tradition, but I think, in retrospect, that in the long run we all disappointed him. Both my brothers were fine athletes although not big or fast enough for professional careers; I was, alack and alas, a disappointment. Dad, who had also been a semi-pro catcher in baseball, taught Gene and Jon how to throw an "inshoot" and an "outshoot," but he could not bring himself to coach me because it was obvious that with my 55 mile an hour fastball and scattershot arm, I wasn't going anywhere, pitching-wise, and although he showed me a couple of basketball moves he was, I recognize, a bit embarrassed by my want of athletic skill. (In my defense I must report that although I was more academic than athletic, I was voted "class athlete" by my P. S. 217 (8-5) eighth grade class — a group which must have been, now that I think of it, quite a collection of klutzes). My older brother was a good enough basketball player to play for his college team for a year, and my younger brother was an outstanding sandlot all-star in baseball who once struck out Joe Torre, who, it will be remembered, finished his major league career with a .300 lifetime average. (The second time he pitched to Torre, my brother says, the future MVP hit a ball that "is still circling the earth.") I myself had the briefest career on the diamond. The pinnacle of my experience was that, once, playing second base, I turned a double play — took the toss from the shortstop, stepped on the bag, gracefully wheeled, and pegged the ball perfectly to the first baseman. It happened once and once only, but it was glorious — definitely a Hall of Fame moment. The peak of my basketball career occurred in the slippery court (which doubled as a dance floor) in the basement of the Flatbush Jewish Center on Coney Island Avenue and Avenue J. I was, I estimate, thirteen years old. Wearing number 3, in black and gold, I was steaming down the left side of the court on a fast break and was forced away from the basket, so instead of a layup I managed a sweeping running left-handed hook which caught nothing but net. There was modest applause. None of my teammates guessed that I had intended to bank the ball off the backboard and that it had slipped out of my hand and swished, entirely by accident. I only reveal this deep secret now, very now.  Another high point in my career: I once won a local foul shooting contest. I hit 23 of 25. One small caveat, though. The contest was conducted in the P.S. 217 schoolyard, where the baskets were, how shall I say this correctly, unsteady and soft. As a result, they were like sewers — everything flushed. I doubt that I would have made 23 on a standard rigid rim. Nevertheless, I did win the medal and the other competitors all used the same ball and basket as I — so, therefore, a modest triumph. And then playing basketball faded into the background, because I didn't get my growth until very late and for a while I was playing at 4' 11" or 5' 1" against hairy guys who had already reached their full mature height. But I continued to pursue my undistinguished career — including the most competitive activity of my life — three on three half court in the EHHS gym, one basket wins, and "winners out." And then a little intramural in Ithaca; an occasional pickup game in Cambridge. Oh, and twenty years later on, I played a bit with my own offspring, all three of whom were more athletic than I. My last pathetic hurrah (almost a decade ago, now) was being obliterated at h-o-r-s-e by my granddaughter Ella. 

    Nevertheless, I retained my interest in the sport. No longer a participant, I became a serious spectator. I know enough about roundball to appreciate both player and play. For thirty years or so, I had a good seat at the home games of the CU Buffaloes — it was high quality college basketball (although the Buffs rarely enjoyed a winning season). One source of interest and fun for me was to evaluate the talent and try to predict which of our guys (or the visitors') were talented enough to move up to the next level. Over the years, I followed the early days of many a later NBA regular — and even a couple of stars. I remember in particular Jay Humphries, who played four excellent seasons for CU and then averaged in double figures during an extended NBA career. Also local lad Chauncey Billups, "Mr Big Shot" himself. Andre Roberson, a terrific defender and rebounder who never lived up to his potential because he just couldn't master the corner three; Matt Bullard, a fine outside shooter; Scott Wedman; Alec Burks; Derrick White (still playing for Boston and getting better each year); and Spencer Dinwiddie, whom I didn't judge to be an NBA player but who has become a steady professional. The high point of my CU spectatorial career occurred in 2006 when the Texas Longhorns brought to our stadium a gangly teen-ager named Kevin Durant. One didn't have to be a sophisticated evaluator of talent to recognize that KD had a spectacular career ahead of him; it was grandly obvious. It took him only two years to lead the NBA in scoring. I stopped attending CU games when the athletic department, an independent entity with only a loose connection to the University, demanded that I make a donation of $400 for the privilege of purchasing season tickets. I resented the presumption, and I felt that there were many causes more worthy of my limited philanthropy than CU basketball. Although I stay away from our local Events Center, I'm still an occasional arena visitor. In fact, just last season, LERM and I bought incredibly expensive tickets to watch the Cavaliers take on the Pelicans at the Smoothie King Arena in New Orleans. The venue was up-to-date but way too brightly lit, and crowded, and noisy. Moreover, I dislike the theory that attendees must be continually entertained and placated with garish novelties. I don't go to basketball games for the half-time acrobats or the animal acts or the costumed dancers or the "kiss-cam" or the ear-popping "music" nor to be commanded when to cheer or when to chant "DE-FENSE." I go to watch and admire the players. Despite the distractions it was a good game, even though Zion Williamson was out with an ankle injury. These pros, even the unheralded ones, are fabulous athletes and they are especially impressive in person. 

    So for most of my life it's been the electronic medium that has kept me abreast of the game. It all started with radio; I suspect that very few readers of this entry will be able to recall the fast-paced narration of Marty Glickman on WHN, but he was, let me tell you, a hoops artist who could bring the Knicks alive with voice alone. Then came television, sometime around the early 1950s. The thirteen inch black-and-white Dumont that my father acquired displayed an image that seemed miraculous at the time but paleolithically primitive compared to the 60" HDTV that entrances me nowadays. It's all present — right there before my astonished eyes. Incredible no-look passes and sensational blocks and three-pointers from downtown — and also horrid tattoos — in brilliant color. In my TV-basketball saturated brain is stored the entire history of the NBA from then until now. In the 50s, Max Zaslofsky, Harry Gallatin, Sweetwater Clifton, Carl Braun, the McGuire brothers Dick and Al, and Ernie Vandeweghe, who played only home games because he was a full-time medical student. A team that was good but always managed to lose to the Celtics — who had Cousy and Sharman and later Bill Russell, the Jones boys (Sam and KC), Havlicek and Heinsohn. I was in those years a most loyal and enthusiastic fan of our own New York Knickerbockers — the championship teams composed of Willis Reed, Dave DeBusschere, Bill Bradley, Earl Monroe, and Walt Frazier, names and faces as present in my memory as the more celebrated Dodger boys of summer. Then came the Magic-Bird era, LA "showtime," Michael Jordan, Duncan-Ginobili-Parker-Popovich, and now LeBron James, who, although, he is certainly the most effective player in history, is less exciting to watch than his innovative contemporary, Steph Curry. During this last while, I've become a devoted GSW fan; when they were at their best, a few years ago, they played an extraordinarily beautiful game. There were nights when they'd score 30 baskets on 25 lovely assists. It's been a great ride that's now coming to an end, but there's another generation of players on the horizon and perhaps I'll be around long enough to enjoy them. After all, I've been there for the entire history of the NBA. What developments I have seen! What was once a local, coterie sport has gone international, with many of the best players coming from overseas or south of the border. Where once all the players, save a few, were White and middle-class, now 75% to 80% are Black and inner-city, bringing with them a heck of a lot of skill and flash and dazzle. Lumbering awkward centers, with their slow roundhouse hook shots, have been superseded by astonishingly mobile 7-footers who can protect the rim but also drift outside to nail a three. Salaries, in the old days, were little more than nominal and now there are marginal players making millions odd the bench. The athletes have become celebrities — and their shoes have become almost as famous as they are, and more lucrative. Franchises, which once went for a song, are now worth billions.

    When I'm watching a game on a Sunday afternoon, I think about my father. I wish he could sit with me and discuss the progress of the sport. I'd like to show him what has happened since he left us in 1985. He'd like it that the players are bigger, faster, stronger, in better shape, and that the shooting is more accurate and the defenses more subtle and sophisticated. He'd love the pick-and-roll and the pick-and-pop. He'd appreciate the alley-oops and the accurate full court passes. I also know what he wouldn't like — the overhasty three, the lenient interpretation of walking and palming, and the occasional showboating, Most of all, he'd hate it that the NBA is now in cahoots with the gambling establishment. He would see it, as I do, as a major miscalculation — as a scandal waiting to happen. 

    Every once in a while, even at this advanced age, I dream that I'm in the midst of a game, and I rise up and with an effortless flick of the right wrist launch a perfect 40-foot three that hardly even grazes the net. A childish fantasy, perhaps, but still very  satisfying.  

  • [Warning, metablogians: do not read the following paragraphs if you're planning to see Black Angel, a curious, interesting 1946 noir. Your viewing pleasure will be ruined by the following "all spoiler" entry.] 

    Once again, it's amnesia, Hollywood style — an alcoholic blackout that is granted a patina of respectability when a doctor calls it Korsakoff's syndrome. The plot in brief: a whiskey-soaked amnesiac (Martin Blair, played by Cornell's own Dan Duryea) has just plain forgotten that he murdered his bad-girl blackmailing wife.

    I must say it's a difficult premise for me to swallow — but is nevertheless the kind of oddity that's par for the course in the Hammett-Chandler-Woolrich universe.

    To add to the complexity, forgetful Martin sets out to find the killer, and is hot on the trail when his memory suddenly returns — and in a flash he realizes that he himself is the guilty party for whom he's searching. It's a mighty contrived and out-of-left field kind of revelation — but I must confess that I fell for it. I was deceived by a series of red herrings and was surprised by the film's outcome. I rather doubt that most viewers will be as much a sucker as I was. 

    Like many noirs, Black Angel gets off to a very fast start. Scarcely thirty seconds in, Mavis Marlowe (Constance Dowling) opens a bureau drawer and retrieves her nice ladylike pistol. I respect a movie that's thoroughly and instantaneously loyal to its genre. I wonder, though, whether future generations, studying those many black-and-white crime films of the 1940s and 50s, won't think that every chest of drawers, armoire, lowboy, highboy, tallboy, dresser, and chiffonier in Los Angeles or New York City harbored an easily accessible derringer, rod, gat, or piece.  

     

  • "Hereditary meritocracy" is a phrase, and a concept, that hits home. Reluctantly, I must concede that these words characterize my small corner of the American experience (at least in part).

    "Hereditary meritocracy" is a pointed irony. It's obviously an oxymoron — a contradiction — in which an adjective that goes one way is sutured to a noun that goes another — juxtaposing, as it does, unearned heredity to earned merit.  

    Heredity, as it defines an individual, comprehends the talents or defects that happen to lie in one's genes. In the wider social sense, it refers to what is often called "ascribed status" or "ascribed value." You can be a marquis or a mogul because your father or grandfather was "well born" or because he made a ton of money — not because you yourself ever lifted a finger. But to be a member of the meritocracy, you must have achieved something intellectual, financial, political, artistic, or whatever. Your own abilities, your own work. 

    But heredity and merit are not as distinct in practice as they are in theory, as the phrase "hereditary meritocracy" indicates. The hereditarily rich and well-born have advantages that allow their offspring to "achieve" and prosper. Children of the advantaged develop, it's been shown, larger cerebellums. They attend better schools, enjoy a richer home life, have better medical care and are coached in music and art and athletics. Of course they then perform better on standardized tests, which is then interpreted as as a sign of merit. It's a better forecast of "success" to be rich with mediocre genes than poor with excellent genes and good work habits — though it's hard for some of the privileged to admit this obvious fact.

    And now to the point. I myself and my family have during this last century made our way into the "hereditary meritocracy." Although we're not particularly rich in cash, we're rich in family resources and intergenerational support. I believe that every one of my own parents' descendants, and there are now 24 of them, has or will graduate from college. We are almost uniformly "professionals":  accountants, lawyers, teachers, librarians, journalists. Not a one of us rolls cigars for a living, as did my grandfather. We're prosperous.

    Should we be embarrassed or ashamed that we can provide a privileged life for our descendants. I don't think so, because we didn't step on anyone's heads to get here. We need not apologize for our successes in this new world. 

    But we do have obligations. The first is to be aware of our good fortune and to realize that our successes owe as much to opportunity as to effort. (After all, with the same genes, we were stagnant and miserable for a thousand years in the "old country"). And then we must also make sure that we do not put barriers in the way of others — or more positively, we must try to help others find themselves in the same comfortable niche that we have reached. It's an imperfect system, this "hereditary meritocracy," but it is far from the worst the world has known.

  • Just about every NBA team now has a non-native 7-foot center on its roster. What's wrong with America — can't we produce sequoia-size centers any more?  Except for Minneapolis-born Chet Holmgren, Oklahoma's incredible rookie, by jiminy they're all furriners. The last three MVPs, mirabile dictu, all big guys, originated elsewhere: Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo from Nigeria by way of Greece, Philadelphia's Joel Embiid from Yaounde, Cameroon, and Denver's Никола Јокић, more familiar to us 'Mericans as Nikola Jokic, from Sombor, Serbia. In addition, there's also awkward but effective Jonas Valanciunas on the New Orleans Pelicans, from Lithuania; GSW's Dario Saric from Croatia; Rudy Gobert, now blocking shots for Minneapolis (sharing center duties with New Jersey's big Kat) from France; Kristaps Porzingis, playing for the Boston Celtics (an exceedling lanky guy who seems to think he's a 7'3" guard) from Latvia; Chicago's Nikola Vučević, from Montenegro; Jusuf Nurkić, of the Phoenix Suns, formerly one of the "itch brothers", from Bosnia; Atlanta's Clint Capela, Swiss via Angola; Sacramento's Domantas Sabonis, who is a fine fine player but not as dominant as his father, Arvydas, from Lithuania  — alongside his backup, Alex Len from Ukraine; the Clippers Ivaca Zubac, from Croatia; Houston's multi-talented Alperen Şengün, who leads the league in unusual diacritical marks, from Turkey; Portland's Deandre Ayton from the Bahamas; Pascal Siakam, playing for Toronto from Cameroon; Goga Bitadze from the other Georgia, playing for Orlando: and of course the latest teen sensation, France's Victor Wembanyama, from France. And I've probably forgotten one or two others.

    Seven foot tall American centers, where have you gone? Why and wherefore? Diet? Environmental deterioration? Genetics? Disinterest?

    It's not just a passing moment. Veteran NBA fans will remember Rik Smidt, Yao Ming, Hakeem Olajuwon, Dikembe Mutombo, Dirk Nowitzki along with such off the beaten track performers as Romania's Georghe Muresan and Sudan's Manute Bol.

RECENT POSTS


ARCHIVE