1 pm chat today over at the Four-Letter.
Also, I’m scheduled to be on ESPN St. Louis with Jeff Gordon and Jeff Vernetti on Friday at 12:30 pm CDT to talk All-Stars (and, I assume, Ryan Ludwick). And I’ll be on ESPNEWS Friday afternoon at 4:10 pm EDT as part of the “Insiders” segment.
Since Pale Fire is one of my favorite books, I might as well speak up on strategies to read it. Basically you’ve got two main options. One is to read it straight through from intro to poem, then through the footnotes sequentially and through the index. The other is to read the intro and the poem, then to bounce around the annotations following the notes of the “author” (for example, when it says see note 15 in the text, go see it and keep following directions). The book is designed to be read each way and ends in the same place, so take your pick. You won’t miss anything by bouncing around, but your experience of the narrative does change substantially. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it.
You said at the end of the chat you’d be at the futures game…I managed to win the lottery (read: pay tons of money) and got tickets to the futures game, HRD, and ASG. Who are you most looking forward to seeing? As a Yankee fan I can’t wait to see Montero, plus I’ve heard good things about Marson.
Hey Keith,
I also saw you are going to be at the futures game, and through my work with MLB I managed to get a ticket as well. Any chance you would have a free minute to say hi to a big fan?
I will second the opinion that Pale Fire is one of the greatest books (if that’s even really a fair way to describe it) ever written. For whatever it’s worth, I read it by flipping back and forth between the poem and the commentary, reading a footnote whenever one appeared in the text of the poem. I think that’s a good strategy since the precise words of the poem often serve as a jumping off point for what appears in the corresponding commentary, and it consequently enhances the experience if you are aware of exactly which line of the poem is being referenced.
Also intrigued to hear your thoughts on it.
I always get so upset that I have to work I mean actually do work) when I read the transcripts and there are people who are at work.
I read Pale Fire straight through and I have to say that though it is maddening to do it that way; it does give you an enhanced sense of the insanity of the character. I have to confess to having a ridiculous memory though, I was able to reference back to the epic poem easily. It is one of those works where you have to wonder if Nabokov is just showing off and I think my answer to that is yes. You have to almost accept confusion with this book as it is what Nabakov is trying to display. I found that the poem itself made the book worth reading and then the insanity of the character only added depth to the story.
On a side note, The Master and Margarita is next on my reading list after I finish up a very short Graham Greene novel. I am really looking forward to it.
Keith, I selfishly hope that you continue not to root for any team (though I have no animosity against the Yankees). I enjoy your detached, objective analysis, and I wouldn’t want even the potential for homerism to come near your work.
Ulysses – don’t bother, I struggled through about 200 pages of it while I was abroad in France and the selection of books I could get in English was limited. However sometimes I do struggle with books – I think I only read 60 pages of Master and Margarita and put it down for 6 months, however in the past three days, I’ve gotten a chapter or two into book two and I am very pleased with my persistence (thanks for the recommendation).
Another book I struggled with is Brothers Karamozov, I made it about 250 pages and though I enjoyed it thoroughly, couldn’t get over all the 20 page asides.
Oh – and I still mean to make that chicken stock… need to get a bigger pot though.
Thanks for the Pale Fire tips. It’s not very long, but the structure threw me.
Meeting up at the Futures Game will be tough. I’m pretty much scouting from the start of BP to the last pitch, and after it’s over, I have to film a quick videoclip for the site. Usually I have no problems meeting people during games, but this one is tough.
“Nice call on Nick(Boston): Ha! Go back to scouting 17 yr olds Sonnanstine’s a stud!
SportsNation Keith Law: Yeah, most studs allow 10.5 hits per 9. I suppose Carlos Silva’s a stud too?”
Especially loved reading that after getting shelled by the miserable Indians offense.
—
Watching one of the baseball programs last night they were talking about Erik Bedard. They said that his performance this season has made it obvious he can not be a #1 on a contending team (isn’t his shoulder injuried, is he suppose to risk further injury by overdoing it while the Mariners are out of it?).
First, is this something that is obvious in baseball circles? Second, looking at the teams he has played for, how is it possible to tell how he would pitch for a contending team?
Actually, it wasn’t a great call on Sonnanstine at all. The guy has a .331 BABIP with one of the best defenses in the majors in front of him. That won’t last. Sonnanstine has a 3.58 FIP, and has enough Ks for a control specialist to be successful (unlike Silva).