Shocking News: Poems and Baseball Games Different

by enosarris on July 9, 2010

On Fridays, we here at the Playing Field will feature a guest writer from the better ports around the interwebbings. This week, the great Carson Cistulli brings the proverbial pain with a meditation on bases ball, poems, and one of the ways in which they’re totally unlike.

Mr. Cistulli contributes to FanGraphs, ESPN, Yahoo!, and NBA.com, among other places. He’s also the author of a book of poems, Some Common Weaknesses Illustrated.

I don’t expect that it’s particularly daring or instructive to say that reading a poem is different than watching a baseball game. I’m sure you could find some poets — the very soulful, male kind, for example, who use words like “blueblack cold” and talk a lot about the textures of things — who would argue to the contrary, but those people are my enemies, and they should be yours, too.

Without even thinking about it real hard, one could make quite a long list of the ways that poems and baseball games are different, including (but certainly not limited to) the following:

  1. Only one of them will help you with the ladies (reading a poem).
  2. Only one of them will get you called gay (strangely enough, also reading a poem).
  3. It’s common to watch games in groups. This isn’t so with reading poems. (Unless you’re at something called a “poetry reading,” which is actually a form of torture in some countries.)
  4. You can easily miss part of a baseball game. To miss part a poem is likely the same as missing the whole poem.
  5. Only one of them will cause world peace (just kidding, neither will do this).

In any case, like I say, there are a number of ways we know that poems and games are different, and most of them are both obvious and — maybe for that reason — uninteresting.

But one actually interesting difference between the two — i.e. poems and baseball games — is the way they provide pleasure to the reader. (For the sake of this discussion, “reader” also applies to one watching a baseball game.) For it’s a fact: while almost every baseball game is at least tolerable, the exact opposite is true of poems, of which many — nay, most — are unbearable.

Even poets believe this to be true. Regard this passage by Kenneth Koch, from his (excellent) poem “My Olivetti Speaks”:

If half the poets in the world stopped writing poetry, there would still be the same amount of poetry.

If ninety-nine percent of the poets in the world stopped writing poetry, there would still be the same amount of poetry. Going beyond ninety-nine percent might limit production.

Koch was, by all accounts, a great poet. He won a Bollingen Prize (which is basically to poetry what the Sporting News Player of the Year Award is to baseball — not the best prize, but still pretty good). He taught at Columbia University for a super long time. He’s generally regarded as a founder of the New York School of poetry. And look: here he’s not only suggesting that some poems are bad, but that absolutely nothing would change if 99 percent of people stopped writing them.

For those who are more visually oriented, I’ve devised a couple of highly sophisticated graphs for your consideration. In the first one, we see that most baseball games deliver a fairly average Joy Factor — that is, while they’re rarely Off the Hook in terms of joy, it’s very rare that joy is entirely absent from a baseball game, either.

In this second graph, for reading poems, we have not the normal kind of distribution, but the bimodal kind — which is to say, the Joy Factor is either at one extreme or the other in poems-reading. The equally sophisticated graph for said activity can be seen here:

So what gives? Why is the Joy Factor while reading a poem subject to such extremes, while a baseball game is mostly even steven?

Answer One is “I don’t know.” Clearly, that’s not interesting, however, so let’s move on. Answer Two is as follows: because poems are only attempting to do one, kinda risky thing — namely, asking the reader to derive joy from language itself. One doesn’t read a poem for information, like to get the weather or news; nor does one read a poem even for the author’s opinion on something. Really, one reads a poems to witness someone (the poet, duh) using language in an unexpected way. One is looking, if it can be said, to be surprised.

Certainly, surprise is the only recourse when reading these lines by Wallace Stevens:

A man and a woman
Are one.
A man and a woman and a blackbird
Are one.

Or when encountering David Berman’s myriad invented proper nouns, like The Duchess of Night Soccer or the Bureau of Sad Endings.

Or even just the titles from two Sharon Mesmer poems: “Juan Valdez Has a Little Juan Valdez (i.e., Energy Cannon) in His Pants” and “Squid Versus Assclown.” (P.S. Those poems are as amazing as they sound.)

Those are great things. Really great. But, as Koch notes, most poems don’t get there. And when they don’t get there, they fail. For baseball games, on the other hand — well, surprises are okay, but they’re not necessary. In fact, sometimes we watch games because they’re familiar: the same team, with the same players, playing in the same uniforms, with the same broadcasters. We derive pleasure from all these things, too. But it’s a different pleasure than when reading a poem.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Ted July 12, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Baseball games are familiar, CC, but I also believe firmly that every baseball game will feature something that the “reader” has never seen before. Literally, every game will contain a situation that is as novel, as surprising, as Juan Valdez’s pocket rocket. So there’s the combination of the familiar and the near-guarantee of something unfamiliar occurring that adds to the Joy Factor.

Reply

Carson July 12, 2010 at 11:22 pm

Ted – I agree with you, and here’s the main reason why: I’m writing this comment at precisely 4:17pm on July 12th. Your comment, meanwhile, was posted at 8:02pm on July 12th — that is, FOUR HOURS AFTER MINE.

Somehow — and I don’t know how you’ve done — but somehow you’re CORRESPONDING FROM THE FUTURE.

One request: can you get me a copy of that magazine with all the sports scores in it, like from Back to the Future II? Thanks, dogg.

Reply

chad July 13, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Enjoyable post! Thanks.

Just wanted to suggest that one *potential* source of pleasure in poetry is the familiarity of intertextuality. Though it’s often most effective when that familiarity is (surprise) subverted.

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: