Major League Baseball End-of-the-Year Wrap-up
Folks, my health has delayed this blog significantly, but as I promised an end-of-the-year wrap-up talking about the World Series, the Milwaukee Brewers’ Carlos Gomez and his Gold Glove, and any significant trades, I figured I’d better get down to business and write one. Because of the rather lengthy wait, I’ve even thrown in a Corey Hart update in the bargain . . . so let’s get started.
First, the World Series did not go the way I expected it to whatsoever. I’d expected that the St. Louis Cardinals, which had been the best team in baseball over the latter two-thirds of the season, to waltz away with the Series. But instead, the Boston Red Sox played much better than the Cardinals, even though neither team was anything close to error-free.
In fact, Boston’s pitching was better; its hitting was better; even its defense was better, which was extremely surprising as the Cardinals had been among the best defensive teams in the majors all year long.
And, of course, David Ortiz had a monster World Series, hitting .688 (no misprint) to carry the Red Sox to victory in six games.
After that shocker of a Series, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Carloz Gomez of the Brewers won a well-deserved Gold Glove for his play in center field during 2013. Gomez was most definitely the best defensive center fielder in baseball, but it wasn’t a lead-pipe cinch that he’d win the Gold Glove as Andrew McCutchen of the Pittsburgh Pirates is also a very good center fielder and had a much better offensive year than Gomez. Fortunately, McCutchen won the Most Valuable Player Award, a well-deserved honor, but did not win the Gold Glove due to an increased focus on defensive metrics.
Since the Gold Gloves and MVP Awards were announced, there have been two trades that caught my attention. The first of these was the trade of Detroit Tigers first baseman (and former Brewer) Prince Fielder to Texas for the Rangers second baseman Ian Kinsler. At first, I was extremely surprised at this trade because of Fielder’s offensive value to Detroit, but after reflection I thought I understood it. Detroit needed better defense, which Kinsler will provide at second, and by trading Fielder it’s possible for the Tigers to move Miguel Cabrera back to first base.
But I really think Fielder would still be a Tiger today if not for his really awful postseason. Fielder looked bad defensively throughout the postseason, but worse than that, he looked as if his bat speed was not there — extremely distressing when your primary value as a player is due to your offense. Even so, he might’ve rode out all of that if not for his infamous “belly-flop slide” into third in game six of the American League Championship Series that may have cost his team the ALCS, then some ill-advised comments afterward (which I’ll get to in a bit).
Since Fielder’s been traded, it’s now common knowledge that Fielder is in the process of getting a divorce. I don’t normally comment on player divorces, but I’m going to make an exception in Fielder’s case because he and his wife were so prominent in Milwaukee.
I don’t know when Fielder was served with divorce papers, but it’s quite possible that Fielder’s “indifferent season” (where he “only” hit .275 with 25 home runs and 106 RBIs and again backed up AL MVP Miguel Cabrera nicely) was made far less meaningful to him once he found out his wife wanted out. This seems like a very trite statement — and perhaps it is — but Fielder is very well known in Milwaukee as a family man, and he took great pride in his wife and two young sons while he was here. So it’s very possible that getting a divorce, for him, is much more difficult than it might be with someone else . . . not that divorce is ever easy.
In addition, Fielder wanted economic stability for his family. This was the main reason he turned down the Brewers’ offers of roughly $20 Million a season for five or six years (there were several offers, but that is the last one I remember) to go to Detroit in the first place. (Not that Fielder didn’t have any other offers; I’m sure he did. But he liked Milwaukee, found it a stable and safe place for his family, and enjoyed the family friendly Brewers clubhouse, and was known as someone who was interested in more than just the greenbacks.)
Finally, my guess is that Fielder’s psyche is a bit more fragile than it appeared. He’s a big, strong, tough man, sure — and he plays a great game of baseball. But his own father, Cecil, was not a model father — this is well-known — or a model husband. Prince took great pride in being both, and to find out that his wife didn’t want to be married to him anymore must have been devastating.
I said all this because without that context, Fielder’s comments after the ALCS was over (he said, roughly, that he wasn’t going to lose any sleep over his performance because he still had two young sons to take care of) make no sense. And fans excoriated him over it, because it sounded like Fielder just did not care what happened.
As Jeff Deacon of Detroit Sports Nation (part of the Yardbarker sports blog network) put it:
After going 9 for 40 with 0 HR, and 0 RBI in 12 playoff games this postseason, it’s understandable that Prince would be upset. But many believe his comments are crossing a line. We all know he’s going through a now very public divorce, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for yet another awful postseason.
It wasn’t so much what he said to the media post-game, but how he said them. To me, it was evident his head was elsewhere this season. Almost as if he didn’t care.
I’m not saying Prince should ignore his family issues and focus solely on baseball, but when you’re making $25 million a year, you have to be able to cope with them. And if you can’t, take yourself off the field because you’re hurting your name and your teammates. Many people go through tough times in their life, especially over the past few years in Detroit. Yet, we still go to work and get our jobs done. Why should Prince Fielder be any different?
There’s a lot of truth in what Deacon said, and I completely understand and agree with the frustration in Detroit over Fielder’s comments. But Fielder made many similar types of comments in Milwaukee long before his divorce, and we didn’t get upset with him over it.
Maybe this is because Brewers fans understood Fielder a little better, or maybe it’s just that Fielder was not going through his divorce when he was with Milwaukee.
At any rate, my view of what Fielder said is simple — as bad as it sounded, Fielder pointed out that the season was over. He didn’t want it to be over, for sure, and he assuredly wanted to play better in the ALCS. (No one, most of all a prideful professional baseball player, wants to look bad in the national spotlight.) But he has to look at the big picture, which is how he takes care of his two sons from here on out and how he rebuilds his personal life after his divorce is finalized (probably sometime late next year if Mrs. Fielder filed in Michigan and my understanding of Michigan divorce law is correct — which, admittedly, it may not be).
So had Prince Fielder still been in Milwaukee and said something like this, it’s unlikely there would’ve been as much of a furor. Instead, fans would’ve been likely to forgive him, because Brewers fans always saw Prince as one of their own and would be likely to empathize with him over his impending divorce.
Anyway, let’s get to the second trade that sparked my interest, which was of Brewers relief pitcher Burke Badenhop to Boston for low minor league pitcher Luis Ortega. Ortega is only twenty years of age, pitched in the rookie league last year, and is in no way, shape or form an equal talent to Badenhop.
Look. Badenhop did a fine job for the Brewers this year, appearing in 63 games, pitching 62 1/3 innings with a 2-3 record and a 3.47 ERA, but he was due to make more next year in arbitration than this year’s $1.55 million. The Brewers have to know that Ortega may or may not develop into a major league pitcher of any sort, as Ortega is just too young and raw to make any judgments, but they may have seen something in him that caused them to make this trade (giving them the benefit of the doubt).
My view, though, is very simple: the Milwaukee Brewers are again in “salary-dump mode” if they’re willing to jettison a proven major league reliever like Badenhop for someone like Ortega. I’m so tired of the Brewers doing things like this, especially considering Badenhop’s more than adequate year as a middle reliever — he’d only been with the team a year, did a great job keeping the Brewers in games during an exceptionally difficult season and seemed to truly enjoy playing baseball in Milwaukee despite all the ups and downs of the 2013 Brewers season. Which is why I’m sad to see Badenhop go.
One final thought — it looks like the Brewers are going to make a serious run at Corey Hart once Hart is medically cleared for baseball activities on December 3, 2013. This is very good to hear.
But I’m worried, again, that the Brewers will make Hart a low-ball offer due to Hart’s stated wish to stay in Milwaukee, especially after the Brewers jettisoned Badenhop for next to nothing. The fans need our favorites after the dreadful 2013 season, and Hart’s one of the most fan-friendly players around . . . here’s hoping the Brewers will offer Hart enough money to stay in Milwaukee, where he’s comfortable and wants to continue playing.
Bad Weather, Bad Health
Folks, I haven’t had much to report in the past week-plus that’s any good, which is the main reason I haven’t blogged. My health is still terrible, I’m still trying to get better, and almost all of my energy is going toward my paying work (that, of course, being editing).
During this time, I’ve had to withdraw from participation in the December UW-Parkside Community Band concert due to my health continuing to act up, and I’ve hardly left the house except for doctor appointments and a few shopping trips (as despite it all, I still need food).
Today, though, there was a new threat: inclement weather.
We had at least five tornado warnings in Racine County this morning, it seemed like, and while all these didn’t pan out, they’re scary while they’re happening. We’ve also had high winds, flash flooding, and many other problems we rarely see in November in Wisconsin, which has made Sunday enormously challenging all the way around.
Granted, we’ve been spared the devastation Illinois has suffered in a few places. We’ve mostly been spared anything except for some cows dying, a few roofs blowing off, and of course traffic issues due to streets flooding out in various low-lying areas all over Wisconsin.
For my friends who live in Southeastern Wisconsin, I hope you all will be cautious and safe during this time.
Me, I plan to stay home. (What a surprise, eh?) And if the winds stop blowing so hard, I’ll try to do some work later on, once I’ve caught up on a wee bit more rest. (As it’s far from restful to hear siren after siren, though I’m very glad the sirens worked and were able to warn everyone, no lie.)
And it probably goes without saying, but here goes: May the week ahead be far, far better than this for us all.
Just Reviewed “The Ways of Winter” at SBR
Folks, tonight I wrote a review over at Shiny Book Review (SBR for short, as always) for Karen Myers’ THE WAYS OF WINTER, book two in her Hounds of Annwn series. And because of the very nature of this review — where I called the book both “interesting” and “problematic,” something I don’t think I’ve ever done before — I needed to come right over here and give you all an after-action report even though I’m way under the weather (still) and obviously haven’t blogged all week until now.
I want to reiterate that I find Karen Myers’ work quite interesting. She has a nice way of plotting that for the most part works for me. I like her characterization. I thought the inventiveness of getting a rock-wight into the plot — much less the rock-wight’s child in the bargain — was stellar. And I truly believe she has a ton of potential.
However, when I see a book that’s not up to standard editorially — one that’s very far away from professional standard, to be blunt, in quite a number of respects — I have to say that.
It doesn’t give me any pleasure whatsoever to do so, mind you. I know that Karen Myers is a relatively new writer with a handful of books out (book four in her Hounds of Annwn series is due in a few months, I believe) and a number of short stories. She’s self-published, has a nice Web site, is doing many great things as an independent author and knows how to market herself impressively — all good.
It’s much easier for me to criticize someone like Debbie Macomber (with a hundred books out, or nearly) or Mercedes Lackey (with over forty books out) or even someone like Celine Kiernan, who like Myers was a new author with a few books out but was published by Orbit — so all of Ms. Kiernan’s unevenness in her plotline should’ve been fixed by one of Orbit’s professional editors long before it ever made it to the market.
Granted, I don’t particularly enjoy doing that, either, but at least I don’t feel terrible afterward as I did in the case of Ash Krafton recently and now Karen Myers as well.
As a reviewer, I have to say when I don’t like something, or my book reviews don’t mean a whole lot. (If every book got an A-plus from me, why would you want to read my reviews? You’d know that no matter what I said, it’s all the same sort of nonsense, right?) I also have to say something because it’s the only way a writer might change something down the line.
No, it’s not likely. But it’s at least possible.
As a professional editor, I can’t refuse to say when I think a book has not been well-edited. I’ve had to do this before with a self-published author (Cedar Sanderson and her fun YA urban fantasy, VULCAN’S KITTENS), and I’ll probably have to do it again for all I know.
But it’s harder for me, as a writer myself, to write a review that’s as mixed as the one I wrote tonight. I tried hard to point out all of Ms. Myers’ strengths — of which there are many — while also pointing out as many of the weaknesses I saw without giving too much away by way of unintentional spoilers.
Since you’re here, reading my own blog and this “after-action report,” I’m going to be a little more explicit about my problem with the way Ms. Myers ends THE WAYS OF WINTER. (If you do not want your reading spoiled, look away now. This is your one and only warning.)
My main problem was that Ms. Myers set up a thoroughly hissable villain, Madog, to get his comeuppance. She showed over and over again just how nasty this Fae was, why his loss would only improve matters, and what a terrible excuse for a sentient being he was . . . but then, rather than showing Madog getting what he deserves, Madog’s death occurs off-screen!
So you’ve set yourself up a nasty villain, who every reader is going to want to see die horribly. But then, you don’t really show him dying and only allude to it?
I realize Ms. Myers’ main character, George, was in no shape to narrate this. But she had another character, Seething Magma, who’d had several POV scenes of her own. Why not use Seething Magma’s POV to show this death so the reader will be able to fully enjoy Madog’s passing?
Then, this happens a little bit too early on to suit me also. George is grievously wounded by Madog, and his rehabilitation is important to see, I agree. But there’s really nothing else there other than some quiet wrapping-up stuff — good character moments for George and his new foster-son and his new wife, Angharad, to be sure, and I welcomed them.
But there’s nothing truly essential there. We don’t find out anything else about where Creiddylad is (one of the villains from book one, the sister of George’s great-grandfather Gwyn ap Nudd). We don’t see Seething Magma and her child reunite, really, either — again, it’s alluded to, but not really shown, that reunion, though we do at least see them together and presumably happy.
So the real emotional heart of the ending is Madog getting his comeuppance, which we don’t see. Then we get George’s rehab, which is fine, but there’s nothing to contrast it against — it’s all, “Well, we’re nearly at Xmas, and George is the best Xmas present his wife Angharad could ever receive,” but nearly all of that is in subtext, too.
If I didn’t like Ms. Myers’ writing so much, I probably would’ve thrown the very nice soft-cover review copy she so graciously sent me months ago across the room.
Unlike Ash Krafton’s BLOOD RUSH, which was well-edited and competently executed (I didn’t like the romance, which I said), and Cedar Sanderson’s VULCAN’S KITTENS, which needed some editing work but the main plot points were very well executed and the emotional payoff scenes were all there, THE WAYS OF WINTER had a number of things I just can’t get behind.
And that’s a shame, because I do like Ms. Myers’ writing and want her career to succeed.
So that’s it — that’s why I gave Karen Myers’ THE WAYS OF WINTER a thoroughly mixed review with a “C” grade to boot. I hope you can understand why . . . but even if you can’t, it’s late, I still have the nasty sinus infection to deal with, and somehow I have to try to get some rest.
—————–
As far as upcoming blogs go, I still hope to write that baseball wrap-up blog I’d discussed (no longer timely, but perhaps interesting anyway?) and maybe write a blog about the Milwaukee Bucks in the bargain.
One final update: If I can ever get my late husband Michael’s two stories to format properly, I hope to have them up at Amazon within the next several weeks. This has been delayed partially due to being under the weather, partly because I’m very, very bad at formatting, and partly because what little energy I’ve had has gone toward the final, last-round edit of my book, ELFY, along with the edits I’m doing for a number of others.
I haven’t forgotten, and will not. I know Michael still has fans. I want them to enjoy his work. And I want Michael’s work to find new fans — so these stories will come back out, once I finally have clean files to upload.
Promise.
Just Reviewed Dorothy Ours’ “Battleship” at SBR
Folks, this week I had the pleasure of reviewing Dorothy Ours’ new non-fiction epic BATTLESHIP: A Daring Heiress, A Teenage Jockey, and America’s Horse over at Shiny Book Review (SBR for short, as always). The book is about Marion du Pont Scott, a horsewoman and heiress who owned the legendary stallion Battleship — the first American-born and -bred horse to win the British Grand National at Aintree, a particularly difficult and hazardous course. But it’s also about so many other things, including one of Ms. du Pont Scott’s other horses, Trouble Maker, a horse with such a vibrant personality that it quite comes through seventy-plus years after his final race.
As it’s late and I’m still fighting the same, nasty sinus infection I discussed in yesterday’s blog post, all I’ll say right now about BATTLESHIP is this — it’s likely to be on my Top Ten Books of 2013 list, right alongside Katharine Eliska Kimbriel’s novels (new to me in ’13, at least) and Sean B. Carroll’s BRAVE GENIUS.
So yes, I do think if you love horses — Heck, even if you don’t — you should read BATTLESHIP without delay. Then come back and let me know if you cried, too, when the gallant Trouble Maker fell during his last race and never got up again. (Don’t worry. I won’t tell.)
Quick Update, November 2013 Style
Folks, I haven’t had much time to write blogs or do much of anything this week aside from a spot of editing and a teensy bit of fiction writing.
There is, of course, a reason for that. Unfortunately, it’s the usual one: I’m under the weather. (Again.)
As I continue to fight for better health, I’m also continuing my fight to get the Racine Concert Band fully funded for 2014. And I do have news in that quarter — the RCB has been funded for next year, albeit at a much lesser level.
What this means is twofold: the RCB will continue. (Yay!) But the RCB will have eight performances rather than thirteen, one being the City of Racine July 4th Parade, and will become a summer band only. (Boo!)
I’m not sure what else I can do, if anything at all, to affect the outcome. But whatever I can do, I will.
Anyway, as for what I plan for the upcoming week — over at SBR, I plan to review one non-fiction book tomorrow, BATTLESHIP (about the horse, not the game), and will have an interview with author Stephanie Osborn up by the end of next week. And here at my blog, I plan to discuss the World Series (the good, the bad, and the really odd) along with a brief bit about Carlos Gomez winning the first Gold Glove for the Milwaukee Brewers since 1982. (Mind you, had Brewers General Manager Doug Melvin kept shortstop J.J. Hardy, we would’ve had two by now, as Hardy won in both 2012 and 2013 over in the American League.)
And, as always, if there’s anything that says to me, “Write about me right now,” I promise I’ll do just that.
For now, though, it’s back to some mint tea and soup (which is simmering in the stove even as I write this), in the hopes that by taking it easy I’ll be able to work up a storm tomorrow. (Here’s hoping.)
Just Reviewed Ash Krafton’s “Blood Rush” at SBR
Folks, I just reviewed Ash Krafton’s BLOOD RUSH at Shiny Book Review (SBR for short, as always). It’s a worthy sequel in many ways to the excellent BLEEDING HEARTS (previously reviewed at SBR), but it features one thing I had a really tough time getting past — an odd, almost completely nonsensical romance.
Normally, a book like BLOOD RUSH would be featured during SBR’s “Romance Saturday” promotion, but I just couldn’t do it this time because of the nature of this particular romance. Krafton’s main character in both books, Sophie Galen, has taken up with the brother of her former lover, Rodrian Thurzo, for reasons that aren’t well-rooted.
It’s tough for me to review a book like BLOOD RUSH, which does so very many things right as it has great dialogue, interesting plotlines, excellent characterization, and fits Krafton’s own DemiVampire (DV for short) into the prevailing “otherworld” mythos alongside better-known magical races such as Vampires and Werewolves (note that Krafton does not use an -s for either DemiVampire or Vampire), but doesn’t root the romance to the same depth as all the rest of it.
I actually put BLOOD RUSH down for a whole month because I was afraid of what Krafton was going to do with the nascent Sophie-Rodrian romance. Wisely, she found a way out of that morass (no, I’m not going to say how). But going there at all didn’t make any sense to me.
Krafton’s writing is so good, I expected better from her even though this is only her second novel. My guess as to why she’d put this strange romance into BLOOD RUSH is because she probably wanted to show that Sophie is just as human and fallible as everyone else despite having great power as an empath (which is why Sophie’s been called to become a Sophia, or wise counselor/problem solver, in the first place). If so, I can understand why she did it even though I still don’t like it.
As a reviewer, I have to mention it whenever I have big problems with a plotline, no matter how much I love the rest of the book. I did so recently with my review of Sharon Lee and Steve Miller’s DRAGON SHIP — those two are among my very favorite authors and have been so for a very long time. I did so, most spectacularly, in my review of Debbie Macomber’s HANNAH’S LIST, even though there was a time in my life where Macomber’s Heart of Texas series helped me get through a nasty divorce (this being long before I ever met my wonderful late husband, Michael).
It’s tougher to do this with a novelist with only two novels under her belt as compared to a pair of authors with over a dozen (Lee and Miller) or someone with over a hundred (Macomber). I don’t like doing it. But I do a disservice to myself and my readership if I fail to point out something I really don’t like, even if the rest of the book is good and I still plan to read the rest of the series.
Overall, my hope for the third book in the Demimonde series is that either Marek will somehow be able to come back to Sophie or another strong character completely unrelated to Marek or Rodrian comes into the picture and is a worthy match for Sophie. Anything else doesn’t make sense, and as a writer myself, I know I’d rather write a worthy foil for my romantic lead than someone who really isn’t up to par for this character, even if he might be a good match for 99 out of 100 other women.
EMILYs List Endorses Mary Burke, Leaves Sen. Kathleen Vinehout Out in the Cold
Yesterday, the influential group EMILY’s List (Early Money is Like Yeast) endorsed Democratic candidate Mary Burke for the 2014 Wisconsin Gubernatorial race. Their stated reason for doing so, according to the President of EMILY’s List, Stephanie Schriock, is that Burke has “been quietly changing the world for the better for years, by breaking barriers herself and by making opportunities for others to get ahead.”
But as the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s article said in an almost throwaway line, the person this really hurts is state Senator Kathleen Vinehout (D-Alma). Vinehout, one of the “Wisconsin 14” who stood up to Republican Governor Scott Walker and left the state due to the controversial Act 10 repealing collective bargaining for most public employee unions, ran for Governor during the 2012 recall race but didn’t really have the money to contend with the two top Democratic candidates, former Madison County Executive Kathleen Falk and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.
Vinehout was my pick last time for Governor, mostly because I met her, listened to her positions, researched her, and knew that if the general public got any sense of her whatsoever — she’s a woman of substance who’s been a dairy farmer and a college professor, and is known as a “budget hawk” — I believed she’d beat Scott Walker. Vinehout’s district is more Republican than not, yet she’s won re-election in that district, which means she has bipartisan appeal.
By EMILY’s List endorsing Burke — a woman who’s never been elected to state office, though she was appointed to state Commerce Secretary by former Governor Jim Doyle — this significantly hurts Vinehout.
Worse yet, Burke is a millionaire in her own right and a former executive at Trek Bicycle, a company her father founded. (Please see this article from Blogging Blue about the problematic issues facing Burke if she continues her gubernatorial run.) Which begs this question: Is big money the only reason Burke is getting these endorsements?
Currently, Burke sits on the school board in Madison. While there’s nothing wrong with that, this is the only position she’s ever been elected to in her life. Whereas Vinehout is a sitting state Senator who’s actually had to do something extremely difficult and take a stand — all while not getting paid in the process (as she is not wealthy, I’m sure this did not help her or her family much).
Overall, I’m deeply unhappy EMILY’s List has decided to endorse Burke. From this vantage point, the only thing Burke has to offer is a whole lot of her own money to throw into the governor’s race. She has no record to run on. She has no idea how to improve things as a Governor because she’s never been elected to public office (excepting her current stint on the Madison school board). She officially has “no platform” and has made “no promises,” according to the Wisconsin State Journal, which, as they put it, “has led some Democratic activists to express concerns about her candidacy” while union leaders and the main Democratic Party have largely been silent.
All these types of endorsements do is limit the prospects of candidates like Vinehout who might really have a chance if that big money came her way later on, favoring those who already have big money themselves or big money pledged, as now, from influential Democratic organizations.
Besides, I have a real problem with a woman who gets into a race but hasn’t a clue how to fix anything. Especially when an outstanding candidate like Sen. Kathleen Vinehout is available.
If I were the state Democratic Party Chairman, Mike Tate, what I’d do is throw money at Vinehout. Vinehout is by far the best chance we have in Wisconsin to take back the Governor’s chair. She’s articulate, she’s funny, she’s an impressive candidate “on the stump,” she has been both a dairy farmer and a professor (you don’t get that combination very often), and she’s had to stand up for what she believed in by walking out of the Senate and leaving the state as one of the “Wisconsin 14.”
At an absolute minimum, I’d want a primary if I were Tate in order to improve Burke as a candidate. Right now, Burke is a “one-percenter,” a millionaire who’s never had to face most of the issues most Wisconsinites face every single day. Vinehout, on the other hand, is not wealthy and has had to face every single last one of them and can relate to most if not all Wisconsin voters. If Burke has to debate Vinehout, Burke would either quickly improve or implode.
Either way, the state would win, the voters would win, and we’d get a far better chance to oust Scott Walker from the Governor’s chair.
One final thought: How does it improve democracy to run a well-heeled candidate with deep pockets who doesn’t have a clue how to run the state, especially when a much better candidate is available and all she needs is money to help her out?
Some Good News to Report — An All-Around October ’13 Update
I know it’s early Wednesday morning, and it’s been a week since my last blog. But there’s been a good deal going on that’s taken my energy away from blogging — plus, there really haven’t been any stories that have demanded I write about them, either.
Let’s start out with the good news: The story I worked so hard on was bought. I cannot tell you who bought it yet, as the contract hasn’t been signed and the editor hasn’t made a public announcement. But I can tell you the story was accepted, and I’m looking forward to receiving the contract and signing it.
I also am nearly done with a book-length edit. I have three others in progress at this time, not counting my own final edit of the first half of ELFY, which is over 3/4 complete as of this writing. As this is most of how I make my living, it’s obvious I’ll be spending a lot of time editing in the weeks to come (as I always do).
My plans for the week include a new book review for Ash Krafton’s BLOOD RUSH over at Shiny Book Review (long-delayed due to my health), an interview with author Stephanie Osborn (it may be up next week, but I’m working on it right now), and continuing to write, edit, and comment as often as possible.
Now let’s talk about the World Series, which starts later today between the Boston Red Sox and the St. Louis Cardinals. I’ve already said on my Facebook page that I am underwhelmed by this matchup for two reasons: One, Boston is an older, veteran team without superlative pitching and thus doesn’t seem to have the wherewithal to stand up to St. Louis, a younger team with far better pitching. And two, I’m really tired of seeing the same teams going year after year.
Look. I basically lost interest in the National League playoffs once the Pittsburgh Pirates were out. I really wanted the Pirates to go to the National League Championship Series because it’s been so long since they’ve been there (or to the World Series, either). I knew that Pittsburgh had the best shot of knocking the Cardinals out — and if Pittsburgh couldn’t do it, it was likely the Cardinals would sweep everyone else out of the way and go to the World Series.
Which, of course, they did.
As for the American League playoffs, I lost interest there far earlier as what I’d wanted to see was a Cleveland-Boston matchup — the old Red Sox manager turned Indians manager Terry Francona against new Boston skipper John Ferrell. But Cleveland lost the Wild Card game and was out right away.
After that, while I had a mild interest in Detroit as I wanted to see if Prince Fielder would be able to hit any better in the postseason this year (he didn’t), I wasn’t riveted. I did think Detroit would go back to the World Series because the Tigers have two excellent pitchers in Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander and Boston’s pitchers, while still good in Clay Buchholz and Jon Lester and John Lackey (the latter victimized by poor run support), weren’t in the same class.
However, in a short series anything can happen. Detroit was plagued by some poor defense, some baserunning miscues (poor Prince Fielder, getting caught off third base in a rundown), and just wasn’t able to handle the pressure of returning to the World Series.
My best guess as to what will happen — knowing full well guesses don’t mean much until at least one or two games have been played — is that St. Louis will win easily over Boston. (I like Boston better. But they don’t seem to stand much of a chance.) St. Louis’s pitchers are far better, they have excellent hitters and their defense was among the best in the National League all year long. I just don’t think Boston has enough to compete with the Cardinals.
The main questions remaining are: Does Boston have some fight left? Or did they use it all up getting Detroit out of the way in the ALCS?
If they don’t, this particular World Series is likely to be a yawner for all but hard-core Cardinals fans.
Government Shutdown Finally Ends (with a Whimper, not a Bang)
Well, folks, it’s official: the federal government has re-opened for business. And it only took sixteen days for the United States Congress to get it done.
Consider me underwhelmed.
During the past sixteen days, many people far from the halls of Congress were hurt due to the Congress’s collective intransigence. The law of unintended consequences seems to apply, considering people as diverse as mollusk fishermen in Maine and Alaska, restaurant owners in rural Wisconsin and Oregon, and federal park goers the nation over had their lives interrupted.
And what good did all this do? Not a blessed thing, as it made the United States look like idiots — far worse than laughingstocks — in the eyes of the world. Here are just a few things pointed out by Ed Schultz on his “The Ed Show” program on MSNBC in the past few weeks: Most countries around the world are appalled by how the Congress shut down the federal government, including Germany, France, Russia, and the UK. Even Syria said they do better by their federal employees than we do, and that’s pretty bad.
But guess what? There’s one organization or country that’s known to be even worse than Syria, and even they are taking potshots at the United States. None other than the Taliban (yes, that Taliban) actually said Congress is “sucking the blood” from the American people.
(Words fail me, knowing that.)
So how low can this Congress go, anyway? They’ve already proven by this latest fiasco they’re all about petty political gamesmanship rather than doing the will of the American people. If they had been about the will of the people, the government wouldn’t have been shut down for one hour, much less sixteen whole days.
Because of the Congress’s obduracy, we now have China, of all nations, wondering why the American people aren’t in open revolt.
And that’s saying something.
Don’t get me wrong. There are still some good legislators, though not many. (My personal favorite Senator is Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an Independent.) These legislators want to do their jobs and work for the best interests of the American people by doing “the art of the possible,” (read: compromise) and they’re no doubt just as tired of these stupid partisan games as the rest of us.
But there are way too many sitting in Congress right now who don’t want to do anything at all. These are the ones actively harming the country.
I blame Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) for most of this latest mess. I realize he didn’t start it — Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is usually credited instead — but Boehner had the power to bring a vote to the floor at any time in the past sixteen days. He just didn’t do it.
When a politician would rather pursue his own agenda instead of the good of the country, it’s time for that politician to go.
I’m not the only person ever to think this, either. The words Oliver Cromwell spoke in 1653 certainly seem to apply. But if you don’t have time to read all of Cromwell’s historic speech, you should at least read this one (a paraphrase of Cromwell’s), delivered by British Conservative Member of Parliament Leo Amery to outgoing Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1939 after Chamberlain’s policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler hadn’t worked. Consider, please, that Amery was one of Chamberlain’s best friends when you read the following words:
You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Honestly, isn’t this what all Americans want to say to Speaker Boehner right now? (If it isn’t, what planet are you living on?)
Barb Caffrey's Blog 