I love Hamill, but I agree with you and Pos...this was a pretty embarrassing effort from him.
There's always been a lack of a good Mays biography on par with Creamer's Babe, Montville's Williams, and Cramer's DiMaggio (my personal favorite). I was hoping this book would fill the void, but I'm not too enthusiastic about it. I'm not looking for a hit-piece on Willy or anything, but the "authorized biography" label makes me weary of it just being hagiography.
Back to Hamill though...seriously, WTF man. "The only performance enhancing drug was joy"...what does that even mean?
1) I don't know, man, but Hamill was really "off" on this one. I have similiar reservations about the new Ways book but I've actually heard that it is really excellent.
[2] yeah I've heard pretty positive things too. The one I'm really excited for is Howard Bryant's Aaron bio....and just for the trashiness factor, Madden's Steinbrenner book.
For some reason, Mays just doesn't fascinate me. Perhaps its because I am an American League guy, but it just seems that there is no distinction between Mays the baseball player and Mays the man. Whereas Mantle, DiMaggio, Ruth, Aaron, Williams all had compelling human stories, a bio of Mays strikes me as a literary account of his baseball card. I guess that's probably not fair, but I don't feel as if I'll be moved to read the book.
[3] I don't think Madden's account of George will be trashy. He had a very good relationship with George, so it should be pretty fair. That is one book that I absolutely will devour.
Pos' response was spot on. I love baseball lore and I love my heroes, but let's not create an illusion to suit our romantic notions. I'm always suspicious of someone (and I do it too) who starts a sentence with "Back in the day...." The truth is the day is now, the sum of all its parts.
Honestly, I like that baseball has it all; a rich, colorful history filled with great feats of prowess to deeply shameful undercurrents ( and everywhere in between). There has always been something cringeworthy as well as inspiring. Ulitmately, it's here to entertain and Mays did that seemingly effortlessly.
I've been a sap and a pigeon for for Pete Hamil since I read his cover note from Blood On The Tracks when the album came out back in '75. The PED crack was uninformed at best but I can't say that Hamill let me down on this one. He achieves a lyrical tone and pace in his prose that I can't resist; I'm sure I'd find his review easier to read than the book he wrote about. Pete Hamill makes writing appear as easy as Willie Mays made baseball look. Understanding how impossibly difficult both endeavors are is a testament to both their talents.
Hamill's no different than any of the old baseball fans who think steroids are ten times worse than whatever junk the old timers popped, or stirred into their coffee as a pick me up. He may be wrong, but that's how my dad, and most guys (and ladies') his age see it -- and they look back on Mays' years as the good ole days compared to the power gluttony of the late 90s early 00s..
I liked Hammil's piece. I like listening to guys his age talk about baseball the way they remember it. How they remember it is not always as it was, but the same can be said of millions of currently young fans recalling a game they saw hours earlier.
[7] That's a fair point, but I wonder at what age does one develop selective amnesia? While I can't kill Hamill for romanticizing the events of his youth, I prefer writers (and people) who can appreciate the past without denigrating the present. I consider myself to be a very nostalgic person, but don't think the past competes against the present. Instead, I've always looked at the present as providing an opportunity to be nostalgic in the future. Perhaps that attitude wanes as you get older and realize there may not be a futre. I hope not.
[7] That steroids are "ten times worse" than amphetamines for queering baseball results and records perfectly summarizes my opinion. Is 37 "old" in your book?
When I was in grade school - maybe 9 years old - I stayed after school every day to help the janitor sweep the floors. $2 a week plus any loose change or leftover pudding in the kitchen were mine for the effort. The janitor was a big Yankees fan and told great stories about Mantle and Whitey Ford and all the big names from the '50s and '60s but, when he caught me buying his spiel he did me a big favor - he gave me a copy of Ball Four and made me read it. I was too young to appreciate it in its entirety but it had the salutary effect of making me realize that, but for great baseball talent, ballplayers were just as flawed as every other guy on the block.
With that said, I'm not going to moralize over steroids or throw stones. One of my favorite all-time teams, the '93 Phillies, was loaded with guys who took the special vitamins. They were alot of fun to watch and I don't look back on their one shining season as tainted.
I do see a difference between steroids and, say, amphetamines. Maybe it's because I can relate more readily to that form of better living through chemistry than I can the bodybuilding, steroid culture. But, I think the outrage - the backlash at the "CHEATERS" - revolves around the demolition of the home run records. While watered-down, expansion pitching and smaller ball parks contributed, there is no doubt in my mind that steroids are responsible for rewriting the record book. It's obvious in the numbers and in the prodigious distances some of those balls suddenly carried. That's not what bothers me about the "steroid era", though. Steroids made some very good (or even great) players better and allowed them to shatter some records. Those guys are the tip of the iceberg. Use by pitchers was apparently more widespread and, the drugs were and remain most tempting to the guys who haven't made it to the show or who are on the fringes. That's the aspect that bothers me most - it allowed marginal players to prolong careers or jump ahead of guys who would have made it in their place. I don't blame any individual for the choice to bend the rules but, I do feel badly for the guys who decided not to and may not have had the talent to compete on that unlevel playing field.
I ain't no chick but I dig the long ball! Let the players run wild and inject whatever they want. More 100mph fastballs and 450ft homers please! And put them all in the HOF (it's a museum fer goodness sake, not the Todaiji-Temple!)
[13] I recall the "Free James Brown" crusade, complete with busstop graffiti. My favorite piece was sprayed on the side of a laundromat shortly after his release from prison: James Brown is Free. Hide the PCP.
Hamill is clearly not a baseball fan. He gave up the game when the teams moved and he hasn't participated in the scandale or the salvation. How he was selected to do the article should be investigated. With the writer of willie's time dead (the only thoughful remark in the review--it stands one of the best bball books ever), they could have selected Angell or Breslin.
I love Hamill, but I agree with you and Pos...this was a pretty embarrassing effort from him.
There's always been a lack of a good Mays biography on par with Creamer's Babe, Montville's Williams, and Cramer's DiMaggio (my personal favorite). I was hoping this book would fill the void, but I'm not too enthusiastic about it. I'm not looking for a hit-piece on Willy or anything, but the "authorized biography" label makes me weary of it just being hagiography.
Back to Hamill though...seriously, WTF man. "The only performance enhancing drug was joy"...what does that even mean?
1) I don't know, man, but Hamill was really "off" on this one. I have similiar reservations about the new Ways book but I've actually heard that it is really excellent.
[2] yeah I've heard pretty positive things too. The one I'm really excited for is Howard Bryant's Aaron bio....and just for the trashiness factor, Madden's Steinbrenner book.
For some reason, Mays just doesn't fascinate me. Perhaps its because I am an American League guy, but it just seems that there is no distinction between Mays the baseball player and Mays the man. Whereas Mantle, DiMaggio, Ruth, Aaron, Williams all had compelling human stories, a bio of Mays strikes me as a literary account of his baseball card. I guess that's probably not fair, but I don't feel as if I'll be moved to read the book.
[3] I don't think Madden's account of George will be trashy. He had a very good relationship with George, so it should be pretty fair. That is one book that I absolutely will devour.
Pos' response was spot on. I love baseball lore and I love my heroes, but let's not create an illusion to suit our romantic notions. I'm always suspicious of someone (and I do it too) who starts a sentence with "Back in the day...." The truth is the day is now, the sum of all its parts.
Honestly, I like that baseball has it all; a rich, colorful history filled with great feats of prowess to deeply shameful undercurrents ( and everywhere in between). There has always been something cringeworthy as well as inspiring. Ulitmately, it's here to entertain and Mays did that seemingly effortlessly.
I've been a sap and a pigeon for for Pete Hamil since I read his cover note from Blood On The Tracks when the album came out back in '75. The PED crack was uninformed at best but I can't say that Hamill let me down on this one. He achieves a lyrical tone and pace in his prose that I can't resist; I'm sure I'd find his review easier to read than the book he wrote about. Pete Hamill makes writing appear as easy as Willie Mays made baseball look. Understanding how impossibly difficult both endeavors are is a testament to both their talents.
Hamill's no different than any of the old baseball fans who think steroids are ten times worse than whatever junk the old timers popped, or stirred into their coffee as a pick me up. He may be wrong, but that's how my dad, and most guys (and ladies') his age see it -- and they look back on Mays' years as the good ole days compared to the power gluttony of the late 90s early 00s..
I liked Hammil's piece. I like listening to guys his age talk about baseball the way they remember it. How they remember it is not always as it was, but the same can be said of millions of currently young fans recalling a game they saw hours earlier.
[7] That's a fair point, but I wonder at what age does one develop selective amnesia? While I can't kill Hamill for romanticizing the events of his youth, I prefer writers (and people) who can appreciate the past without denigrating the present. I consider myself to be a very nostalgic person, but don't think the past competes against the present. Instead, I've always looked at the present as providing an opportunity to be nostalgic in the future. Perhaps that attitude wanes as you get older and realize there may not be a futre. I hope not.
[7] That steroids are "ten times worse" than amphetamines for queering baseball results and records perfectly summarizes my opinion. Is 37 "old" in your book?
When I was in grade school - maybe 9 years old - I stayed after school every day to help the janitor sweep the floors. $2 a week plus any loose change or leftover pudding in the kitchen were mine for the effort. The janitor was a big Yankees fan and told great stories about Mantle and Whitey Ford and all the big names from the '50s and '60s but, when he caught me buying his spiel he did me a big favor - he gave me a copy of Ball Four and made me read it. I was too young to appreciate it in its entirety but it had the salutary effect of making me realize that, but for great baseball talent, ballplayers were just as flawed as every other guy on the block.
With that said, I'm not going to moralize over steroids or throw stones. One of my favorite all-time teams, the '93 Phillies, was loaded with guys who took the special vitamins. They were alot of fun to watch and I don't look back on their one shining season as tainted.
I do see a difference between steroids and, say, amphetamines. Maybe it's because I can relate more readily to that form of better living through chemistry than I can the bodybuilding, steroid culture. But, I think the outrage - the backlash at the "CHEATERS" - revolves around the demolition of the home run records. While watered-down, expansion pitching and smaller ball parks contributed, there is no doubt in my mind that steroids are responsible for rewriting the record book. It's obvious in the numbers and in the prodigious distances some of those balls suddenly carried. That's not what bothers me about the "steroid era", though. Steroids made some very good (or even great) players better and allowed them to shatter some records. Those guys are the tip of the iceberg. Use by pitchers was apparently more widespread and, the drugs were and remain most tempting to the guys who haven't made it to the show or who are on the fringes. That's the aspect that bothers me most - it allowed marginal players to prolong careers or jump ahead of guys who would have made it in their place. I don't blame any individual for the choice to bend the rules but, I do feel badly for the guys who decided not to and may not have had the talent to compete on that unlevel playing field.
[9] , [10] I'm basically of the same mind.
I ain't no chick but I dig the long ball! Let the players run wild and inject whatever they want. More 100mph fastballs and 450ft homers please! And put them all in the HOF (it's a museum fer goodness sake, not the Todaiji-Temple!)
Oh, and "Free James Brow!" :)
[12] Mmmm..that should have been "Free James Brown!"..kind of ruins the admittedly obscure joke..
[13] I recall the "Free James Brown" crusade, complete with busstop graffiti. My favorite piece was sprayed on the side of a laundromat shortly after his release from prison: James Brown is Free. Hide the PCP.
Hamill is clearly not a baseball fan. He gave up the game when the teams moved and he hasn't participated in the scandale or the salvation. How he was selected to do the article should be investigated. With the writer of willie's time dead (the only thoughful remark in the review--it stands one of the best bball books ever), they could have selected Angell or Breslin.