NATIONAL LEAGUE EAST PREVIEW 2021

 

Yes, kiddos, the Braves began in Boston, then went to Milwaukee

The NL East should be baseball’s most competitive division.

 

The Braves won it last year and, on paper, they’re still the best team in the East. They feature fearsome hitters–Acuna, Albies, Freeman, Ozuna, Swanson–and the only relief is that thus far Pache and Riley have been low on-base-percentage players. Only a solid-but-not-spectacular pitching staff puts a brake on the Atlanta juggernaut. Morton has a lot of mileage on his arm, Smyly manages to avoid being what scouts think he should be, and Wright and (Ian) Anderson can be gotten to. (Will) Smith is not yet an elite closer.

 

The Marlins, as usual, are a bunch of youngsters who might or might not be good. None of their starting pitchers is older than 25, and the only hitters that are household names are Dickerson and Marte, the latter of whom has not been the star he was projected to be. There are players who can mash, but several of them–Duvall, Alfaro, Diaz–have low on-base percentages. It’s hard to imagine the Fish will be competitive in the NL East.

 

The Mets have been picked as a possible Cinderella team. Potentially, only the Dodgers and Nationals can rival their pitching staff, but beware the term “potentially.” DeGrom is an annual Cy Young candidate, but Stroman, Walker, Peterson, and Lucchesi are inconsistent. The Mets fleeced the Indians by picking up Carrasco in the trade for Lindor, but he’s on the DL. For once, the Mets lineup is more than one stud and 7 dwarves. Lindor, Conforto, (Dominic) Smith, and Alonso is a solid middle of the lineup. The Mets have the potential to be best team in New York this year, but again there’s that qualifier: potential.

 

The Nationals staff is better than that of the Mets, if everyone stays healthy. That too comes with an imaginary asterisk. Strasburg has battled injuries his entire career and the aging Lester had surgery several weeks ago. Scherzer, though, will give deGrom and Kershaw (Dodgers) a run for the Cy Young award. On paper, their lineup is a step behind the Mets. Robles needs to improve and 3B Kieboom needs to prove he belongs. They plucked Schwarber from the Cubs and we’ll see if his power numbers decline outside of Wrigley Field. They’d better not, as he’s never been a high OBP guy. But Soto, Turner, Bell, and Castro are very good players.

 

My # 4 I-don’t-believe-in-you team is the chronically underperforming Phillies. Harper was supposed to be the NL’s answer to Mike Trout. He has stretches of brilliance, but he’s been more like bottom round than prime rib. The Phils lacked high OBP guys last year and you need them to eke out runs against great pitching. Speaking of great pitching, that of the Phillies is merely okay. Nola, Eflin, and Velasquez were supposed to be can’t-miss hurlers but only Nola shows any signs of being poised for a breakout. Arieta is gone and they’ll need Moore–back from Japan–or the chronically injured Wheeler to step up. Don’t bet on it.

 

NL East Predictions:

 

1. Braves:                  They will be pushed, but I like their unflappable consistency.

2. Nationals:              If their staff is healthy, this is a Wild Card team.

3. Mets:                      I’m not as impressed by their pitching as most.

4. Phillies:                  Prove you’re a good team, or start over.

5.  Marlins:                Bunch of unknowns, but it won’t shock if they overtake the Phillies.

MLB Central: In the Cards and Twinsies?

MLB PREVIEW CENTRAL 2021

 

National League Central:

 

Cards logo form 1950s

This should be a tight division, as each of the top three teams has weaknesses.

 

The Brewers would be the favorites if they had pitching. In Holder they have perhaps the best closer in the NL, but you have to get to him first. None of their projected starters has much experience, so it’s hard to know what will happen when they crack open the cans. They Brew Crew will hit, though 1B (Hiura or Vogelbach), SS (Arcia), and catcher (Narvaez) are question marks. If the Brewers falter, Holder might be a Yankee by midsummer.

 

The Cardinals are the Oakland A’s of the NL in that they get a lot mileage out lesser known players. They will fill in around Arenado and Goldschmidt, the latter of whom needs to be a stud for the offense to work. DeJong needs to hit, which he hasn’t done so far. Ditto Bader and (Tyler) O’Neill. Concerns: 38-year-old Molina has to break down at some point, yes? It’s a miracle Wainwright is still pitching given his injury history, but he too is 38 and this is probably the last time his pony goes around the carousel. Mikolas is on the DL. 24-year-old Hicks is expected to close. In other words, pitching could ground the Cardinals.

 

Nobody will admit it, but the Cubs are shedding payroll and are doing a quiet makeover. Their top three pitchers and the middle of the lineup will keep them in the midst of things, but at some point, they need to part ways with Heyward, who simply never justified his big contract. Pederson might help, but he’s the supposed-to-be stud who hasn’t been. At 2B, Hoerner might be the future but he’s probably not the now.

 

The Reds went all in last year and it didn’t work. They have some good hitters, but unless (Sonny) Gray continues his resurrection and Miley steps up, Luis Castillo is another guy who might be a Yankee.

 

The Pirates have been rebuilding longer than Pompeii. Both are ruins.

 

American League Central:

 

Logo from when Twins were an expansion team

The Indians are like the city of Cleveland; there’s never enough money for what is needed. Francona is among the best managers in baseball and he has the core of a good staff in Bieber, Civale, and Plesac but beyond them, who? Nobody knows who will play first, though Bradley has the inside track. He’s been in the majors for 6 years, but has been in just 53 games. Projected closer Karinchak has saved exactly one game in his career. It’s like this throughout the roster, once one gets passed proven players such as (Eddie) Rosario, (Cesar) Hernandez, Perez, and (Jose) Ramirez.

 

The Royals should be much better. Something tells me the Red Sox will wish a do-over in trading Benintendi. he will fit into a lineup that can do some damage, though SS Mondesi and (Nicky) Lopez need to break out. The rotation is thin past Minor and Duffy.

 

The Tigers are improving, but they took a hit when Mize, their top pitching prospect, lost the ability to find the strike zone. There is a lot of work to do. Miggy Cabrera will probably retire after the season and other than Schoop, there lineup looks like a snooze fest. Boyd, Norris, and Fulmer are guys who stand a 50/50 chance of pitching better or being candidates for catch-and-release.

 

The Twins are, as usual, good enough to win the Central but nada in the post season. It’s a team that looks better on paper than it actually is. They hit a lot of homeruns, but can they thump their way over the hump? I doubt it, as beyond Maeda the pitching is suspect. Happ is 38, Berrios is a middle reliever converted to a starter, Shoemaker has been awful the last two years, and you never, ever want to depend to Pineda to miss a bat in a key situation.

 

Most analysts say the division will go to the White Sox. Maybe, but it’s also theirs for the losing. The everyday lineup, with the exception of 24-year-old 2B Madrigal looks awesome. Pitching could be the Achilles’ heel, though, especially since Kopech can’t stay healthy. Keuchel and Lynn need to be really good, not just veteran presences.

 

NL Central Predictions;

 

1. Cardinals:             They won’t overwhelm, but smart management helps plug gaps.

2. Cubs:                     Enough pitching, some fine hitters, and bandbox Wrigley help.

3. Brewers:                They need pitchers. Period.

4. Reds:                     I doubt Votto finishes his career in Cincy.

5. Pirates:                  They might finish 3^rd in the International League.

 

AL Central Predictions:

 

1. Twins:                    Good enough to win a tight division.

2.  Royals:                 They are my dark horse hunch.

3.  White Sox:           They have swagger, but they lack the arms to back it up.

4.  Indians:                Cleveland is a dead city. Move the Tribe.

5.  Tigers:                  More holes than a New England backroad in March. 

Dodgers and Athletics to Win the West?

MLB PREVIEW WAY OUT WEST

 

National League:

 

Brooklyn or LA--Stay Outta the Way

 

 

The Dodgers are so far above everyone else that the only hope anyone has is that an earthquake wipes out their roster. They should waltz to the NL crown. There are simply no glaring weaknesses.

 

No one knows that the Diamondbacks management is up to. The lineup is okay, but not inspiring. There’s not much to say about the pitching, because there isn’t any. They are counting on Bumgarner to be an ace, but (sadly) he probably will never be what he was before the injury bug bit him like a hungry teenager attacking a Dagwood sandwich.

 

The Giants have a lineup filled with guys over 30, and several of them have spent a lot of time on the DL. Crawford, Belt, Posey, and even Yaztremski could be trade bait if the Giants decide to rebuild. If they can dump Cueto for three fungos and a traveling bag, they should. The only pitcher on the staff worth keeping is Wood.

 

The Padres are the dark horse of those who like to gamble on long odds. There are four teams in MLB who always look good on paper and never are; the Padres are one of them. Is 2021 the year they break the streak? I don’t think so. If Myers ever becomes the player he’s supposed to–he won’t–and if Pham is more than a nice spare part, that will help. They stole Snell from the Rays, but the pitching is more than suspect. Even if Darvish’s 2020 wasn’t a fluke, they still need Musgrove, Lamet, and Paddack to have career years. Doubtful. Pomeranz and Pagan as dual closers? Meh!

 

Speaking of not knowing what management is up to, I offer the Rockies. Still, if the Padres implode (quite possible), they have a shot at 2^nd place in the NL West. Blackmon and Story are fine players (if not traded), Freeland and (Jon) Gray are decent starters, and if Bard is truly resurrected as a closer, things might shift their way.

 

 

American League West

 

Logo used when the A's were in Philly and KC

 

This will not be a good division. Period.

 

Lots of people want the Angels to win, just so MLB’s best player, Mike Trout, sees a postseason. A lot needs to go right for that to happen. Ohtani needs to stay off the DL. Ditto Fowler. Upton needs to be the player he was projected to be but never has been. At age 34, that’s unlikely. First, second, and catcher are manned by Abbot and Costello’s who? But it starts and ends with pitching and when you try to build a staff with Orioles’ castoffs, you are counting on a miracle. Basically, it’s a bunch of guys who perpetually disappoint: Bundy, Cobb, Heaney, Quintana. This is the second team I refuse to get excited about until proven wrong.

 

The Astros–the team everyone outside of Texas despises–lost several good players over the offseason, but they still might win the division. It probably won’t be easy if they do. Maldonado has to emerge as a decent hitter and catcher, Straw has to prove he’s an everyday player, and Pressly is an unproven closer. Verlander won’t be back until midseason and even then, he might not be an ace again. That means they need major production from hurlers such as Javier, Urquidy, and Valdez. You probably don’t know those names and therein lies a big challenge.

 

The Athletics always manage to stick around with rosters that make them the Rays of the West. Their starting lineup is gloriously old-fashioned; they are tortoises that manage to finish above the hares. The pitching is questionable, though, especially if Manaea isn’t entirely healthy. Diekman a closer? There’s no indication thus far that he can be.

 

The Mariners should move to Nebraska, as they are MLB’s number one “show me” team. Some say they can win the AL West and I say it could rain rubies from the sky, but it probably won’t. Their everyday lineup is middle of the road at best and depends too much on (Kyle) Seager for production. Paxton returns to the pitching staff, but his mojo basically happens every third or fourth start. Is Sheffield ready? He’s only 24, so it could go either way. Even if the aforementioned duo shines, there’s nothing but question marks behind them.

 

The Rangers rightly decided they needed a rebuild. There are a few proven talents on the roster (Gallo, Odor, Foltynewicz, Gibson) but it’s going to take some time. The closer job is up for grabs, but it might not matter that much.

 

 

NL West Predictions:

 

1. Dodgers:               Has anyone ever clinched by the All-Star break?

2. Rockies:                Call it a hunch because…

3. Padres:                  Sorry, but I just don’t believe in them

4. Giants:                   You could flip flop 4 & 5, but on paper San Fran is better than…

5. Diamondbacks:    A defanged snake.

 

AL West Predictions:

 

1. Athletics:               Roster built from top to bottom generally win.

2. Astros:                   Solid lineup and if the pitching holds up, it’s…

3. Angels:                  Better than one built around stars hiding poseurs.

4. Mariners:               Someday they’ll put it together. Like the next century.

5. Rangers:               Patience is a virtue.

 

 

Eye in the Sky Worth Rediscovering

 

EYE IN THE SKY (2015)

Directed by Gavin Hood

Entertainment One Films, 102 minutes, R (language)

★★★★

 

 

 

Remember the lifeboat ethical dilemma that involved deciding whom to sacrifice to increase the likelihood others in the boat would survive? The grown-up version is the cold calculus upon which military and political decisions rest. Who and how many must die to justify a decision that will potentially save even more lives?

 

I am not usually a fan of military thrillers, but Eye in the Sky is a taut and thoughtful one. It's set in a section of Kenya under the control of El-Shabaab. Not many Westerners or Africans shed tears when El-Shabaab terrorists are killed. Could you push the button that launches a Hellfire missile that would wipe out four leaders and two suicide bomber recruits? Easy call? What if two were British and one an American? Still certain? What if a drone reveals a little girl selling bread outside of the compound in which the bad guys are holed up? High-tech warfare isn’t like the Vietnam War in which pilots released bombs and had little idea of what collateral damage they caused. Now we have the ability to zero in on that little girl’s face. Would you kill her in the name of saving others? Would you make such a decision if it involved one of your loved ones?

 

Eye in the Sky involves a six-year search by Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) to locate a British woman who was radicalized, married an El-Shabaab commander, and has masterminded terrorist acts throughout the Horn of Africa. A planned capture goes awry when there wasn’t enough time to pull it off, but Powell now knows exactly where the terrorists are located. She wants to pivot from a capture plan to eliminating all six, but there are politics to be considered. Time is of the essence, but she and Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) need to clear matters with the United States, British Foreign Secretary James Willett (Iain Glen), and Under-Secretary of State for Africa Angela Northman (Monica Dolan). Northman is adamantly opposed, and Willett wants to pass the buck up the chain of command.

 

Turf wars between military leaders and civilian government are commonplace. As viewers, though, we can't root for a strike that would probably kill a smart and utterly vibrant youngster we know as Alia (Aisha Takow). Plus, even if the strike were to be authorized, the military has to thread the needle between at-risk Kenyan personnel on the ground, those doing facial recognition algorithms in Hawaii, blast radius risk assessment officers in Norwood, England, a Reaper drone flying 20,000 feet above the target, and the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, which targets and fires the missiles. It doesn't help that Second Lieutenant Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) has never done so, or that his shift assistant, A1C Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox) is on her first assignment.

 

The subplots within Eye in the Sky are deftly handled. We know, for instance, Benson has a daughter about Alia’s age; we strongly suspect Powell’s motives are pretty evenly split between dispassionate military duty and clinical obsession. The film also suggests that black agents on the ground are being placed in untenable situations by white commanders. As it is, we see Powell browbeats–through intimidation and word planting–a black assessment officer to lower his calculated risk ratio. Queue another dilemma; the decision makers are much older than the men and women who must carry out their orders and live with the consequences. (Add a dose of the Milgram experiment* to the mix.)

 

It may jar you to see Mirren in camo, but she is utterly believable as the icy Powell. In like fashion, Rickman's blend of analytical, forcefulness, and frosty indignation is a poignant reminder of what the acting world lost when he died in 2016. Paul and Fox also shine in roles that require them to be personally vulnerable yet antiseptically efficient. (Milgram redux?) And we should not overlook the note-perfect performance of Barkhad Abdi as Kenyan agent Jama Faral, who must think on his feet then use them to flee for his life. The editing of Megan Gill and the cinematography of Harris Zambarloukos are integral to making the film work. In just 102 minutes we shuttle between eight major characters, numerous secondary ones, and six locations. If either slipped up, the film would not cohere.

 

Would you kill the girl? Allow the terrorists to walk away, though their future actions will probably kill scores of innocents? Hope for a miracle? Eye in the Sky avoids pat solutions and leaves us unsettled. At times it's hard to know which is scarier, El-Shabaab, or the technology that takes the guesswork out of warfare and puts faces on its victims. Unlike pass-the-buck politicians, Eye in the Sky thrusts us into the life boat to confront what we would do. It is a film that I hated to love.

 

Rob Weir

 

* The 1961 Milgram experiments were psychological investigations partly inspired by Nazi soldiers who pleaded they were forced to carry out death camp atrocities. In the experiments, volunteers were badgered to administer electric shocks to other volunteers—actually actors—though the latter appeared to be in distress. Very few refused.

Bruce Ackerson Puts Whimsy Back into Art

 

Bruce Ackerson

Birds-Eye Views

Fine Arts Center, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Through May 14, 2021

Artist Website: https://bruceackerson.net/section/225137.html

 

 

 

I was only passingly familiar with the works of Northampton-based artist Bruce Ackerson until the UMass Fines Art Center launched an exhibit of his paintings titled Birds-Eye Views. It is, of course, exceedingly difficult to get to see the exhibit at present, but Ackerson has a superb Website of all that is in the UMass exhibit and more that is not.

 

 

 

Birds-Eye Views is an apt title, but it also a limiting one. Ackerson does skew our vision by placing our eyes in the sky and forcing us to gaze downward. In this regard, he reminds me a bit of Grant Wood. “Boxcar Getaway,” for instance, is fraught with danger reminiscent of Wood’s “Death on Ridge Road.” The survival odds are low for the figure attempting to allude his pursuers by leaping off a cliff onto a moving train. “Baddy Redpants” has a better chance; he has used a moving flock of sheep to put distance between himself and those chasing him. Ackerson, though, is East Coast to Wood’s Midwest, suburban to his rural, and is more interested in keeping us off balance than in inducing pathos. 

 

 

Ackerson perhaps also echoes Wood in that his style might be called deliberate primitivism. If you’re going to defy perspective, go whole hog. Don’t worry about table legs that don’t look to be 3-D, walls that lean, or cartoon-like figures. According to the UMass writeup, Ackerson’s is an “imaginative take on popular culture, modern life and the hidden world of the human psyche.” In works such as “Artist” or “Artists and Collectors,” we are not sure if the central figure is showing us a canvas or a picture window that opens onto the real world.   

 

What will strike most people is Ackerson’s sharp, often surreal sense of humor. For all the high-falutin’ ways one could describe Ackerson’s works, his own take is that a lot of it is simply “goofy.” It’s hard not to love the lack of pretense in that description. It’s also hard not to see that he’s right. “Port-o-Pool” is dips in the back of a semi; “Girls Having Fun” is three women giving two lads an eyeful, but from their perch atop a cliff the boys can’t access. Ever wonder what Santa does in the off-season? “Walk in the Woods” will inform you. If you’ve had it up to your eyeteeth with burly males throwing their weight around, check out “Two Macho Men” and let me know your preferred outcome. “Saving Timmy” will raise a snort from anyone old enough to remember the TV show Lassie.

 

 

There are several themes that come through in Ackerson’s works beyond perspective and humor. One is that a lot of them are set at the beach. This probably linked to the time he spends in Provincetown on Cape Cod; its Rice Polak Gallery is where many of Ackerson’s works are for sale.  He enjoys depicting running figures bolting out of pools or across cliffs and sand dunes, then adds twists of why they’re in a hurry. “Swimming and Cake” and “Cake Time” are mad dashes out of the water and toward a groaning board laden with yummy delights. An even funnier take on his predilection for food themes is “Pizza!” It’s as if training for the Olympics ceased to indulge in rapture that comes in a crust. Ackerson enhances the illusion via an aerial perspective that makes it look as if servers are bearing sacred offerings.

 

He also indulges us in other fantasies. “Presents for Everyone!” is the way life should be. In a different vein, “Strap-on Wings” evokes a low-altitude training school for a would-be Icarus. Think you’ve had a bad day? “One Thing After Another” will make you feel better. “Joggers” is an amusing-if-ominous sprint that (perhaps) is a backdoor commentary on those who claim the world dates only to 4,004 BCE.

 

If I had to pick one of Ackerson’s painting as my favorite, the honor would go to “Spaghetti Night.” Mom and dad y fancy themselves as jugglers and are attempting the famed “pass” maneuver, except instead of Indian clubs they are tossing pasta-and-sauce-filled plates across the room with predictable results. Three children look on, two with arms out in a supplicative manner as their airborne dinners splatter onto the floor. It appeals to my boyhood sense of wonder and mirth. I admire an artist who makes me laugh aloud instead of muttering over affectations and pretense.

 

Rob Weir

 

 

Hypocrites (1915) an Important Film Lesson

 

HYPOCRITES (1915)

Directed by Elliot Reivers and Lois Weber (uncredited)

Paramount, 49 minutes, not-rated

★★★

 

 

 

 

If you have not studied film history, you might think there was never any nudity in American movies until the 1960s. Not so. Until 1934, when an older moral code began to be enforced, lots of films had nude scenes. What changed, beginning with the 1963 offering Promises! Promises! was that Hollywood started to ignore said code. In 1968, it was shelved. Hypocrites, a 1915 silent film that was the brainchild of Lois Weber, was one of numerous pre-code films that sported a clothes-off actress: Margaret Edwards. Weber wrote, produced, and codirected a project that was informally called The Naked Truth because of Edwards.

 

Hypocrites is a series of vignettes in two acts. In the first, we meet Gabriel the Ascetic (Courtenay Foote), a medieval monk. We see him feverishly working behind the locked door of his monastic cell. His abbot, (Herbert Standing) and fellow monks think he is both obsessed and standoffish and, to a degree, they are correct. They fail to see that Gabriel lives on a spiritual plane far above their own. They humor Gabriel and agree to unveil his secret sculpture before the queen and a gathering of villagers. Unveil is the correct word; when the curtain lifts, a comely female nude in marble so shocks viewers that they murder Gabriel.

 

Everything in the film is an allegory, so what happens next is open to interpretation. We see a ghostly nude (Edwards) appear before Gabriel to beckon him up at rugged hillside. As he climbs, some villagers–especially women–try to follow him. They fall by the wayside. The Truth leads Gabriel to a gate, which leads to a summit overlooking a spectacular view. Gabriel stands enraptured. Is this a prequel or a post-mortem scene? Do the gates open to spiritual enlightenment, or do they represent the Gates of Paradise? Take your pick; it works either way. What is clear is that most people are more interested in worldly things than in a saintly life.

 

In the next act, we see Foote in the guise of a modern-day (1915) minister preaching a sermon on hypocrisy. It outrages the congregation, some of whom plot to rid themselves of their sanctimonious minister. They need not have bothered. He sits disconsolately by the pulpit, dies, and only a handful of congregants mourn his passing. This is the setup for vignettes in which we witness the hypocrisy of his detractors. The nude Edwards appears in each, as if to call our attention to their serial violations of the seven deadly sins: pride, greed, envy, gluttony, wrath, sloth, and lust. Truth is naked, pure, and innocent, but only nudity arouses ire.

 

Ambiguity again comes into play. Is the minister a reincarnation of Gabriel? Is this Weber’s sideways critique of Christians who focus on form rather than substance? Is the Christian hang-up about nudity the ultimate hypocrisy? Are sins committed behind closed doors somehow less serious? Weber’s film was thought to be scandalous and anticlerical in its day, but was that view crafted by titular hypocrites who willfully ignored Weber’s premise?  

 

At this stage I should remind you that this is both a silent film and one that is more than a century old. Some stock has been tinted, which helps with resolution but many parts of Hypocrites are too badly damaged to allow for full restoration. Remember also that silent films are exactly that. Aside from a few dialogue or expository slides, narrative is communicated by histrionic gestures, exaggerated lighting, and dramatic makeup. Foote’s facial mask is often suggestive of a sickly raccoon.

 

You need to know, however, that much of what you see was pathbreaking in 1915. Weber used multiple exposures and overlap to create Edwards’ phantasmagorical physical qualities. Choosing Edwards was also inspired; she is the very essence of naked innocence. Nor should we overlook that Weber was a rare female director and producer in a decidedly male film world.

 

I can't promise you will find Hypocrites to be enthralling viewing–its surfaces and acting are too dated and mannered for most tastes–but it's an important historical document. And, if I might, it made me think of the hypocrisy of many contemporary clerics. You know, the ones that rail against sex as a way of diverting attention from their devotion to violating the seven deadly sins. Sooner or later, though, most of them are caught with their pants down!

 

Rob Weir

Memorial is a Flop

MEMORIAL (2020)

By Bryan Washington

Riverhead Books, 306 pages.

★

 

 

Should a reviewer cut a gay novel more slack than one involving straight characters? How about if one of the characters is African American and the other is Japanese? Or should that reviewer simply call it like it is and say he is in the presence of a bad piece of writing? Given that I am the reviewer in question, I opt to call Memorial a dud.

 

It details the relationship between Benson, a black American, and his Japanese partner “Mike.” They have a lot of sex together, though mostly for the wrong reasons. Sex is what they do when they can’t communicate or resolve their disagreements, which is nearly all of the time. Memorial is set in Houston, where Mike has been for a long time and where “Ben” grew up in some comfort. They now live in the city’s Third Ward, a classic gentrifying but not yet transformed neighborhood. Mike, who comes from a broken home, is a slacker who goes from one low-wage restaurant to another. Ben—who is HIV positive-—works in a daycare center and is good with the kids, though he’s pretty lousy with most adults, including Mike. Not that Mike is much better. If you don’t already think that the F-bomb has grown boorish and tiresome, you’ll be ready to call for an outright ban if you pick up this novel. Take it out and this book would lose half its bulk.

 

Nothing much makes sense in the book. Mike’s mother Mitsuko is jetting her way from her home in Tokyo to Houston where she once lived. So what does Mike do? He flies to Osaka to care for his father Eiju, who has terminal pancreatic cancer. Is that noble? Not really; he despises his father and hasn’t even spoken to him in years. Plus, what kind of partner sticks his boyfriend with his mother, whom Ben has never met, to go to Japan for several months? Ben doesn’t even know if Mitsuko speaks English. She does and expresses disapproval about everything from her ex-husband to Ben and the apartment.

 

Washington tries to salvage the novel about half way through by switching from the Mike/Ben relationship to back stories that flesh out their respective dysfunctional families. This includes Mike’s attempt to help his father run his small bar, much to the chagrin of Kunihiko who has been a surrogate son to Eiju and hoped to inherit the bar. For the record, Eiju speaks with the same expletive-laced overgrown junior high school vocabulary as Mike and Ben. If none of this makes any sense to you, trust me that it’s not worth trying to understand it any more than trying to rationalize Mike’s casual hookups in Osaka or Ben’s attraction to Omar, the brother of a sullen child named Ahmad with whom only Ben can relate.

Yeah, yeah, there is a sort of coming together of the respective families, but do we care? I surely did not. Nor did I care whether or not Mike decides to go back to Osaka after his father’s death, a subplot involving the forthcoming marriage of one of Ben’s colleagues, or whether there is any hope for Mike and Ben.

 

It’s this simple. Unless you’re David Mamet and can concoct compelling drama to accompany foul-mouthed characters, the F-bomb is not cutting edge literature. I know nothing about author Bryan Washington. Maybe he has a great novel in him somewhere, but Memorial is a boring book marred by immature writing. Mike and Ben remind me of something Tom Lehrer once said: “If a person feels he can’t communicate, the least he can do is shut up about it.”

 

Rob Weir