Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: an Introduction - J.D. Salinger (1959)

It's hard for me to write about J.D. Salinger without coming off a certain way, so I'd like to open this review by mentioning my friend Libby.  Libby and I met our freshman year at NYU.  One day, she started talking to me about Salinger, I forget why.  Like a lot of people, my primary exposure to Salinger was Catcher in the Rye.   I don't think I had read any of his three other books.  But Libby laid down the line and went through a brief synopsis of each, in particular mentioning how she had written a paper about religion in "Teddy," which was the last in Nine Stories, and extremely beautiful.  She explained that the majority of his work, outside of Catcher, concerned the Glass Family: Seymour, Buddy, Boo Boo, Walter, Waker, Zooey, Franny, Bessie and Les.  Seven children of vaudeville performers, several of them gaining notoriety on a children's quiz show radio program, and others entering careers in show business, the military, the clergy, prose and poetry (sort of).  At least one out of Nine Stories is specifically about Seymour--"A Perfect Day for Bananafish," which is a masterpiece.  Franny and Zooey rightly earns its place on the Best Books List (and Catcher in the Rye, I predict, will make it when it is reviewed--I read Catcher like 6 times over the course of 6 years, but I haven't read it in the last 9).  I had been meaning to read these for the first time in any case, but after Libby's mini-lecture, I made it a priority and read them my freshman year.  I remember having a particular soft spot for Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: an Introduction and thinking they were as good as any of his other published writings.  I loved him so much at this point, that I tracked down the old issue of The New Yorker that had published his story "Hapworth 16, 1924," and photocopied it and put it in a nice binder and gave it to my mother for her birthday, as she was a massive Salinger fan. I thought this was one of the better gifts I had ever gotten her, but then I actually read it.  Do not read it.  Read it only if you want a reading list.

So I looked forward to revisiting these two novellas, similar in length to Franny and Zooey.  And I found that I felt exactly the same way about Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters.  It is a masterpiece on the level of his other three books (to be clear, I do not think I would consider Nine Stories to be in Best Books league, though parts of it certainly are--at least "Bananafish" would make a Best Short Stories list, which isn't a bad idea for a project).  It is hilarious, socially observant, brilliantly detailed, breezily delivered, intriguing, and inviting.  Seymour: an Introduction, however, had aged badly in my mind.  This may come into play in the upcoming series planned for Flying Houses, the Kurt Vonnegut Project, for which I am reading Slaughterhouse Five presently, and for which I have this to say: these books may be influential to young would-be writers because they see the authors having fun with the medium.  You get a sense of the possibilities of literature.  At the time, when I was 19, going through the most artistically fecund period in my life, I thought the conceit of a story like Seymour was tremendously encouraging and successfully experimental.  I don't feel the same about it now.  Basically, I would put Carpenters in Best Books territory, and Seymour in Egregiously Frustrating territory.  I guess I can't actually do that because they're together here.  Anybody that reads Carpenters will go onto Seymour and maybe some people will slog their way through it out of a sense of loyalty to the author and the characters, but they might be better off putting it away after about 30 pages.  I will get more deeply into the details of the plots of each in a moment, but I wanted to put this down for now, to give an overview of my general feelings on Salinger's oeuvre and distinguish my opinions on this, his final published volume.
***
Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters is 89 pages long.  It is about Seymour's wedding day.  Buddy is the main character.  The time is May 1942.  Buddy is in Georgia and wrangles a three-day-leave from a stay in the military hospital to take a train to New York to attend the wedding.  He has no time to go to his apartment so he leaves his luggage in a locker at Penn Station.  He gets in a cab and goes to an old house where the wedding is to occur.  After an hour and twenty minutes, the bride, Muriel, leaves.  The guests are told to "use the cars" and Buddy ends up getting into one with Muriel's aunt (Helen Silsburn), the Matron of Honor, the Matron's husband (Lieutenant), and a little old elderly mute man (Muriel's great uncle).  The Matron of Honor is furious with Seymour.  Nobody knows that Buddy is Seymour's brother.  The tension in the early part of the scene is fantastic.

[I have to break in here and make a note.  I'm finding this review hard to complete because of the great deal of time that has passed.  I read Carpenters in early June.  Then I read This Fight is Our Fight, Days of Abandonment, Meet Me in the Bathroom, and Giant of the Senate.  Then I read Seymour: an Introduction.  So while Seymour is relatively fresh in my mind, Carpenters is not.  I can only attribute the gap to library deadlines and procrastination.]

Really, the cab ride reads like a play.
***
Again, another long break has occurred.  You know what I'm going to say.  Carpenters is great, Seymour is not, so I will attempt to illustrate that with 2 (only 2) excerpts, one from each.  It is a tall task to pick out a representative sample but I think for Carpenters the choice is clear.

"The Matron of Honor seemed to reflect for a moment.  'Well, nothing very much, really,' she said.  'I mean nothing small or really derogatory or anything like that.  All she said, really, was that this Seymour, in her opinion, was a latent homosexual and that he was basically afraid of marriage.  I mean she didn't say it nasty or anything.  She just said it--you know--intelligently.  I mean she was psychoanalyzed for years and years.'  The Matron of Honor looked at Mrs. Silsburn.  'That's no secret or anything.  I mean Mrs. Fedder'll tell you that herself, so I'm not giving away any secret or anything.'"
.........
"'About the only other thing she said was that this Seymour was a really schizoid personality and that, if you really looked at things the right way, it was really better for Muriel that things turned out the way they did.  Which makes sense to me, but I'm not so sure it does to Muriel.  He's got her so buffaloed that she doesn't know whether she's coming or going.  That's what makes me so--'"
She was interrupted at that point.  By me.  As I remember, my voice was unsteady, as it invariably is when I'm vastly upset.
'What brought Mrs. Fedder to the conclusion that Seymour is a latent homosexual and a schizoid personality?'
All eyes--all searchlights, it seemed--the Matron of Honor's, Mrs. Silsburn's, even the Lieutenant's, were abruptly trained on me.  'What?' the Matron of Honor said to me, sharply, faintly hostilely.  And again I had a passing, abrasive notion that she knew I was Seymour's brother." (36...38)

This is the climax of the first "act" of the story, and probably the whole story.  I believe it is representative of the qualities that make for an excellent piece of writing.  I have not seen many other writers italicize portions of words to denote accents on certain words.

I also believed Salinger was something of a pioneer in his use of a footnote or two in Seymour, but recall that Nabokov published Pale Fire in 1962.  Seymour is an intriguing premise.  It is an artistic biography of Seymour by Buddy.  The opening sentence (after two excerpts by Kafka and Kierkegaard) gives a fair indication of how bumpy things are about to get:

"At times, frankly, I find it pretty slim pickings, but at the age of forty I look on my old fair-weather friend the general reader as my last deeply contemporary confidant, and I was rather strenuously requested, long before I was out of my teens, by at once the most exciting and the least fundamentally bumptious public craftsman I've ever personally known, to try to keep a steady and sober regard for the amenities of such a relationship, be it ever so peculiar or terrible; in my case, he saw it coming on from the first." (96)

This is a difficult piece of writing.  It can be very charming at times.  The trope of Buddy writing in a stream-of-conscious style--commenting upon his drinking or the late hour or a recent illness--is one of its more amusing qualities.  One will not deepen their understanding of Seymour by reading it.  It is more about Seymour's effect on Buddy than Seymour himself.  He is every bit as inscrutable a character as he appears in any other place. 

Seymour is mostly notable as Salinger's comment on celebrity.  If one reads the story in this context, it becomes much more interesting.  Buddy is pretty much a stand-in for Salinger.  He lives alone in the woods isolated from society.  He wrote a bunch of the stories that Salinger published.  There are a few moments that definitely break down the fourth wall. 

Salinger has such a small oeuvre, and it is of such a high quality that anyone who wants to read beyond the first exposure (Catcher) will likely go through them all.  This is the weakest piece, but it's still Salinger, and it's not a bad story.  It's just difficult.  It's very frustrating. 

Because then I see the parts I underlined some fifteen years ago and am reminded that to a particular sort of young person, the story is a treasure:

"I'm so sure you'll get asked only two questions [when you die].  Were most of your stars out?  Were you busy writing your heart out?  If only you knew how easy it would be for you to say yes to both questions.  If only you'd remember before ever you sit down to write that you've been a reader long before you were ever a writer.  You simply fix that fact in your mind, then sit very still and ask yourself, as a reader, what piece of writing in all the world Buddy Glass would most want to read if he had his heart's choice.  The next step is terrible, but so simple I can hardly believe as I write it.  You just sit down shamelessly and write the thing yourself.  I won't even underline that.  It's too important to be underlined." (160-161)

Chicago Cubs 2017 Report Card

There is a lot I could say about the Cubs this year, but I don't want to spend too much time on this post.  It's always extremely time-consuming, particularly the part where I find new pictures of all the players, and analyze their stats to give a proper grade (so I'll avoid that).  There are two big takeaways: (1) they were not the first team since the 1998-2000 Yankees to win back-to-back championships; (2) their performance was incredibly admirable for how bad they actually were.  Statistically, this was not a great team.  Their statistics in the playoffs were just ridiculously bad.  Yet they fought all the way to Game 5 of the NLCS.  They were a completely mediocre team up until the All Star break, then somehow, magically, turned it on.  They had one All-Star: Wade Davis.  We ended last year on Aroldis Chapman, so let's start this year on Wade Davis.

Wade Davis: A

Chapman got an A, so Davis deserves an A.  He's not as electrifying as Chapman.  But he was the Cubs lone All-Star and he converted every save opportunity he was given except one.  Most importantly, he was on the mound during the two best moments in the playoffs: NLDS Game 5, and NLCS Game 4.  He was pushed to his limits in both performances (as Chapman had been in the World Series last year).  It was not always pretty, but he got it done.  He "does not have a heartbeat."  He is a free agent now.  Who knows what the Cubs will do.  Nobody was disappointed in Davis.  There was plenty of room for disappointment elsewhere.

Mike Montgomery: B

Montgomery actually did relatively well this year during the regular season, but he is getting dinged down to a B because he was not reliable in the postseason.  The same could be said of all their relievers.  He started more games this year, and he filled in those gaps relatively well.  He pitched poorly in both series that mattered, however.  There are many, many players to blame for the failure in the postseason, but the relievers were a primary target, Montgomery as their ringleader of sorts, their long man.  Regardless, he helped to get them there in the first place.  He's not totally damaged goods because his offensive counterparts didn't give him much to work with, so maybe give him the benefit of the doubt and give him another chance in 2018.  His versatility still has value.

Carl Edwards, Jr.: B

Same story here, except Edwards seemed to have a better regular season.  In fact, he had a much better regular season.  His regular season was excellent.  He should get an A-, and Montgomery should get a B+, but they both get dinged for the postseason.  Perhaps this is a quandary in future contract negotiations.  Your team might forget about extremely significant contributions during the regular season due to a disappointing postseason performance.  Like Montgomery, Edwards Jr. had a terrible postseason.  Correction: he was terrible against the Nationals, and almost perfect against the Dodgers.  So I'll boost him up to a B+.  You tend to remember the bad things.  He wasn't perfect against the Dodgers either.  Now I remember that awful Yu Darvish bases loaded walk.  Back down to a B.  During the regular season, though, he was much better than in 2016.  He was an excellent reliever.  He's still young.  Even though he performed much better in the last postseason, there was a different kind of pressure going on.  He's not worth giving up on yet.

Brian Duensing: A-

This is a bit inflated of a grade, but it's to underscore the fact that he didn't screw up too badly in the postseason, like his colleagues.  His numbers looked good overall, but it seems like he wasn't put into as many high pressure situations as CJEJ or MM.  I think most people feel that he should be kept on the team.

Pedro Strop: B+

His numbers were nearly identical in 2016 and 2017, and his postseason performance in 2017 should be considered slightly better.  He's under contract through next season, so he'll be with us, and we should be reasonably happy with that.  Here is a sad sentence from last year:  If there was anything that gave Cubs fans pause during the last two series of the postseason, it was the way that the team managed their bullpen.

Hector Rondon: C

During the regular season, he wasn't that bad.  He had a different role in 2016 and 2017.  He was the closer in the first half of 2016, and he performed relatively well in that role.  But the Cubs wanted a lights out closer like Chapman, which is a really nice thing to have if you want to win the World Series (for this reason, I think the Dodgers have the edge this week).  In 2017, they had Wade Davis, so Rondon was more of a set up man.  He had a better win-loss percentage this year, but a higher ERA.  And the postseason was absolutely terrible.  Somehow his numbers don't look that atrocious, and some people say that numbers don't lie, but in the pitching context, sometimes they do.  Somehow his ERA is only 6.00 for the NLCS (he was not on the NLDS roster) but it felt more like 27.00.  He probably deserves a C+ but the C is a reflection of the way the Chicago media took things out on him during the NLCS, giving up a home run on his second pitch, and a grand slam a game or two later.  He's arbitration eligible next year and a free agent in 2019, and I'm still not sure if that means he's staying with us or not (barring a trade).

Justin Grimm: C+

Much need not be said about Grimm.  He had an injury, and he had some problems, and went down to the minors for a bit, and he wasn't on the postseason roster.  His numbers were consequently a bit worse than last year.  Again, arbitration eligible next year, and a free agent in 2020, and I have no idea what that means.

Tommy La Stella: B+

Just to get the back up players out of the way, I didn't even grade La Stella last year, though he famously pulled his retirement shtick then, and I never wrote about it.  My brother[-in-law] once said, when he came up, "Tommy-no-I'm-not-going-down-to-the-minors-La-Stella"  (Actually I think he put on more of a routine, like, 'You're going down to the minors, Tommy,' 'No I'm not.') Even though he basically went MIA, the Cubs gave him another chance, and he put in a more-or-less decent performance.  Same this year, but no drama.  There was drama with Miguel Montero but I'm not going to write about it.  I thought their move getting rid of Montero after comments that it was Jake's fault that he couldn't throw out baserunners was a bit harsh, and there must have been something else going on.  It says something about a guy's personality when he won't admit his imperfections.  Tommy never did that, to be fair--he just considered retiring, like maybe he wasn't meant to play.  It was a bit of a prima donna move, but never claimed to be flawless when the numbers told a different story.  Maybe that's why he got another chance, and he had a much better year offensively (relatively speaking) than last year--he drove in twice as many runs in 23 less at bats.

Albert Almora Jr.: A-

Is it inflated to give Almora an A-?  I don't think so.  This guy showed flashes of brilliance, like Javy Baez and Kyle Schwarber and Willson Contreras and Addison Russell before him.  He's another one of "those guys" that have developed into a legitimate threat on several different fronts (okay, Schwarber is mostly just an offensive threat--but didn't he get a bunt single in the playoffs?).  Almora was excellent in the field, strong on the basepaths, could hit for occasional power, and tended to come up with big hits in clutch situations.  He strung together a few monster games near the end of the regular season.  Okay, he only got one stolen base (the Cubs are not great about base stealing--I think Rizzo led the team and most people thought it was ridiculous when he batted lead-off (though I thought it was hilarious and great)).  His numbers don't look amazingly impressive, but they're strong, and I have every reason to believe that he (still only 23) will improve over the next few seasons.  I found this article on the Cubs off-season plans and maybe you will find it interesting.  While we are on the subject of breakout seasons...

Ian Happ: B+

Happ came out of the gates in spring training like Kris Bryant a couple years earlier--no more time in the minors for this guy, even though he's young, throw him into the fire.  And he did relatively well.  He did better than Kyle Schwarber this year, let's put it that way.  He was no Cody Bellinger or Aaron Judge, but he popped 24 home runs with a respectable .253 batting average.  He's only 22.  Unfortunately with the Cubs, it's always, "But is there a place for him?" I think he was utilized relatively well this year, and it will be interesting to see whether he expects to be an everyday player or a platoon situation utility man.  Not a bad option to have on your team.

Jon Jay: B+

Jon Jay essentially replaced Dexter Fowler.  He did not impact the team's performance as markedly as Fowler, but he was relatively good.  He hit .298.  He was a strong defensive player.  He was their lead off hitter, sometimes, and while he had good speed, only stole 6 bases.  It's most interesting to compare him to Fowler--now and then.  Fowler then scored 84 runs.  Fowler now scored 68 runs, and Jay score 65.  Not a huge difference.  Fowler does have a lot more pop in his bat and had 64 RBI this year (compared to last year's 48), and Jay's 34.  Jay had one more base hit than Fowler this year, and 14 less than him last year. [Note: I realize it is ridiculous to assume that Fowler would not have performed better as a Cub--I believe his play was elevated by the team, which was the sort of magical thing about the team last year.] Jon Jay doesn't feel like as a big a player as Fowler, but he's done a serviceable job of replacing him.

Kris Bryant: B+

I just dinged Kris Bryant for his performance in the playoffs, which will happen to Rizzo as well.  His actual grade is A-.  Last year he was A+.  He was voted NL MVP.  If you're voted MVP everybody pretty much has to give you an A+.  And this year, I think, is an A- year for any player.  He had 29 less RBI than in 2016, but 73 is a respectable number for a #2 hitter.  He had 10 less home runs than last year, but 29 is respectable.  He scored 111 runs (10 less than 121, which led the league in 2016).  He was basically, Kris Bryant, not having a monster season.  Then the playoffs came and he performed anemically, batting .200, striking out 14 times, and drawing one walk.  He did hit one home run, in the last game against the Dodgers, where they lost 11-1.  It wasn't all his fault, but he wasn't a difference maker in any of those games.  He's still Kris Bryant and I fully expect an MVP, or MVP-lite season from in 2018.   

Anthony Rizzo: A-

Rizzo had an A season and gets dinged for similar reasons to Kris Bryant.  For whatever reason, none of these guys were All Stars this year.  They all had mediocre first halves, except for Wade Davis (and he was probably only picked because it's required to have one representative).  He had exactly as many home runs and RBI as in 2016.  It's an All-Star season.  He had 14 less hits, but he drew 17 more walks.  He led the team in stolen bases (tied Javier Baez).  He struck out 18 less times this year, too.  Then came the postseason, where he batted .135 (he could probably live with his NLDS performance, but his NLCS performance was very bad).  He struck out 14 times and got walked twice and hit by a pitch once.  But again, same with Kris Bryant, nobody has lost confidence in Rizzo and he is not 100% to blame, he just didn't lift them up like he (and Bryant) often did during the regular season (though I heard about that pop-up base hit go ahead RBI against Washington the day after the marathon in the car on the way back from getting my medal engraved).

Willson Contreras: A

Willson totally stepped it up this year after a promising 2016 and put in an incredible performance, cementing himself as one of the premiere catchers in the game.  He became the team's de facto cleanup hitter and provided a lot of big hits in crucial situations.  There's basically very few flaws in his game.  He didn't do very well in the postseason either (nobody did--I'm looking for the few exceptions as I do this), but I feel like at least one of his home runs gave a crucial lift.  And let's not forget that pickoff play in Game 5 of the NLDS.  He had big shoes to fill after David Ross's retirement and Miguel Montero's exit, but he proved himself to be an All-Star caliber everyday catcher.  Alex Avila came in near the end of the season, performed admirably, and will probably provide a strong backup option.  The Cubs don't need a catcher.

Ben Zobrist: B

There is no mistaking that Ben Zobrist's 2017 was much weaker than 2016.  I think he was injured for a little while this year.  His batting average was .232.  I almost shouldn't give him a B, he probably deserves a B-, but he was still Ben Zobrist.  He was versatile, and he wasn't that bad in the NLDS (though he did approximately nothing in the NLCS).  Last year I expected him to have "2 more really good years in him."  That was not this year, but I do believe he can still bounce back in 2018 and put in a more respectable performance than he did this year.  Do not forget that he was an All-Star in 2016 (like many others).  I doubt he will be like Barry Bonds and become more powerful as he approaches 40 and beyond, but he could have two more decent years in him...

Jason Heyward: B

I was about to ding Jason Heyward down to a B- because he carries the highest salary of the position players, and I think he was comparable to Ben Zobrist offensively.  Defensively, he was as good as ever, and I expect he will win the Gold Glove again.  He was better than he was last year, and he played slightly less (I think he was injured briefly).  He was pretty much their de facto right fielder, and he moved around in the batting order, but seemed to settle near the bottom of it.  He hit four more home runs and drove in ten more runs than last year, and raised his batting average 29 points.  But the numbers are still nowhere near where everyone expected them to be.  J-Hey is our guy though.  He had a pathetic postseason, like everyone else.   

Addison Russell: B+

Here we have to get into DV again, as discussed in last year's post with re: Aroldis Chapman.  Addison did NOT serve a suspension, but was accused of DV, and got divorced.  He then became injured and played in 41 less games this season.  His numbers really weren't that great, and he doesn't deserve a B+, but he's still Addison Russell, and he still is a great clutch hitter.  I gotta think the DV affected his game--but actually, his batting average was a weak .238 last year (he was just one point better this year).  He did have that 95 RBI stat though, down to 43 this year (but again, 41 less games played).  He was actually terrible in the NLCS (really, everyone was), but respectable in the NLDS.  Still you keep Russell and Baez together, just like you keep Rizzo and Bryant together.  You have a pretty good thing going with that infield.

Javy Baez: A-

I'm really just boosting Javy Baez from a B+ last year to an A- this year because he had 9 more home runs and 16 more RBI.  He also had 13 more hits, and the exact same batting average.  He struck out a lot more this year than last year, though.  He is fantastic in the field and should be considered a Gold Glove candidate.  He wasn't an All-Star last year, but he should be next year.  He really sucked in the playoffs, too, but those 2 home runs in Game 4 of the NLCS prevent him from getting dinged for it.  He was a difference maker in that game, at least.

Kyle Schwarber: C+

Now it might have been a bit inflated to give Kyle Schwarber an A+ last year, but for his sample size and the intangible effect of his World Series entrance, it made sense.  Schwarber is still a big power guy, and he hit 30 home runs this year.  But his batting average stayed below .200 most of the year and he barely got it up to .211 by the end.  He also didn't fare very well in the field (whatever happened to him being a catcher?).  I guess it's too late to switch back.  In any case, he would be a fantastic DH.  I would imagine that's going to be a subject of speculation, as I've only seen brief notes, suggesting the Cubs may be willing to deal a few of their formerly untouchable players--one of whom was Schwarber.  People will still love Kyle Schwarber, and his postseason was not great by any stretch, but semi-respectable.  Take him or leave him, he is still a legend here, and he should not be dispatched unceremoniously. 

Kyle Hendricks: A

The other Kyle, the one that has rose from obscurity into Cy Young runner-up status in 2016, had a respectable 2016, though the numbers don't look quite as appealing. He got better as the year went on, and he was still the guy that people wanted to hold the ball in big games.  He didn't have it the same way he did last year, and nobody really did.  He wasn't an All-Star in 2016, either.  Hendricks is still my favorite pitcher on the team.  He should never be let go unless he starts seeking Jon Lester money.  He seems to be under team control for the next few seasons.  He was still paid under $1 million this season.  He didn't set the world on fire quite like last year, but fans of the team know that he still inspired more confidence than any of the alternatives.

Jake Arrieta: A-

Jake wasn't the same as he was in 2016 (and certainly not like he was in 2015), and he suffered that famous hamstring injury, but he turned in a respectable performance this season, getting a very memorable win in Game 4 of the NLCS.  Famously (Jake was clearly the most famous Cub this year--not (Bryzzo)--I digress), that game may have been the last one pitched in a Cubs uniform.  It's weird.  From like everything I have read, approximately zero people expect Jake to remain on the team next year.  He is going to look for Jon Lester money.  Whether or not the Cubs pay it may depend upon the alternatives available in the marketplace, but it really doesn't feel like that will happen.  If so, I will miss Jake, but not his politics (he posted a really awful tweet on Election Day).  I still have his jersey t-shirt, and I'll still admire him as a competitor, and I don't doubt that he will remain one of the fiercest in the league over the next several years.  Just watch the walks, sometimes.

Jon Lester: B

When you look at Jon Lester's career with the Red Sox, it's not surprising that he got a contract like he did.  He had approximately one bad year there.  He passed 200 IP every season but one, and that was 191.  He passed 200 in 2015 and 2016, too.  He was absolutely phenomenal last year (really--people wonder about the difference between these two teams, and why it seem fated for the Cubs to win--just look at the numbers of their top 3 guys).  He truly had an A+ season along with Kyle Hendricks, and Arrieta not far behind. Actually he did much worse than in 2015, which was viewed as a slight disappointment (again, by the numbers).  Really, I think they are inflated due to a couple very poor outings, where he was shelled for 8 runs in the first inning or two.  I remember turning on the game about thirty or forty minutes after it started, and seeing that it was still in the first inning, that the opponent (I forget who) had 8 runs, and he was walking off the mound in the most dejected manner imaginable.  There were flashes of the Jon Lester of the recent past.  2016 was his best year yet.  He had some trouble, but when it got time for the playoffs, he was ready to go, and he pitched very, very well.  He will battle with Hendricks for the top of the rotation, and they provide a solid 1-2 punch at the top, with this next guy rounding out the top 3.  Some people seem to think that Lester is "aging" and while yes, I have felt a difference in my own body between 32 and 34, I have every reason to believe and that Lester could be back in 2016 (or at least 2015) form next year.
   
Jose Quintana: B+

He probably deserves an A-, but he gets dinged for the NLCS.  He pitched very well in 14 regular season starts, and if he can replicate that performance, the Cubs are going to pretty set with their pitching.  I really only saw him pitch a few times and I have to say I was disappointed in the playoffs.  But it was tough to be perfect against a team of hitters like the Dodgers.  In short, picking up Jose Quintana was the biggest move the Cubs made all year, and it wasn't just done with one season in mind (unlike Aroldis).  Next year will be crucial for Quintana, an absolutely solid #3 starter.

John Lackey: B-

John Lackey didn't come here for a haircut, and he'll leave with another World Series ring, and a solid end to a storied career.  Lester is to the Red Sox as Lackey is to the Angels.  He will likely retire, people seem to be saying.  But who knows?  Would they bring him back on a one year contract?  He gave up a ton of home runs.  He was something of a liability on the mound.  Maybe as a #5 starter.  In any case, they need a #4 starter.

Joe Maddon: A-

Joe Maddon will be back to manage next year, and the vast majority of Cubs fans are happy with that.  People are expressing shock that Chris Bosio was just fired as pitching coach, supposedly to make way for Jim Hickey.  I'm not sure how much Bosio or Maddon are to blame for some of the pitching decisions, but a new pitching coach can't hurt.  You can't say Bosio was a bad coach in 2016 with the way the staff performed.  My brother[-in-law] intensely dislikes Maddon.  He is in the minority.  Sometimes I understand why he feels that way.  He is too wacky (note that I, and many others I am sure, adore him for said wackiness--"I like crazy").  Look no further than the 2 ejections in the NLCS.  He was vindicated by the umpire that made the call the next day, but he almost seems to relish opportunities to grandstand like that.  I am definitely a Joe Maddon fan.

Nevertheless, he piloted a team that is best described as "Zombie Cubs."  Zombie Cubs somehow stumbled their way into game 5 of the NLCS.  They were absolutely terrible, but they kept going and going, eking out victories here and there.  As mentioned earlier, NLDS Game 5 should rightfully go down as one of the greatest playoff games in baseball history.  It had all the drama of World Series Game 7 last year.  It was a fun (and painful) game to watch.  As was NLCS Game 4.  It wasn't quite as dramatic, and it was a lot more fun to watch, because we had all basically already given up anyways.  Nobody is giving up on them next year.  I think the main problem they have to deal with is cynicism.  Cynicism with their brand and their relentless commercialism.  Raising ticket prices, probably making beers $1 more next year.  I try to ignore that stuff when I watch the team.  I just appreciate what they've been able to put together.  It has been a lot of fun to get so deeply involved in the playoffs with your own team.  I was in Paris in 2003, and 2007 and 2008 were over before they started, which I think was the case in 1998, too.  These last 3 years have been an amazing time to be a Cubs fan.  I expect next year should be as well.               

Chicago Marathon - October 8, 2017

I ran the Chicago Marathon again because of my sister. This time, instead of teaming up with my younger brother to challenge me, she picked her wife, my sister-in-law.  My brother had no interest in doing it again.  The lottery drawing seemed like it was much earlier this year.  They both got in; I didn't. And I wrestled for about two months with whether or not to do it, coupled with a job change that dramatically impacted the decision.  I don't want to get into that here.  Suffice to say, I made training more of a priority than my boss thought it should be.

And yet I trained far less this year.  My total mileage was down overall.  Perhaps I thought I was "over-training" in 2015, but I have to believe that losing weight plays a factor.  I lost about 20 pounds during the course of training in 2015, got down to about 140.  This year, I lost about 10-15 pounds, and doubt I even got down to 150, more like 155.  So carrying 10-15 extra pounds of weight has to be a factor.

And the other factor was the night before the race.  I couldn't sleep.  I took the natural sleep aid included as part of the swag bag from the Expo, and even after I had trouble passing out, I didn't take an Ambien.  I don't think I took Ambien in 2015.  I've been trying to wean myself off it, but certain times I just know I will have trouble sleeping and I take it, and this should have been one of those times.  I slept about an hour, maybe 90 minutes, from 1:30 to 3:00.  Then I couldn't fall back asleep after going to the bathroom and laid awake, anxiously hoping up to the very end to get just 15 minutes of semi-consciousness.  But the alarm went off at 5 AM, and I cursed myself mercilessly and began to get ready.  

I also wanted to make a total side-note here and talk about how I make excuses.  And how it's bullshit when people say, "Excuses, excuses," or "stop making excuses."  No, fuck you.  I will make my fucking excuses on my blog and you can take them or leave them.  There are perfectly valid reasons for everything I have done, and yet the result of them all is complete shit.  My intentions have always been pure.  I can't truly say, "but I did everything right!"  But I've dramatically lowered my expectations about the sort of future I wish to have.  Side-note over. 

So I couldn't sleep, I didn't lose as much weight, and I didn't put in as much mileage.  Also, I was on a 13-days-straight doc review project from September 18-30 in which I put in 125 hours sitting at a desk, and about 6-7 running the 606 and Lake Shore Path.  I really only tapered a week before the race in 2015.  This time it was more like three. 

These four excuses are necessary for me to maintain the illusion that I did not just run a 4:06:18 marathon rather than a 3:57:46 because I was two years older, and experiencing signs of the inevitable decay of my body in a numerically ascertainable form.

That's the first story.

***

The second story is that I ran for charity.  Because I didn't get in through the lottery, and because I can't run a 3:15 marathon (or 3:45 for women), I would have to run for charity.  I looked at the available options, decided that homelessness would be my pet issue, and selected La Casa Norte.  LCN is, in the words of our team leader (who graciously assisted in the editing of the sole e-mail blast, titled "This is a Marathon, Not a Sprint"), "an organization whose mission is to serve youth and families confronting homelessness by providing access to stable housing and delivering comprehensive support services."

I don't want to to get too deeply into the details of the fundraising experience--I want to get to the race--but suffice to say I could write a lot about it and will be happy to talk to anyone that would like more information on what it is like to run for a charity, and what my team experience was like.

The one thing that came out of the fundraising were the results of the aforementioned e-mail.  I sent out that e-mail September 27, a little less than two weeks before the race.  I had raised $500, and I needed $1,500.  I started to get worried that I wouldn't make it, and that I'd be liable for the shortfall.  But I sent it out and within 12 hours, I had close to $1,000.  I sent a targeted message to about 140 people that I had known over the years and singled them out as special in some way to me.  Only one of them wrote to ask to kindly be removed.

And several complimented me on the e-mail itself.  For me, it felt like a trademark piece, a flash of the panache with which I used to write.  One friend told me that I had a future in fundraising, and it got me thinking a little bit about starting a 501(c)(3).  We'll see how that goes.

At the moment, my fundraising total sits at $1,434.  I have until Halloween to get that last $66.  I have no problem paying it myself as I have not made a donation in my own name to LCN.  I would have to pay $195 to register.  However, I do think I should be entitled to compensation for my efforts, in whatever form that may take. 

The experience of writing thank you letters to each donor was quite special as well.  Sometimes I think I went over the line and wrote ridiculous notes, such as the one to my friend Annie, which was the latest to come.  It actually gives me a bit of anxiety, like, okay, now I've got to convince them that their donation was worth it.  It was a challenging and educational endeavor, and though I would prefer to run without the additional stress of fundraising anxiety, it has inspired me to think more broadly about charitable work.  To everyone that is reading this, and donated, thank you again for being part of this beautiful collaboration.
***
The last story is the race.  To continue from the first story, I woke at 5:00 AM.  I hit snooze and probably didn't get up until 5:20 or 5:30, and this put me into a stressful situation all morning, worrying that I would be late to my corral (F).  If I wasn't there by 7:45, I'd have to start at the back.  I ate an everything bagel with cream cheese, maybe a tiny bit of cereal, a Clif bar, and some orange juice or apple juice.  I showered and changed and grabbed my really heavy gear check bag (I put way too much in it this year) and headed to the El around 6:15 or 6:30.  As usual, the train ride had a special energy to it, with most of the other riders also running.  I got off at Jackson, and got to Grant Park, and tried to make my way to the blue gear check.  This took forever.  There were a particular hold-up (that I didn't recall in 2015) at the top of the stairs near the Art Institute.  This was standard procedure, and not necessarily an enhanced measure in light of the recent tragic events in Las Vegas, but memories of the Boston tragedy, and reports that the Vegas shooter had booked a room overlooking Grant Park during Lollapalooza in August, loomed at a distance.

Once I passed security, I walked, quickly, to my the blue gear check, which was very far from the start corral.  I put it in (and I didn't do my tag properly, but I trusted the attendant to fix it right for me), but not before I took a swig from my Nalgene to swallow an Adderrall.  I had mentioned this to my roommate the night before, and in an apparent moment of clarity, he cautioned strongly against it.  I knew it was wrong then, and I know it is now, but when the option is there for me, and I think it might make things easier for me, it is hard for me to resist.  Perhaps that can be excuse #5 and abstinence from that medication which I take most days anyways will improve future performance.  I also had a 5 hour energy drink, which I had gotten from the Expo as a free sample--I swigged that after I got to the corral.  I vaguely wanted to go to the bathroom, but the lines were too long, and it was getting late.  I got a pack of Gatorade energy gummies at a kiosk for free (which I kept in my pocket, along with a few pieces of gum).  I also got, and took, an energy gel there.  (I had also eaten an energy bar on the El ride).   

I was worried about getting to the start corral in time, but I arrived there somewhere in the 7:20's.  It felt like a long wait.  Our wave would go off at 8.  I moved around, trying to find an interesting group to be around for the actual start, sitting down at moments, stretching a little bit (I never stretch because I am too lazy, but it definitely feels good and seems to help--at least stretching the night after the marathon dramatically helped me get into work the next day).  I ended up near a team representing Brazil, because sometimes I feel more comfortable around foreigners than Americans.

The start of the race was announced, and we began moving, and I put on the start of my playlist as I crossed the starting line at roughly 8:02.  I used the same playlist I used in 2015--with a few modifications.  I could write out all the songs again and discuss the slight changes, but I'll leave that to your imagination this time.  Suffice to say, 2015's had 72 songs, and this one had 64, and it ended when I had about a mile left to go.  I had to skip ahead to hit the ending songs as I finished in 2015.  Still I think this is an improved playlist and will be happy to share with anyone that is interested.

As for the actual race, the opening minutes held the same sort of excitement and exuberance that I felt in 2015.  Truly, the opening of the Chicago Marathon is one of its greatest moments.  The mile or so spent traversing the downtown area is easily the most exhilarating part of the race.  From there, the race continues north, and even passes right by the Goethe statue!

Now I love Goethe, and I love his statue at Diversey and Canon Dr.  I would often run past it as I made my way down Diversey en route to the Lake Shore Path.  I noticed that very few people were standing there and I reflected that in the future, I would ask any friends to wait there for me to say hi, and then proceed to the finishing area, stopping perhaps somewhere else along the way.  Instead, I saw my family a little bit later.

Now because I was running for charity, my shirt said JACK.  Maybe you can see it in the horrible cell phone camera shot of a computer screen photo below of me at the finish line.

So a lot of people were shouting, "Go Jack!"  Which was nice, it was, but then when my sister shouted it, it didn't register, and somehow she got my attention.  She got two pictures of me--one where I was oblivious, and one where I realized it was her and turned back and waved:

I like the second one better.

Later, I saw my friend Chuck and his wife Anne, and their two twin boys.  I didn't know he would be there and he didn't know I would be there.  I noticed them and noticed he didn't see me and I shouted "Chuck!" and got his attention and it was kind of a hilarious and surreal moment.

Later I saw my friend Juan across from the UIC Blue Line stop.  I knew he would be somewhere, but not there, and it was immediately apparent where he was and I stopped to hug him and told him to have a good day and continued on my way.

I felt good the whole way, no real problems, up through mile 18.  And things didn't necessarily get bad there, but it was a turning point of sorts.  I would say around mile 20 and 21 is where things got bad.  You always know it's going to get bad, and I'd tell people if I could get to mile 22 before that hit, I could probably do it.

But man, was it ever bad.  Pilsen is the last great moment of the course.  The neighborhood gets into it.  It's still fun there.  But then you get to Chinatown and die.  And the rest of the course after Chinatown is just brutal.  It's right out in the sun, there is no kind of shade at all.  And this day got hot.  It got up to about 82 degrees by the time I finished around 12:08.

As for the race, I will just say that the last mile was significantly harder for me than the last mile in 2015.  When I saw the last 1000 M sign, it felt like it was going to be a piece of cake.  Then I went forever, and I was like, okay, that sign up there must be like, the last 500 M sign.  Nope. 800 M sign.  It was a very difficult ending.  I became angry at the race, like they were making me feel like I was closer to the end than I really was, that they were purposefully torturing me.

I crossed the finish line and immediately said to myself that I would never do it again.  I staggered around, drinking the first free beer, and several volunteers offered me assistance, which I declined.  I staggered over to a photo area and got this picture taken:

The next guy to get his picture taken was telling the camerawoman about how he had just gotten the exact same time as he had gotten 16 years earlier.

This is the final picture I will post.  It was taken in Chinatown.  It is my favorite picture because it looks like I am blowing kisses to the crowd.  If I ever do the Chicago Marathon again, I will promise many more kisses for the crowd:

I don't think I have much more to say about it except to say that it was a wild ride, and even though I told myself it was just stupid to run marathons and I would never willingly put myself through that specific, sharp pain upon completion again, found myself looking at the registration dates for 2018 (October 24).

One final note: I availed myself of the free medal engraving services at the Fleet Feet in Lincoln Square, and I would like to call attention to the quality of the engraving from this year, alongside the engraving in 2015:

To this I have to say, Fleet Feet, step up your medal engraving game, and Bank of America, leave three lines on the back again.

Also: Go Cubs!