Vulgarity -- The New Artistic Expression

WARNING: This posting contains vulgar language which may not be suitable for all readers, if, in fact, there are any readers.

I have had the opportunity this week to watch parts of the first two episodes of Deadwood, a television show which has apparently received great acclaim. This show was recommended to us, because Susan is a fan of westerns, and Deadwood bears a strong a resemblance to many of the westerns we have seen in the past. It takes place in a mining town which is inhabited by many enterprising settlers, thieves and gunfighters; it involves occasional fistfights, and gunfights; one of the featured characters is a strong, silent, former U.S. Marshal, and there is much drinking of whisky; more whisky is consumed per episode than food.

What distinguishes Deadwood are a couple modern embellishments. First off, the saloon, in which about three-fourths of the action takes place, doubles as a whorehouse. This gives many characters, both male and female, the opportunity to display themselves in a state of full frontal nudity, or as Susan would say, totally bare naked. These scenes are typically gratuitous and serve no part in the story line, except perhaps to keep the viewers glued to the edge of their seats. For example, last night in the middle of a fist fight which threatened to escalate into a homicide, a drunken male patron, who seemed to have gotten lost in his quest to locate a prostitute, stumbled into the room, totally bare naked. I’m not sure of the audience demographics for whom this scene was designed, as the naked patron was neither attractive nor particularly well groomed. And one other thing about these naked scenes: I have noticed that the women are especially slender, skinny as we would have once called them. Maybe they are just malnourished; after all they live in the west, and don’t seem to enjoy an opulent lifestyle. But at the same time, none of the men in Deadwood appear too malnourished. Some are downright fat. So I have concluded that the whores suffer from a form of anorexia, which happens to be contagious, as every one of them seems the same; I just can’t figure out why all the whores in this mining town would have come down with such a modern eating disorder.

The other feature of Deadwood that quickly stands out is the vocabulary of the residents. Almost everyone in Deadwood feels obliged to use the word, Cocksucker, at least once every 45 seconds. Hardly a sentence goes by without someone uttering that word. Now I am old enough to remember when Cocksucker was one of George Carlin’s seven dirty words. It was a word that could not be spoken on any broadcast medium. Carlin did a lengthy and hilarious stand-up routine about these words, eventually recording it on what we then called a long playing album. But in the first five minutes of Deadwood, various characters said Cocksucker more than George Carlin did in the entire routine, a part of which, after all, was specifically dedicated to that very word. In fact, one episode of Deadwood contains more Cocksuckers than any concert by Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, or any other famous dirty-word comedian. It’s also interesting that just about everyone in the show uses the word with great enthusiasm and frequency, including Calamity Jane, who can drink and swear with any of the men, but seems on occasion to burst into tears for no apparent reason. The only people who don’t say Cocksucker are the whores, which is a bit odd, as they logically would be the characters one would most expect to speak that way.

Now I am not a person without an occasional fondness for vulgarity. There are times when, out of anger, or perhaps for emphasis, I have used one or more of George Carlin’s seven dirty words. What I did not know, however, was that by doing so, I was engaging in a form of artistic expression. I figured I was just swearing. But apparently Deadwood has received much critical acclaim, and is recognized as a contemporary artistic success, in part because of its frequent use of that word, Cocksucker. Who would have known?

SOS

Never mind. My hopes for a return to the glorious past (April?) were merely wishful thinking. We've been swept by the Kansas City Royals. I thought it couldn’t get much worse than dropping two out of three to the Devil Rays, but I guess I was wrong. Good thing we aren’t stopping in Williamsport for the little league world series. It would be really embarrassing to drop a couple to the Taiwanese. And by my count, in fifteen of the last seventeen games, we have allowed five or more runs. Tonight Schilling gave up nine doubles, and a home run. In a sense, it’s amazing KC only scored five.

So we need some help, mostly in the pitching department. How about some consistent work from the starters? And more out of the bullpen than just Timlin, who still isn’t back to his early-season form, and Papelbon, who really seems to need Tek behind the plate. And as long as we’re asking, what about some hits from someone other than Papi, Manny, and of late, Wily Mo? If we can’t run this thing around, I really need something else to do the rest of this summer.

Back to the Future, I Hope

The dominant theme of RedSox baseball lately has been the walk-off hit. We salvaged a split with the Indians this week only because Papi and Loretta came up big with men on base in our final at-bat. What happened to those games back in April when we were winning 2-1, and Papelbon began his remarkable string on ninth inning heroics?

Tonight, for only the second time in the last thirteen games did the Sox hold their opponent to fewer than five runs. Looking like his old self, Schill went seven solid innings, as he was doing consistently earlier in the season; Delcarmen pitched a solid eighth; and for the thirtieth time this year, Papelbon earned the save. Another one-two-three lights out performance. Tonight was two strikeouts, and then a fly ball to Coco in right center. His ERA dipped to under .5, which means that in over 54 innings pitched this year, he has surrendered only three runs. Now if our starters could once again get through the first six or seven, without giving up a bundle of runs, we’d have a chance to be competitive. Of course, if we continue to give up five or more runs every game, and to rely on late inning fireworks, whether supplied by Papi or others, we’re not going to make it into the post-season. The numbers are scary: Timlin’s ERA, which had been so low for so long, is now above 3; Beckett has climbed up above 5! and even Schill is pushing 4.

On a cheerier note, Manny reached 1500 RBIs this past week, all that production in under 6500 at bats, over not quite 14 seasons. Manny gets a lot of notice for being our goofball-in-residence: Manny being Manny. Everyone knows he can knock in runs, but the past couple years, his hitting has been overshadowed by Papi, and all those walk-offs. But the fact is that Manny is one of the greatest RBI machines in the history of the game. By my reckoning, only five players have a better career at bat-to-RBI ratio: Jimmy Foxx, Ted Williams, Hank Greenberg, Lou Gehrig, and Babe Ruth. Not bad company. And only one player retired with more RBIs in fewer than Manny’s 14 seasons, that being Joe D.

With Manny slugging again, and Papi off the Richter scale, all we need is some decent outings from the starters. Of course, it wouldn’t hurt to have Tek, and Lowell, and Trot back in the line-up. But you know what? I’d settle for seven decent innings, on a regular basis, and then we can just wait for everyone to heal up. We’d be all right.