17 September 2016

W.P. Kinsella- An Appreciation

I did not read all of the works of William Patrick (W.P.) Kinsella, the Canadian author who took his own life by assisted suicide at the age of 81 on September 16.  In fact, except for the occasional re-reading of one of several short stories, I hadn’t read anything from him since 1996’s If Wishes Were Horses.  Following the release of that novel, Kinsella was injured by a van while walking, and for the rest of his life found the concentration, and the desire, necessary for his writing hard to come by.  After 1997, he would not release another novel—though he continued to publish short stories—until 2011.

Like most of Kinsella’s American audience, I came to his works through the 1989 movie Field of Dreams, based on Kinsella’s novel Shoeless Joe, itself an extension of his earlier short story “Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa.”  I remember seeing the movie when I was 18 and being struck by the power of the storytelling.  References to old ballplayers were fine trivia points, even when the screenplay got details wrong, and added meat to the story. 

This led to the book…and then to others he had written.  Then I was primarily reading his baseball stories.  Baseball is a sort of American mythology.  James Earl Jones’ character is right when he tells Ray Kinsella that America has grown up with it; it was born, or at least came into its own, in our rebirth after the Civil War. 

Kinsella, a Canadian, didn’t have much to say about America, except indirectly, but he was the bard of baseball’s mythology.  Having earned his MFA at the University of Iowa, he had at least a passing acquaintance with the American “heartland,” and a feel for the rhythms of small town life that served him well in his writing.  For Kinsella the baseball diamond was the world rendered in miniature, encompassing its possibilities.  The two were tethered, indeed in several of Kinsella’s stories characters are seen to observe that, in theory, baseball diamonds extend to infinity, so all the world is contained in them.

Because of this anything that could happen, that might even be remotely possible, did happen.  A left field created out of an Iowa cornfield could summon the shade of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson.  Armageddon could logically hinge on one pitch, in which the Chicago Cubs either win or lose the National League pennant.  The New York Giants of the 1950s could be a collection of top-notch ballplayers and autodidacts, speaking an average of three languages each, allowing a fourteen-year-old stand-in for the author with an unerring eye to pinch hit. A cabal of devoted baseball fans, waiting for the end of the 1981 strike could, one square foot at a time, replace the artificial in Kansas City’s stadium. 

He wrote of games that went on for thousands of innings, in which gods and various otherwise inanimate objects joined; of twins who played catch in the womb, one destined to be a pitcher and the other a catcher; of baseball dreamers and schemers.  Sometimes baseball was the focus, sometimes it was the backdrop.  In his stories it provided order, and occasional tragedy, to the lives of characters, to the cosmos itself.    

In another cycle of stories he wrote about the lives of Cree Indians on a reservation in Alberta.  These spoke to me less, but they were warm and humorous even in tragedy.  And in them, baseball was never far off.  I know he was criticized for appropriation—something Kinsella derided as a creation of East Coast academics—of First Nations’ voices, but I can’t help enjoying them for their humanity, and the respect with which he treated their lives.

Kinsella, at the end, had suffered a long time from diabetes.  Most of his last years were apparently spent playing on-line Scrabble, having apparently been an avid tournament player.  Due to complications he sought, and received, medical assistance in ending his life.  This year has been one noted for its deaths of public figures.  I’m not surprised by it, and expect next year to be busier; a generation of stars, many hard-living, who were idols to children of the 1960s and 1970s is getting long in the tooth, and the actuarial projections must be grim. 


W.P. Kinsella wasn’t one of those, but his is another loss in a year of them.  Stories about baseball aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, and I can imagine many people walking away from one of his works wondering what the fuss is about.  But his style is hard to deny.  He wrote touching and often funny stories about mostly real people, usually facing weird situations on or near a baseball diamond (of course, everything that happens happens on a baseball diamond, if you remember).  He increased my appreciation for baseball.  I think of something from one of his stories almost every time I come near the game, and it usually makes me smile.  A tremendous gift, that, and one that leaves the world a little poorer for its loss.

14 September 2016

On immigrants, undocumented and otherwise

Immigration, it seems fair to say, has been at the top of our national political agenda for the last several years.  And with the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the republican nomination, it seems to be on everyone’s mind.  There’s no need to re-cap his position, whichever iteration of it he’s on.  I’ve written before about bits of it, especially concerning Muslims, as his proposals have intersected with my own interests.

Since it’s so much talked about, everyone, it seems, has an opinion, especially on what to do about undocumented immigrants.  These are, as everyone knows, people who have entered the country illegally or who have entered the country legally but overstayed their visas.  When I was a child we called them “illegal aliens,” which I think we can agree is less friendly and not just because it spawned a dopey Genesis song.

In some quarters, undocumented immigrants are called “illegal immigrants” or even the worst of all, simply “illegals.”  That term offends because it completely de-personalizes and dehumanizes, which I suppose is the point.  I guess if we don’t have to think of them has humans then we don’t have to treat them as humans.  Almost equally offensive is the term “anchor baby,” applied to children of “illegals” born in the United States and thus automatically citizens.  For now

None of this is new.  What is new is a suggestion that I recently saw which has made me re-think the whole issue of “undocumented immigrants” altogether.  In a discussion thread, one of the participants made the following argument:
  1. Immigration is a legal process
  2. So-called “undocumented immigrants” are here illegally and not in that process.\
  3. Therefore, so-called “undocumented immigrants” aren’t immigrants at all.
QED, amirite?

At first sniff, this argument stunk, never mind that no alternative nomenclature was on offer. Always wanting to learn new things, I consulted some dictionaries on immigrant and immigration, looking at primary definitions. 
  • Immigration: the act of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.
  • Immigrant: a person who comes to live permanently in another country

Then, since the definition of immigration refers to immigrating.
  • Immigrate: come to live permanently in a foreign country

Yes, the word immigration does contain a reference to authorization, but the semicolon suggests a separation.  Yet neither immigrant nor immigrate makes any such distinction.  The definition for immigrant, for instance, does not read “a person who legally settles as a permanent resident in a foreign country.”  No, after second and third sniffs this argument continued to stink.

Besides the lexical problems, others arose, these more personal.  My mother’s side of the family came to America in the early- to mid-seventeenth century; my father’s in the 1790s.  Ignoring my maternal ancestors who, whatever they were doing, were moving from England to, well, England, we need to consider the paternal line, moving from England to the United States of America.  In the 1790s there were no immigration controls.  Therefore, there was no legal process.  By the argument above, then, no immigration means those Bazemores were not immigrants.  Then what the hell were they?  Settlers?  No, the place they came to, northeastern North Carolina, was already settled.  Clearly there was immigration; there were tons of people migrating in (see what I did there?) to the United States.

They were, not to put too fine a point on it, immigrants.  Etymology is our friend in this.  All of the words under discussion emerged from the Latin verb immigrare, literally “to move into.”  The denotation of the words is pretty clear.  Of course, anyone who studies language knows that usages change faster than dictionary definition, but usage is our friend, too.  By its existence, the term “undocumented immigrant” tells us that, yes, anyone who comes to the country and intends to stay is an immigrant.  The only reason there is any delineation is because we now attempt to control immigration through law.

In fact, what separates an immigrant from any other visitor to the country is that the immigrant is not a visitor at all.  He or she has come to live permanently in this country.  At that point the immigrant, undocumented or not, ceases to be an immigrant—the process of immigration is over.  That person is a resident.


Which is the whole point of the last 700 or so words.  The human beings referred to in this argument are residents of the United States of America.  And if we’re going to be honest in our writing and speaking perhaps we should recognize that fact (though to do so is certainly politically inconvenient).  Why don’t we try “undocumented residents?”  Maybe that will put a different gloss on the matter.