YANKEES in the AFTERNOON Lyn Sherwood   Foreward by Barnaby Conrad McFarland & Company ISBN: 0-7864-0931-2

Reviewed by Stanley Conrad
Webmeister, Mundo Taurino

Lyn Sherwood has been a presence in the mundo taurino for decades -- as an aficionado, a practico, a writer/editor, a photographer, an outspoken, curmudgeonly apologist for the formal corrida de toros. His latest published work is a series of brief biographical sketches of those Americans (i.e. citizens of the USA) who have tried, as amateurs or professionals, to leave some mark in the bullrings of the mundo taurino.

Some of the names in the book should be already familiar to the well-read, both inside and outside the mundo taurino (e.g. Conchita Cintron and John Fulton). Others will be familiar only within the mundo taurino (e.g. Sydney Franklin, Robert Ryan, and David Renk). And many -- particularly those in the sections dealing with amateur toreros (aficionados practicos) -- will be currently known to none but their friends and family.The idea of pulling together all their stories was a delightful one -- giving to most a spotlight they might otherwise never have, and justly elevating even the slightest achievement by placing all in the context of a shared effort to pursue a dangerous art in the face of daunting cross-cultural obstacles.

Disappointingly, however, this book falls rather short of the idea's promise. The scope of coverage is as complete as one might hope (a veritable Who's Who and Who Was Who in America Taurina -- (in the order presented) Harper Lee, Sidney Franklin, John Fulton, Robert Ryan, Diego O'Bolger, Richard Corey, David Renk, Dennis Borba, Tracy Viser, Conchita Cintrón, Patty McCormick, Betty Ford, Raquel Martinez, Ana de Los Angeles, Porter Tuck, Rocky Moody, Walter de la Brosse, David Moss, Jeff Ramsey, and dozens (literally) of others), but the work overall suffers from some serious structural problems.

Following a brief introductory section that gives some general background on the history of bullfighting, and the many places bullfighting imagery could be encountered in 20th Century America, we're introduced to ten Americans whose careers were sufficiently successful they were "graduated" from apprentice to full Matador de Toros in an alternativa ceremony. The ten are presented serially, following the common taurine seniority system of earliest-alternativa first, most-recent alternativa last. All aspirants who received no alternativa, whose careers are thereby arguably of lesser importance to the overall story of Americans in the mundo taurino, are relegated to separate chapters.

There is one exception to this overall scheme, however -- all noteworthy female bullfighters are relegated to a separate women's chapter, even the one bullfighter whose successes were sufficient to receive an alternativa, Raquel Martínez. Internally, the "women's" section is not organized by professional seniority as is the men's. The organizing principle behind the "women's" section is unclear, but it is certainly not professional seniority, as Raquel Martinez (the only woman to be graduated to full Matador de Toros) is presented fourth in a series of five.

This inconsistency in the macro-organization of the book is compounded by a curious division of space. One might expect that the pages devoted to any individual would show some positive correlation to the person's success or career longevity. Instead we see the following:

It's difficult to see what might warrant such disparate treatment. David Renk is the only American bullfighter to have had his alternativa confirmed in Plaza México (giving him, arguably, some professional standing above those whose alternativa's were never formally confirmed, and warranting more in-depth treatment), but John Fulton's alternativa was confirmed in Las Ventas. Why then does Fulton receive roughly a quarter the attention paid to Renk? Is Renk's "story" somehow more illuminative of the general themes and currents of the meta-story, Americans in bullfighting? There's nothing in the content of their respective chapters that would suggest that's the case.

Provided with no textual justification, one has to consider whether personal author biases have unwittingly made their way into the manuscript. Sherwood is a close personal friend of the Renk family. One would hope that this relationship did not undermine his his journalistic strivings, but the text itself doesn't let us rule that out.

It may simply have been easier to produce the Renk chapter than the others -- no surprise that the easier the research job, the longer the treatment yield. Barely two years ago, Sherwood collaborated with Fred Renk (Fred is David's Father) to produce a privately published biography of David, Two Hearts, One Sword (Fred Renk the named author, Sherwood the editor). Large portions of Yankees' chapter on David Renk were lifted intact from the earlier collaborative work. And they were re-used without any attribution to the earlier work. In some cases that lack of attribution might be argued away (one example: Sherwood's "Introduction" to the earlier work is reproduced, almost verbatim, as the first thirteen paragraphs of Yankees' Renk chapter -- but it's material originally attributed to Sherwood being reused by Sherwood), but in others it is highly questionable (one example: a large portion of the earlier work's Chapter 25 "The Confirmation," attributed there to Fred Renk, is reproduced here, near-verbatim, on pages 142 to 149, without any attribution to Renk).

The attribution questions are intensified when one notices that the earlier collaborative work is not included in Yankees' bibliography -- nor does it appear to be anywhere mentioned in the entire chapter about David Renk. Tempting as it may be, one should be careful, however, to avoid the simplistic conclusion that some of Yankees in the Afternoon was plagiarized. Much of the basic research for many of these chapters appears to have been done in previously published (now out-of-print) biographies and autobiographies. There are a lot of them. Avoiding over-dependence on the work of others, in a context like that, requires a near compulsive self-discipline this book doesn't evidence. Facts have to be checked and re-checked. Everything should be vetted before being used.

The text here, however, suggests that a careful, self-imposed filter wasn't there:

• The film Beauty and the Bull (here discussed because an American bullfighter/actress, Bette Ford, appeared in it) was not as stated on p. 196 "nominated for an Oscar as Best Documentary." It was nominated in 1954 as "Best 2-reel Short Film." A small error, yes, but one suggesting no one was vetting the material.
• The book Memoirs of a Bullfighter is repeatedly cited as published in 1958, when its actual publication date was 1968. A 1958 publication date would have had it in the bookstores four years before the Spanish-language work, Recuerdos, of which it is an English translation. Again, a small (though repeated) error, but where is the evidence of any careful vetting?
• Twice the facially preposterous statement is made that Budd Boetticher's film, The Bullfighter and the Lady, "holds the record for being the most frequently shown feature film on television." Several quick inquiries (to the Louis B. Mayer Library at the American Film Institute; to the curator involved in a tribute to Boetticher at the Museum of the Moving Image in NYC; to the Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center) made it clear to me such a statistic has nowhere, by anyone, been compiled (and may not be compilable). Again, a small "error" but one suggesting the author's filter may have been "if I fits my agenda, don't check it, use it."

And Sherwood does appear to have had an agenda with this book -- not simply to collate the stories of American bullfighters and weave them into parallel strands, but to shout the claim any limitations in their achievements were the product of hostile external forces (Mexican/Spanish cultural xenophobia, empresarial or journalistic corruption, etc.). That theme permeates the entire book and, though grounded in fact at some level, may be no more true than most "stereotypes" are (being also, in some fashion, fact based). The incessant externalization of the responsibility for the absence of more taurine stars with American passports is annoyingly pervasive in this book, and detracts from any thoughtful analysis that might have been included of the very real cross-cultural obstacles American bullfighters face.

Cross-cultural obstacles to stardom hinder "outsiders" in many sport and art contexts. Chadwick Rowan knows that, and had to face/fight it to become the Yokozuna, Akebono. Fiamalu Penitani had to face/fight it to become the Yokozuna, Musashimaru. And every aspiring American bullfighter will have to face/fight it to move into the rarefied ranks at the top of the mundo taurino.

But access has not been denied us. Sherwood states on page 211 of Yankees in the Afternoon, "Only one of 100 aspirants ever made it to their alternativas" (emphasis added). If that statement can be trusted more than some other factual assertions here, Americans are doing well indeed. Sherwood has told us of ten American aspirants who made it to their alternativas. Unless there have been 1,000 American aspirants since Harper Lee's first foray onto the sand (in 1903?), we're well ahead of the curve. We should be proud, not bitter.