> >That's the point. Its incomprehensible.
>
>Friends of mine say the same thing about baseball. They can't
>understand why I watch it, much less read about it. I used to let it
>bother me, but not anymore. Baseball and Butler have a lot in
>common. For people who try and get them, they reward patience and
>perseverence.
Baseball isn't anywhere near as painful and tedious as Butler though, so there's really no comparison. It also looks relatively simple to understand, gets straight to the point and doesn't put on too many airs and graces. I don't personally know all the rules and so forth, but I readily get the gist of it. Player goes out, smacks the ball with a club and runs around a track to score. End of story.
A better sporting comparison with reading Butler would be watching a cricket match. Which many people say is about as interesting and pointless as watching grass grow. Player goes out, smacks a ball back and forward, runs back and forward endlessly for hours, occasionally running back and forward to score (but not necessarily having to actually run to score. This goes on for days, sometimes without all of the players even getting a bat. Preposterous, a bit like a fox-hunt without any fox, another game invented by the poms. Like Butler, a cricket match goes on and on and on, for days, often without any result at the end. And professional cricket players are also usually pompous wankers.
But some people seem to like it. Each to their own I suppose. If you like Butler, you'd love cricket. I don't mind admitting I have no patience for it myself.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas