Culture
Andy Roddick, the U.S. Open’s last American male champion, sees himself a tennis schlub
The basic arc of Andy Roddick’s life goes something like this:
One day you’re a chirpy, hot-shot teenager with a thunderclap serve, who wears a baseball cap on a tennis court before that becomes a thing, and then one day you’re not good enough anymore, because inevitably nobody is. In between, you go to the top of a sport that doesn’t love chirpy teenagers in baseball caps all that much.
Then one day you wake up and you’re a soon-to-be middle aged guy at the end of his career, wondering what the rest of your life is supposed to look like. There has to be something else besides 27 holes a day to occupy the brain.
Coach? Commentator? The guy who gets paid to show up and shake hands with some company’s sales force, to tell stories about what it was like to face Roger Federer and all your worst fears, in the forbearance of overtime in the fifth set of a Wimbledon final, shadows slanting across the grass?
Roddick didn’t have an answer. So what did he do? What came after everything the itinerant life of pro tennis had taught him, after 15 years of lonely hotel rooms, of too-long layovers in places he might never have chosen to be? “Wasn’t really motivated to work much,” he said.
He disappeared for a while, from the experience that made him vow to never “punt control of my geography to someone else again.”
Then he decided to wing it, thoughtfully.
“I’ve always been curious,” he said.
Andy Roddick and Roger Federer’s 2009 Wimbledon final required 30 games in its deciding set. (David Ashdown / Getty Images)
Roddick is talking from his garage in North Carolina. It doubles as the set for “Served with Andy Roddick,” the weekly (and sometimes more frequent) podcast that the Tennis Channel shows on its T2 network. It’s also where he sometimes beams in from for post-match analysis. There are plenty of moments when he still sounds like that chirpy teenager in the baseball cap, like when he recounts a guy questioning one of his calls during a recent set at a local club.
“Really pal? I played three Wimbledon finals, won the U.S. Open and spent three months as the world No. 1, and you think I’m hooking you on Court 11 in the Carolina ‘burbs?”
Listen a little more closely, and something else becomes pretty clear. Somewhere along the way during the dozen years since he called it quits, Andy Roddick morphed into a fully fledged grown-up, whether he likes it or not.
How did that happen? How did that chirpy teenager suddenly get to this middle-age existence, wife and kids and in-law dinners, wearing the status of millennial tennis wise man?
Where does life, his and ours, go?
When Roddick became a spunky 21-year-old, he went to the cathedral of American tennis in 2003 and came out with the trophy in his hands and the cap on his head. 21 years on, Roddick, 42, is a dozen years into retirement yet younger than Roger Federer.
No American man has cradled that U.S. Open trophy since, with No. 12, No. 14, and No. 20 seeds, Taylor Fritz, Tommy Paul, and Frances Tiafoe all vying to match Roddick’s achievement in 2024.
Roddick was still in his 20s when he married Sports Illustrated model Brooklyn Decker. Roddick and Decker, who is now a successful actor, have two children: Hank, their 8-year-old son, and Stevie, their 6-year-old daughter. Given what they could be doing, they live what is, by all accounts, a pretty normal life close to her parents. They gather for dinners on many Sunday evenings.
He has also amassed a small fortune built around what he described as “the most boring business you’ll ever hear about.” It’s a commercial real estate company that owns more than 100 properties. He and a partner began to scoop them up on the cheap after the financial meltdown in 2008. Their tenants are companies like Starbucks, Lowe’s, and Home Depot.
One thing he doesn’t do is coach. One thing he does do is stay in regular contact with roughly a dozen tour players who come to him for advice. Sometimes, it’s just texts or a phone call. Sometimes, they appear in North Carolina for a day or two of serving help from one of the masters of the most important shot in tennis. Coco Gauff and Jessica Pegula are in this group.
“I’ve never been paid for coaching and I never will be paid for coaching,” he said.
Roddick is a tennis nerd who likes talking through shots and strategy and the psychological challenges of the game. Don’t even think about asking him to consider heading out on the road to focus on one player.
During the final years of his career, there were some hints that life might go this way for Roddick. Pretty much everyone missed them.
Maybe it was the ball cap. Maybe it was that chin-first approach to the game, or the increasingly visible frustration of having the three best players of the modern era come along and hijack his career. The raw pain of those three final Sunday losses in five years to Federer at Wimbledon, plus another in a U.S. Open final, may have dulled. But it’s always there, a thematic reference point that can become jovial material for a podcast episode, a callback for the audience to go: “Hey, I know that bit!”
He won the U.S. Open in 2003, the last American man to do so. (Nick Laham / Getty Images)
To be a master of delusion and magical thinking is practically a requirement for world-class athletes. They have to convince themselves that they can win any match or game against anyone in the world on any day. Roddick could do that — and then he couldn’t.
A drubbing from Novak Djokovic was what broke him. Djokovic deigned to spend just 54 minutes on beating him 6-2, 6-1 at the All England Club during the 2012 Olympics, on Roddick’s best surface. These guys at the top of the game had a level he no longer possessed, if he ever even did.
Cursed with self-awareness, he woke up in a New York hotel room a month later, in the middle of the U.S. Open. He was feeling a little strange. He called Decker, who was out for a walk, and asked her to come back to the hotel. He needed to talk to her about something.
When she got there, he told her he would be done playing when the tournament spat him out. It didn’t matter that he’d won two of his last four tournaments. Didn’t matter that he could have likely survived with a ranking somewhere between No. 5 and No. 40 for another four or five years. Other statesmen of his era either retired just recently or are still out there, toiling in the three-figure ranks. Roddick wasn’t going to do that.
A few days later, he lost in the fourth round to Juan Martin Del Potro. The tournament honored him with a ceremony at its conclusion. And that was that.
“I know who I am, and I know who I’m not,” he said.
It’s a quality that has come in handy for Roddick, and in a meandering way, it helped bring him back to New York for this year’s U.S. Open, to accept an award for his work with hundreds of less-advantaged children in his hometown of Austin.
They participate in after-school and summer enrichment programs created by his foundation. The programs involve a bit of sport, but are more focused on making up the learning gap with wealthier children, who have access to all manner of extracurricular activities and summer camps when they are not in school.
Roddick started the foundation when he was still a teenager and without much thought. Raise some money. Give some tennis clinics to kids who probably would not be exposed to the sport otherwise. Pat yourself on the back.
For a decade, the foundation was what he described as a “typical athlete nonprofit.” Use your celebrity to raise a bunch of money and get your friends involved, and turn the money over to organizations that you like.
“Elton John would come play,” he said. “That’s not a hard thing to sell.”
Then during one of his final U.S. Opens, he was having dinner with one of his oldest friends, Jeff Lau. Lau is a buddy from their earliest years in junior tennis in Austin, when Roddick was 8 and Lau was 10. Roddick’s tennis got him to No. 1 in the world. Lau’s tennis helped him gain entry into West Point. After graduating, he served overseas, including in Iraq.
Andy Roddick serves to Juan Martin del Potro in his last U.S. Open. (Chris Trotman / Getty Images for USTA)
Lau eventually left the military and began working as an investment banker in New York. He and Roddick would have dinner whenever he came through the city, especially during the U.S. Open.
At one of those dinners, Lau started quizzing Roddick about the foundation, its mission, its structure, and its plan for survival. He wasn’t impressed.
“You’re on your way to irrelevance,” Lau told him. “How long do you think Elton John is going to come play for you?”
At the time, Roddick figured he had about three more years on the tour. He actually had about one. He left the dinner seriously irritated at Lau — because he knew Lau was right.
Roddick’s next thought was to start a charter school, like his hero, Andre Agassi, had done in Las Vegas. Then the smart people in and out of the government of Austin, as well as lots of parents, told him that the city didn’t need another charter school.
During their research, they stumbled on a piece of information that floored them. Texas sometimes used its fifth-grade literacy rates to project how many new prison beds it would need in the future. Could they lift those rates up?
“The biggest gap was actually out of school time,” Lau said.
That meant after school, when kids whose parents are working a second or third job are home alone, while more advantaged children are receiving private lessons or other extracurricular enrichment. Then come summers, when it’s all too easy for kids to give back the progress they have made in the previous 10 months.
When Roddick and Lau launched their programs, they wanted proof that they were making a difference. After five years, they saw what they hoped they would see.
More than 200 Austin kids took part in this summer’s Learn All the Time program. According to Roddick’s foundation they miss fewer days of school, have fewer disciplinary problems and perform better on state tests than their peers.
The seriousness that brought about that initiative carries through on “Served.” The energy is all jocular, sitting around naming tennis players, reviewing results, and making predictions sure to be wrong, but as with Roddick the player, there’s brain inside the baseball cap. These are the two sides to Roddick, who is serious about his work but not too serious about himself.
The Roddick that Roddick presents during the show might easily be confused with some random, pretty decent middle-aged club player, who maybe rose to No. 700 in the world and took home a couple of Challenger titles. Rather than a guy who was world No. 1, and won a few Challenger Tour events and a U.S. Open.
There’s almost always some moment in every episode where he puts the Big Three in one category and then lumps himself with everyone else, and that includes you, with a reference to his own game that is something along the likes of, “schlubs like us.”
Andy Roddick’s on-court demeanour belied the seriousness of his thoughts about tennis. (Ian Walton / Getty Images)
He’s also not afraid to be on the receiving end of just about anything. Lindsay Davenport, a longtime friend who is a former world No. 1 and the current Billie Jean King Cup coach for the U.S., called him out for mocking U.S. Open quarterfinalist Emma Navarro. Navarro had had to perform something, ahead of her inaugural appearance on the national team. She chose to rap.
It wasn’t a great performance. Then again, Navarro is a tennis player, not a hip-hop artist, and Davenport didn’t like the way Roddick had been, in her view, demeaning to a good-hearted young woman who was playing along with a joke. It wasn’t so much his words but his tone.
“You didn’t have to be such a…” she said. You can finish the sentence. The word rhymes with “stick.”
Lulled by all the irreverence, the pretty important tennis nuggets can rattle past at Roddick’s excited clip, especially when it comes to serving, his greatest skill.
He was one of the first to notice that Alexander Zverev had lowered his toss by about a foot, letting him crack the ball as never before. The adjustment has taken him to No. 2 in the world.
Gauff’s second-serve issues? She probably wants to move her toss back a bit, he explained in pretty simple terms. She’s trying to go too far forward into the court, and the further forward you go, the harder it is to control the serve.
Gauff followed his advice. After her struggles at this year’s U.S. Open with her serve, she may well seek more of it.
GO DEEPER
‘They slow things down in their minds’: How tennis players return 130mph serves
Carlos Alcaraz’s serve, having been good but kind of unthreatening compared to just about everything else he does, became borderline deadly at Wimbledon. Novak Djokovic couldn’t believe what was skidding and jumping off the grass in the final. Roddick saw why. Instead of raising his arms in a classic straight V-shape, Alcaraz was rotating his back shoulder more and coming around the ball. It was hitting the court and taking off in a more dramatic way. It probably felt a lot heavier when it hit Djokovic’s strings.
Drop any of those nuggets at your next tennis barbecue. Your buddies will be impressed.
He also took time to reveal his recent brush with skin cancer (he’s OK, but wear sunscreen, please) and he was one of the more sober voices after news broke that Jannik Sinner had tested positive for a banned anabolic steroid. No, he said, it wasn’t likely a signal that sustained doping, outside of those two failed tests, was a part of Sinner’s success. He explained the randomness of testing, the knocks on the door. He even explained it to Nick Kyrgios, who has his own “Good Trouble” media vehicle and no fear of having an opinion.
Lots of people in tennis have these thoughts. Players, fans, social media creators, tennis journalists. Roddick’s versions of these thoughts cut through, and it isn’t all to do with the cachet of being a former world No. 1, or taking Federer to an edge over which he would not be pushed.
“It’s one thing to be able to see the game and have clever thoughts,” said Bob Wiley, a top programmer at The Tennis Channel. “It’s another to be able to express yourself succinctly so people can understand it.”
Where all of this leads, not even Roddick knows, as if any of us ever do. At the moment, though, it’s a pretty beautifully boring grown-up existence.
“I just really like being home,” he said.
(Top photos: Cynthia Lum, WireImage; Tim Clayton, Corbis / Getty Images; Design: Eamonn Dalton for The Athletic)
Culture
What America’s Main Characters Tell Us
Literature
Oedipa Maas from ‘The Crying of Lot 49’ (1966) by Thomas Pynchon
“The unforgettable, cartoonish protagonist of this unusually short novel is a California housewife accidentally turned private investigator and literary interpreter, and the mystery she’s attempting to solve — or, more specifically, the conspiracy she stumbles upon — is nothing less than capitalism itself,” says Ngai, 54. “As Oedipa traces connections between various crackpots, the novel highlights the peculiarly asocial sociality of postwar U.S. society, which gets figured as a network of alienations.”
Sula Peace from ‘Sula’ (1973) by Toni Morrison
“Sula arguably begins to disappear as soon as she’s introduced — despite the fact that the novel bears her name. Other characters die quickly, or are noticeably flat. This raises the politically charged question of who gets to ‘develop’ or be a protagonist in American novels and who doesn’t. The novel’s unusual character system is part of its meditation on anti-Black racism and historical violence.”
The speaker of ‘Lunch Poems’ (1964) by Frank O’Hara
“Lyric poems are fundamentally different from narrative fiction in part because they have speakers as opposed to narrators. Perhaps it’s a stretch to nominate the speaker of ‘Lunch Poems’ as a main character, but this book changed things by highlighting the centrality of queer counterpublics to U.S. culture as a whole, and by exploring the joys and risks of everyday intimacy with strangers therein.”
This interview has been edited and condensed.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
Culture
Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden
Let’s memorize a poem! Not because it’s good for us or because we think we should, but because it’s fun, a mental challenge with a solid aesthetic reward. You can amuse yourself, impress your friends and maybe discover that your way of thinking about the world — or even, as you’ll see, the universe — has shifted a bit.
Over the next five days, we’ll look closely at a great poem by one of our favorite poets, and we’ll have games, readings and lots of encouragement to help you learn it by heart. Some of you know how this works: Last year more Times readers than we could count memorized a jaunty 18-line recap of an all-night ferry ride. (If you missed that adventure, it’s not too late to embark. The ticket is still valid.)
This time, we’re training our telescopes on W.H. Auden’s “The More Loving One” — a clever, compact meditation on love, disappointment and the night sky.
Here’s the first of its four stanzas, read for us by Matthew McConaughey:
The More Loving One
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
But on earth indifference is the least
We have to dread from man or beast.
Matthew McConaughey, actor and poet
In four short lines we get a brisk, cynical tour of the universe: hell and the heavens, people and animals, coldness and cruelty. Commonplace observations — that the stars are distant; that life can be dangerous — are wound into a charming, provocative insight. The tone is conversational, mixing decorum and mild profanity in a manner that makes it a pleasure to keep reading.
Here’s Tracy K. Smith, a former U.S. poet laureate, with the second stanza:
How should we like it were stars to burn
With a passion for us we could not return?
If equal affection cannot be,
Let the more loving one be me.
Tracy K. Smith, poet
These lines abruptly shift the focus from astronomy to love, from the universal to the personal. Imagine how it would feel if the stars had massive, unrequited crushes on us! The speaker, couching his skepticism in a coy, hypothetical question, seems certain that we wouldn’t like this at all.
This certainty leads him to a remarkable confession, a moment of startling vulnerability. The poem’s title, “The More Loving One,” is restated with sweet, disarming frankness. Our friend is wearing his heart on his well-tailored sleeve.
The poem could end right there: two stanzas, point and counterpoint, about how we appreciate the stars in spite of their indifference because we would rather love than be loved.
But the third stanza takes it all back. Here’s Alison Bechdel reading it:
Admirer as I think I am
Of stars that do not give a damn,
I cannot, now I see them, say
I missed one terribly all day.
Alison Bechdel, graphic novelist
The speaker downgrades his foolish devotion to qualified admiration. No sooner has he established himself as “the more loving one” than he gives us — and perhaps himself — reason to doubt his ardor. He likes the stars fine, he guesses, but not so much as to think about them when they aren’t around.
The fourth and final stanza, read by Yiyun Li, takes this disenchantment even further:
Were all stars to disappear or die,
I should learn to look at an empty sky
And feel its total dark sublime,
Though this might take me a little time.
Yiyun Li, author
Wounded defiance gives way to a more rueful, resigned state of mind. If the universe were to snuff out its lights entirely, the speaker reckons he would find beauty in the void. A starless sky would make him just as happy.
Though perhaps, like so many spurned lovers before and after, he protests a little too much. Every fan of popular music knows that a song about how you don’t care that your baby left you is usually saying the opposite.
The last line puts a brave face on heartbreak.
So there you have it. In just 16 lines, this poem manages to be somber and funny, transparent and elusive. But there’s more to it than that. There is, for one thing, a voice — a thinking, feeling person behind those lines.
When he wrote “The More Loving One,” in the 1950s, Wystan Hugh Auden was among the most beloved writers in the English-speaking world. Before this week is over there will be more to say about Auden, but like most poets he would have preferred that we give our primary attention to the poem.
Its structure is straightforward and ingenious. Each of the four stanzas is virtually a poem unto itself — a complete thought expressed in one or two sentences tied up in a neat pair of couplets. Every quatrain is a concise, witty observation: what literary scholars call an epigram.
This makes the work of memorization seem less daunting. We can take “The More Loving One” one epigram at a time, marvelling at how the four add up to something stranger, deeper and more complex than might first appear.
So let’s go back to the beginning and try to memorize that insouciant, knowing first stanza. Below you’ll find a game we made to get you started. Give it a shot, and come back tomorrow for more!
Play a game to learn it by heart. Need more practice? Listen to Ada Limón, Matthew McConaughey, W.H. Auden and others recite our poem.
Question 1/6
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.
Your first task: Learn the first four lines!
Let’s start with the first couplet. Fill in the rhyming words.
Monday
Love, the cosmos and everything in between, all in 16 lines.
Tuesday (Available tomorrow)
What’s love got to do with it?
Wednesday (Available April 22)
How to write about love? Be a little heartsick (and the best poet of your time).
Thursday (Available April 23)
Are we alone in the universe? Does it matter?
Friday (Available April 24)
You did it! You’re a star.
Ready for another round? Try your hand at the 2025 Poetry Challenge.
Edited by Gregory Cowles, Alicia DeSantis and Nick Donofrio. Additional editing by Emily Eakin,
Joumana Khatib, Emma Lumeij and Miguel Salazar. Design and development by Umi Syam. Additional
game design by Eden Weingart. Video editing by Meg Felling. Photo editing by Erica Ackerberg.
Illustration art direction by Tala Safie.
Illustrations by Daniel Barreto.
Text and audio recording of “The More Loving One,” by W.H. Auden, copyright © by the Estate of
W.H. Auden. Reprinted by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd. Photograph accompanying Auden recording
from Imagno/Getty Images.
Culture
Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books
Literature
‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot
Who knew that there’s a major George Eliot novel that neither I nor any of my friends had ever heard of?
“Romola” was Eliot’s fourth novel, published between “The Mill on the Floss” (1860) and “Middlemarch” (1870-71). If my friends and I didn’t get this particular memo, and “Romola” is familiar to every Eliot fan but us, please skip the following.
“Romola” isn’t some fluky misfire better left unmentioned in light of Eliot’s greater work. It’s her only historical novel, set in Florence during the Italian Renaissance. It embraces big subjects like power, religion, art and social upheaval, but it’s not dry or overly intellectual. Its central character is a gifted, freethinking young woman named Romola, who enters a marriage so disastrous as to make Anna Karenina’s look relatively good.
It probably matters that many of Eliot’s other books have been adapted into movies or TV series, with actors like Hugh Dancy, Ben Kingsley, Emily Watson and Rufus Sewell. The BBC may be doing even more than we thought to keep classic literature alive. (In 1924, “Romola” was made into a silent movie starring Lillian Gish. It doesn’t seem to have made much difference.)
Anthony Trollope, among others, loved “Romola.” He did, however, warn Eliot against aiming over her readers’ heads, which may help explain its obscurity.
All I can say, really, is that it’s a mystery why some great books stay with us and others don’t.
‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips
This was an Oprah Book of the Week, which probably disqualifies it from B-side status, but it’s not nearly as well known as Phillips’s debut story collection, “Black Tickets” (1979), or her most recent novel, “Night Watch” (2023), which won her a long-overdue Pulitzer Prize.
Phillips has no parallel in her use of potent, stylized language to shine a light into the darkest of corners. In “Quiet Dell,” her only true-crime novel, she’s at the height of her powers, which are particularly apparent when she aims her language laser at horrific events that actually occurred. Her gift for transforming skeevy little lives into what I can only call “Blade Runner” mythology is consistently stunning.
Consider this passage from the opening chapter of “Quiet Dell”:
“Up high the bells are ringing for everyone alive. There are silver and gold and glass bells you can see through, and sleigh bells a hundred years old. My grandmother said there was a whisper for each one dead that year, and a feather drifting for each one waiting to be born.”
The book is full of language like that — and of complex, often chillingly perverse characters. It’s a dark, underrecognized beauty.
‘Solaris’ (1961) by Stanislaw Lem
You could argue that, in America, at least, the Polish writer Stanislaw Lem didn’t produce any A-side novels. You could just as easily argue that that makes all his novels both A-side and B-side.
It’s science fiction. All right?
I love science and speculative fiction, but I know a lot of literary types who take pride in their utter lack of interest in it. I always urge those people to read “Solaris,” which might change their opinions about a vast number of popular books they dismiss as trivial. As far as I know, no one has yet taken me up on that.
“Solaris” involves the crew of a space station continuing the study of an aquatic planet that has long defied analysis by the astrophysicists of Earth. Part of what sets the book apart from a lot of other science-fiction novels is Lem’s respect for enigma. He doesn’t offer contrived explanations in an attempt to seduce readers into suspending disbelief. The crew members start to experience … manifestations? … drawn from their lives and memories. If the planet has any intentions, however, they remain mysterious. All anyone can tell is that their desires and their fears, some of which are summoned from their subconsciousness, are being received and reflected back to them so vividly that it becomes difficult to tell the real from the projected. “Solaris” has the peculiar distinction of having been made into not one but two bad movies. Read the book instead.
‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders
If one of the most significant living American writers had become hypervisible with his 2017 novel, “Lincoln in the Bardo,” we’d go back and read his earlier work, wouldn’t we? Yes, and we may very well have already done so with the story collections “Tenth of December” (2013) and “Pastoralia” (2000). But what if we hadn’t yet read Saunders’s 2013 novella, “Fox 8,” about an unusually intelligent fox who, by listening to a family from outside their windows at night, has learned to understand, and write, in fox-English?: “One day, walking neer one of your Yuman houses, smelling all the interest with snout, I herd, from inside, the most amazing sound. Turns out, what that sound is, was: the Yuman voice, making werds. They sounded grate! They sounded like prety music! I listened to those music werds until the sun went down.”
Once Saunders became more visible to more of us, we’d want to read a book that ventures into the consciousness of a different species (novels tend to be about human beings), that maps the differences and the overlaps in human and animal consciousness, explores the effects of language on consciousness and is great fun.
We’d all have read it by now — right?
‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf
You could argue that Woolf didn’t have any B-sides, and yet it’s hard to deny that more people have read “Mrs. Dalloway” (1925) and “To the Lighthouse” (1927) than have read “The Voyage Out” (1915) or “Monday or Tuesday” (1921). Those, along with “Orlando” (1928) and “The Waves” (1931), are Woolf’s most prominent novels.
Four momentous novels is a considerable number for any writer, even a great one. That said, “Between the Acts,” her last novel, really should be considered the fifth of her significant books. The phrase “embarrassment of riches” comes to mind.
Five great novels by the same author is a lot for any reader to take on. Our reading time is finite. We won’t live long enough to read all the important books, no matter how old we get to be. I don’t expect many readers to be as devoted to Woolf as are the cohort of us who consider her to have been some sort of dark saint of literature and will snatch up any relic we can find. Fanatics like me will have read “Between the Acts” as well as “The Voyage Out,” “Monday or Tuesday” and “Flush” (1933), the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Speaking for myself, I don’t blame anyone who hasn’t gotten to those.
I merely want to add “Between the Acts” to the A-side, lest anyone who’s either new to Woolf or a tourist in Woolf-landia fail to rank it along with the other four contenders.
As briefly as possible: It focuses on an annual village pageant that attempts to convey all of English history in a single evening. The pageant itself interweaves subtly, brilliantly, with the lives of the villagers playing the parts.
It’s one of Woolf’s most lusciously lyrical novels. And it’s a crash course, of sorts, in her genius for conjuring worlds in which the molehill matters as much as the mountain, never mind their differences in size.
It’s also the most accessible of her greatest books. It could work for some as an entry point, in more or less the way William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” (1930) can be the starter book before you go on to “The Sound and the Fury” (1929) or “Absalom, Absalom!” (1936).
As noted, there’s too much for us to read. We do the best we can.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
-
Delaware5 minutes agoViVA Awards luncheon celebrates service across Delaware County
-
Georgia17 minutes agoGeorgia Tech salvages finale vs. North Carolina ahead of UGA matchup
-
Hawaii23 minutes agoHawaii Snorkel Tour Hits Rough Waters After Tourtist Allegedly Stabs Boat Captain | Oxygen
-
Idaho29 minutes ago
The Camas Prairie is Biblical Idaho
-
Illinois35 minutes agoHas Trump’s approval dropped in Illinois amid Pope Leo feud? See polls
-
Indiana41 minutes agoOp-ed: Healthy rural communities strengthen all of Indiana
-
Iowa47 minutes agoSen. Chuck Grassley shares he’s recovering from gallstone surgery
-
Kentucky59 minutes agoKentucky will get a visit from a forward with three-point upside