Culture
The Hater’s Guide to the 2024 World Series
This isn’t clickbait. This is engagement bait. This is subscription bait. This is “sign up for auto-renew, then get you hooked on Wordle and NYT Cooking” bait. But it’s also a deeper truth that resonates with a lot of baseball fans, and it goes something like this:
New York Yankees vs. Los Angeles Dodgers is the most annoying World Series matchup possible. It might be the most annoying World Series matchup ever, which seems hyperbolic until you start looking at previous matchups and realizing most of them didn’t have the full force of social media or the Pundit Industrial Complex behind them. Yes, I realize that articles like this are a part of the problem, but unavoidability is the only possible outcome.
Please note that this isn’t the same as the worst World Series matchup possible. For heaven’s sake, not by a long shot. The worst World Series matchup would be the Chicago White Sox vs. the Colorado Rockies, with the latter team being heavy favorites. In the actual 2024 World Series, there will be several future Hall of Famers playing, most of them in their absolute prime, doing unreal things to and with baseballs. It’s a very good World Series if you like to watch excellent players and displays of baseball ability. I’m actually excited to watch the baseball part of it, and you should be too.
That doesn’t mean it won’t be annoying, though. Let us count the ways. Haters, gather around. We have some hating to do.
Been there, done that
This World Series is a Simpsons episode from Season 43 where Homer gets a new job. It’s technically a fresh episode, but it’s a worn-out trope.
Oh, wow, the only cities that matter in the only country that matters, going head to head. Look at all the celebrities in the stands, everybody. Have you ever noticed how different these two cities and lifestyles are? New Yorkers are all “hey, I’m walkin’ here” and Los Angeles is like “Is that Bobby DeNiro? Hold my tiny dog, I’m going to say hi,” ha ha, it’s funny because it’s true. Put a brick wall behind me, toss me a microphone and throw a spotlight on. This material is too good to waste.
It may be a new Yankee Stadium but we won’t be able to escape the waxing over ghosts of baseball past in this Series. (Luke Hales / Getty Images)
Even if you can block out the noise that comes with two cultural centers having even more attention paid to them, there’s the part where the baseball stuff has been done before. When my mom was growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, she thought the World Series was only what you called it when the Yankees and Dodgers played each other, just like The Iron Bowl is what they call the Alabama/Auburn football games. She doesn’t recall this as something that makes her laugh; she shakes her head ruefully. That’s how often the Yankees and Dodgers used to play in the World Series.
This matchup happened in 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955 and 1956, and that was enough for seven generations. Then it happened again twice in the 1970s and once in the 1980s. Yankees vs. Dodgers is a throwback to those bleak, binary times, when it felt like nobody else had a chance. Mostly because they didn’t.
This is the matchup that Fox has wanted for decades
Every October, I warm my heart by thinking about Fox executives who lie awake at night, worrying about a Cleveland Guardians and Milwaukee Brewers World Series. These chuzzlewits and pecksniffs aren’t thinking about the excitement a pennant would bring to the areas that haven’t enjoyed enough of them (or any of them at all). They’re not thinking about specific matchups and baseball-related quirks. They’re thinking about eyeballs and star power.
And there’s something to that. There will be more eyeballs for this specific matchup because there will be more people tuning in, and they’re tuning in because they feel there’s a likelier chance that they’ll be entertained by this World Series. Craig Calcaterra smartly compared the combination of high ratings and noise complaints to Yogi Berra’s famous quip, “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”
Except I always knew what Berra meant by that. The people he cared about didn’t want to deal with it. The Mick and Billy Martin didn’t need to be seen. They didn’t need the attention that came with an ultra-hip nightclub. They were purists. And I realize that I’m using famous Yankees to represent the cool people in this analogy, which means it’ll be tricky to resolve. But that’s what paragraph breaks are for.
More than any of this, though, it’s the idea that television executives will be happy. This is how they make their money:
They make money from eroding your sanity. Their homes are built, brick by brick, from the ashes of your grey matter. They wanted Yankees vs. Dodgers because it would mean they could tell more people that they can have the kind of wi-fi that lets them take ventriloquism classes in their attic, where there was previously a dead spot. This is the World Series that ropes in the casuals, the barely interested, the people who will be surprised that there’s a pitch clock now. They’ll tap out after an inning once they remember that baseball isn’t for them, but not before they understand that they can finally do ballet in their man caves.
Sometimes I’ll be falling asleep and think about “His father is the district attorney” out of nowhere. That’s a piece of my brain cracking off and floating away, like a calving ice shelf, never to be the same again. Someone has to pay. Preferably, these someones would pay by getting every Guardians vs. Brewers World Series possible.
I do not care for the Yankees and Dodgers. They insist upon themselves
Both of these franchises stare at themselves in the mirror when no one’s looking. They also do it when everyone’s looking. Monuments and plaques, a deserved sense of history that still manages to be overblown at the same time. No mascots. Jerseys that have barely changed in a century.
They insist upon themselves. They think they’re better than you and your team. And, sure, by getting to the World Series, that’s technically true, but they don’t have to insist upon themselves so danged hard all the time. It’s much funnier when entitled, history-drunk teams keep getting so close and losing year after year.
Except for the 49ers. That’s enough of that. There’s probably a statute of limitations with that one. It’s simply not funny anymore.
Everyone is going to bring up the payrolls for both teams, but they’re going to miss the larger point
Yes, the Yankees and Dodgers have more resources than every other team. They spend more money. They’re spoiled and so are their fans. They have advantages that other teams don’t have with more visibility, cultural cachet, history and purchasing power. People will talk about how much the Dodgers committed to players this offseason (technically over a billion dollars if you don’t adjust for inflation and deferred salaries), and people will talk about how much Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton and Gerrit Cole will make. It’s unavoidable.
But that’s letting the other owners off the hook. Mookie Betts is on the Dodgers because Fenway Sports Group Holdings LLC worried about how his salary would affect their abilities to add players to Liverpool and drivers to RFK Racing. They made a business decision, and they absolutely deserve to feel bad about it. The Pittsburgh Pirates let Barry Bonds go because they lacked vision. The Chicago Cubs let Greg Maddux go because they didn’t realize how eager the North Side was to make the team a part of the regional identity. The Washington Nationals didn’t commit to Bryce Harper or Juan Soto because they figured they’d find another teenage outfielder with Hall of Fame talent at the Teenage Outfielder with Hall of Fame Talent store.
All of these owners are weenies. They’re occasionally pragmatic and occasionally silly, but they’re mostly just weenies. They should spend money on good players and keep them away from the Yankees and Dodgers! Especially the players they draft and develop.
More people should be saying, “The San Diego Padres had the right idea” instead of “We need to stop the Yankees and Dodgers from doing this,” and the inability to get to that epiphany will make the discourse even more tiresome.
Also, the Padres should have kept Juan Soto, too. They’re not off the hook, here. Michael King is cool, but c’mon. Look at what you’ve done.
A good World Series? Perhaps. A great World Series is possible. Heck, give us some Game 7 hijinks, and this could go down as one of the classics. Shohei Ohtani, returning to the mound in the 19th inning of Game 7, in front of a stunned Dodger Stadium crowd, because there simply aren’t any other pitchers available, and he’s willing to make the sacrifice. All he has to do is get through Juan Soto, Aaron Judge and Giancarlo Stanton.
We can dream.
But even though it has the potential to be the best World Series, it’s guaranteed to be the most annoying World Series possible. The wrong people have wanted it for years. The team that wins will throw the trophy in an arrogance juicer and get a fresh glass, even though they weren’t really running low. The losing team will feel even more entitled at this time next year. And at every moment, before every inning, with every joke and comment on the pre- and post-game show, you will be told just how special this all is.
Guardians in six. They have the bullpen, even if the Brewers’ lineup is underrated. What a beautiful, simple and boring dream that would have been.
(Top photo illustration by Sean Reilly / The Athletic: Orlando Ramirez / Getty Images; Mary DeCicco / MLB Photos via Getty Images; Katelyn Mulcahy / Getty Images; Carmen Mandato / Getty Images; New York Yankees / Getty Images)
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
Culture
6 Poems You Should Know by Heart
Literature
‘Prayer’ (1985) by Galway Kinnell
Whatever happens. Whatever
what is is is what
I want. Only that. But that.
“I typically say Kinnell’s words at the start of my day, as I’m pedaling a traffic-laden path to my office,” says Major Jackson, 57, the author of six books of poetry, including “Razzle Dazzle” (2023). “The poem encourages a calm acceptance of the day’s events but also wants us to embrace the misapprehension and oblivion of life, to avoid probing too deeply for answers to inscrutable questions. I admire what Kinnell does with only 14 words; the repetition of ‘what,’ ‘that’ and ‘is’ would seem to limit the poem’s sentiment but, paradoxically, the poem opens widely to contain all manner of human experience. The three ‘is’es in the middle line give it a symmetry that makes its message feel part of a natural order, and even more convincing. Thanks to the skillful punctuation, pauses and staccato rhythm, a tonal quality of interior reflection emerges. Much like a haiku, it continues after its last words, lingering like the last note played on a piano that slowly fades.”
“Just as I was entering young adulthood, probably slow to claim romantic feelings, a girlfriend copied out a poem by Pablo Neruda and slipped it into an envelope with red lipstick kisses all over it. In turn, I recited this poem. It took me the remainder of that winter to memorize its lines,” says Jackson. “The poem captures the pitch of longing that defines love at its most intense. The speaker in Shakespeare’s most famous sonnet believes the poem creates the beloved, ‘So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.’ (Sonnet 18). In Rilke’s expressive declarations of yearning, the beloved remains elusive. Wherever the speaker looks or travels, she marks his world by her absence. I find this deeply moving.”
“Clifton faced many obstacles, including cancer, a kidney transplant and the loss of her husband and two of her children. Through it all, she crafted a long career as a pre-eminent American poet,” says Jackson. “Her poem ‘won’t you celebrate with me’ is a war cry, an invitation to share in her victories against life’s persistent challenges. The poem is meaningful to all who have had to stare down death in a hospital or had to bereave the passing of close relations. But, even for those who have yet to mourn life’s vicissitudes, the poem is instructive in cultivating resilience and a persevering attitude. I keep coming back to the image of the speaker’s hands and the spirit of steadying oneself in the face of unspeakable storms. She asks in a perfectly attuned gorgeously metrical line, ‘what did i see to be except myself?’”
‘Sonnet 94’ (1609) by William Shakespeare
They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmovèd, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven’s graces
And husband nature’s riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die;
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity.
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
“It’s one of the moments of Western consciousness,” says Frederick Seidel, 90, the author of more than a dozen collections of poetry, including “So What” (2024). “Shakespeare knows and says what he knows.”
“It trombones magnificent, unbearable sorrow,” says Seidel.
“It’s smartass and bitter and bright,” says Seidel.
These interviews have been edited and condensed.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
-
Florida5 minutes agoFlorida Lottery Fantasy 5, Cash Pop results for April 19, 2026
-
Georgia11 minutes ago
Gaudette & Patel Pitch Past No. 3 UNC, 5-2
-
Hawaii17 minutes agoA Deep Dive into Hawai‘i’s Shell Jewelry Industry – Hawaii Business Magazine
-
Idaho23 minutes ago
Idaho Lottery results: See winning numbers for Pick 3, Pick 4 on April 19, 2026
-
Illinois29 minutes agoMultiple people shot in Centralia, Illinois: REPORT
-
Indiana35 minutes agoIndiana mother charged with neglect after baby’s co-sleeping death
-
Iowa41 minutes agoFormer Iowa State star, All-American Audi Crooks announces transfer destination
-
Kansas47 minutes agoTyler Reddick needs OT at Kansas to claim fifth win of NASCAR season