Culture
What we learned from MLB’s spring robot-umpire test: Players, managers, execs weigh in
CLEARWATER, Fla. — Do you miss those robots yet?
We’ve spent the past five weeks watching them pop out of hiding, every time a catcher, hitter or pitcher tapped his head to ask his favorite robot umps: Where the heck was that pitch?
Then, almost instantaneously, a six-second animation would roll on the ballpark videoboard — and baseball’s spring training experiment with the Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) challenge system would work its magic.
So now that it’s time to send those robots back from whence they came — namely, the minor leagues — as spring training fades into the rearview mirror, how’d that experiment go? That’s what we’re here to tell you, because over the past month, we’ve pretty much seen it all.
We’ve seen walks turn into strikeouts.
We’ve seen strikeouts turn into walks.
We’ve seen strikeouts turn into home runs.
We’ve seen fans boo those poor, well-meaning robots.
And in the midst of it all, Alex Cora revealed his worst robotic nightmare.
“My first thought,” the Red Sox manager said this spring, “was, like: Bases loaded … 3-2 count … ninth inning in the World Series … tie game.”
We’ll pause here to let you cue that imaginary 4K video in your brain. Now … here comes that pitch.
“Yeah!” Cora bellowed, pumping his fist. “Strike three! (A smile. A shake of the head.) No! Ball four! That’s where my mind went. And I was, like: Oh, shoot!”
OK, hold on. Don’t shoot. This was only a test. No World Series games were played this spring. It was only spring training, with an electronic ball-strike challenge system running in baseball’s test lab. It was all just for feedback purposes. We won’t see this technology in real games before next year at the earliest — and probably longer.
But that scene in Cora’s brain could happen someday, if — OK, let’s say when — this challenge system gets unleashed in games that count. So is that what we want? Is that what baseball wants? We’ll discuss those questions shortly.
First, though, we’re here to answer all your big questions — not to mention all the big questions you forgot to ask. So what did we learn from watching those robot umps this spring? Let’s discuss!
J.T. Realmuto likes ABS as a hitter. As a catcher? Not so much. (Nathan Ray Seebeck / Imagn Images)
Does the technology work?
Technology is a beautiful thing. You cue it up. You program the robots. And it does what it’s built to do.
A strike is a strike. A ball is a ball. And if you don’t like how the humans called that pitch, you challenge — and the robots end the debate.
Major League Baseball declined The Athletic’s request for specific data from this spring. But it has spent four years honing the ABS system in the minor leagues — and before that in the independent Atlantic League.
It has tweaked the definition of the strike zone multiple times. It experimented with different ways to match the height of the zone to the height of the players. And after all those tweaks, the league was comfortable that the technology was ready for its midterm exam.
“We have made a lot of progress in the way the system works,” MLB’s vice president of on-field strategy, Joe Martinez, said at a media-demonstration session last month, “and also the way we weave the system into the gameplay. And we’re at a point in Triple A where we have a system that the players like, the coaches like, the umpires like and the fans like.”
So this was the logical next step — to find out whether big leaguers liked it, but also to get feedback on what they didn’t like. I can help with that, because I’ve been asking the same questions all spring.
I thought the most interesting responses came from catchers, because they lived in Robot World on both offense and defense.
“I like it as a hitter,” said the Phillies’ J.T. Realmuto. “I don’t really like it as a catcher as much, just because I think it takes part of the game away, part of the catcher position. Framing is still going to matter, but it’s not going to be as big of a deal. So that part I don’t like. But as a hitter, I do like having the consistent strike zone.”
Tigers catcher Jake Rogers also thought that as the ABS strike zone establishes its presence in the sport, hitters will be the biggest fans — but not for the same reason.
“There are going to be a lot more balls called than normal, I think,” Rogers said, “because the strike zone is a lot smaller.”
Since veteran major-league umpires were told by the league just to call their normal zone, to get ready for a season without ABS, players found themselves living in a world with two different strike zones this spring.
“With ABS, I think the bottom of the zone drastically changes,” Rogers said. “It was a lot higher, and I think the top goes a lot lower. … So on the pitches that are close to the edge, the umpires are just going to call a ball and rely on us to challenge.”
But remember, the robot umps don’t know any of that. They just call the balls and strikes they’re programmed to call, whether Laz Diaz would call them the same or not. And hey, that reminds us of something important:
Big-league umpires are better at this than you think.
FanGraphs’ Davy Andrews pointed me toward Statcast data on Baseball Savant that shows how much ball-strike calls — by human umps — have gotten better in recent years. Here’s a look, in five-year increments.
| YEAR | ACCURACY |
|---|---|
|
2024 |
92.53% |
|
2019 |
91.54% |
|
2014 |
88.33% |
|
2009 |
85.15% |
(Source: Baseball Savant)
In 2024, that accuracy percentage actually ticked down — from 92.81 percent in 2023 to 92.53. Nevertheless, there were over 28,000 more correct calls last season than in 2008, the first year of available data. So let’s give those humans a big hand. That works out to over 1,000 more correct calls a week!
So is it worth using technology to chip away at the 7.5 percent or so that human umps are still getting wrong? That might depend on the answer to our next question …
Does the strike zone feel like the strike zone?
What’s a strike?
For almost 150 years, that has been the question that defined baseball. Hasn’t it? It all starts with the strike zone.
Too bad the strike zone you’ll find in your rule book isn’t the same thing as the strike zone that has been called by humans for pretty much that entire century and a half. Essentially, human umps call an oval-shaped zone — no matter how many times they’ve seen that rectangle in the rule book.

So why did baseball just spend spring training fiddling with a system that will not be used in a single regular-season game this year? It was all about the robot-ump strike-zone experience — “to get people some reps of experiencing the system,” Martinez said, “and seeing how it feels, particularly how the strike zone feels.”
In other words, it all comes down to this:
Every hitter, catcher and pitcher has an idea in his head of what a strike is and what a ball is. So for ABS to work — really work — the electronic strike zone has to feel essentially like the zone baseball players have in their heads.
You know what won’t work? If that zone feels just like some sort of technological creation.
So which was it this spring? Uh, let’s just say it’s a work in progress.
Rogers said that Tigers players had a chance to speak to commissioner Rob Manfred in person this spring. Guess what they asked about most when ABS came up? The strike zone.
“That’s the big thing we talked about with Rob,” Rogers said. “It becomes about: What is the strike zone? It’s the oldest rule in baseball. And then, when you start kind of tweaking it a little bit, it becomes different.”
Here’s what confused players the most, he said. As part of the ABS education process this spring, players were given an iPad that allowed them to review every pitch of a game, to see if the robot umps would have called it a strike or a ball. But they continued to get their usual postgame reports, looking at whether those same pitches were in or out of the zone — and they weren’t the same.
“It’s crazy,” Rogers said, “because on ABS, you look at the iPad … and (the pitch is) half an inch below the zone. And then we get our report back with the old strike zone, and it’s a full ball in the zone. So it’s like, wow, it looks like a strike. It feels like a strike. And all of a sudden, you’re thinking: Do you challenge, or do you not challenge? So you go back and look at it, and it’s a ball (on ABS).”
There’s a reason for that — even beyond the different technologies involved. Human umps are still being graded with a buffer zone that gives them wiggle room if a pitch is barely off the rule-book strike zone. But robot umps don’t know a buffer from a muffler. So a ball is either in the zone or out. Period.
Is that good? Is that what we all want? You won’t be surprised to learn that one player with some thoughts on that topic is Max Scherzer.
In his recent appearance on the Starkville podcast with me and Doug Glanville, Scherzer said one thing he’d like to see is “a buffer zone, maybe around the challenge system. So hey, if you challenge and it’s in the buffer, the call stands. So you keep human power, the human element, still with the umpire.
“I’m OK changing the call when it’s an egregious call,” the Blue Jays’ future Hall of Famer said. “But when we’re talking about a quarter of an inch that you can’t really detect it, I don’t necessarily know if that makes the game better.”
But when I mentioned Scherzer’s idea to an executive from an American League club, he swatted it away like a mosquito. What’s the point of honing the best technology, he wondered, if we’re then going to ignore it by dropping in a buffer zone?
“I think they’ve done enough research on it to come up with the right zone,” he said. “So I don’t think there needs to be a buffer zone. I think this ABS zone is very clear, very definitive. So I would not be in favor of a buffer zone. It’s just, that’s the strike zone. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere.”
What the powers that be would say is: What’s the difference between this and tennis? If a ball lands a 16th of an inch outside the line in the U.S. Open finals, you know what they’d call that — using the same Hawk-Eye technology? Out.
But when I ran that logic past one player this spring, he said: “This is not tennis. Tennis doesn’t have a catcher, right? There’s a reason why.”
GO DEEPER
Trea Turner challenges first pitch of the day from Max Scherzer
Max Scherzer would like to see a “buffer zone” incorporated into the ABS challenge system. (Jonathan Dyer / Imagn Images)
Did fans really boo the robots?
Boooooo.
Wait. Did I just hear what I thought I heard? It was a Feb. 28 game between the Phillies and Red Sox. Phillies center fielder Brandon Marsh had just taken a 2-and-2 fastball, slightly off the inside corner, from Red Sox ace Garret Crochet. So the count was full. Or was it?
Boston catcher Seby Zavala tapped his helmet. The robot-ump challenge cartoon played on the videoboard — and turned that ball three into strike three, much to the delight of …
Nobody watching this in the Phillies’ home ballpark, apparently — at least judging by that sound: Boooooo.
An inning later, there were still more boos when Realmuto and Red Sox prospect Marcelo Mayer challenged back-to-back pitches in the same at-bat, and both were called balls by the robot ump, handing Mayer a five-pitch walk.
“Did I really hear those fans booing the robot?” I asked Realmuto later.
“Well, it’s Philly, so there’s no telling what they were booing,” he said. “I think they were booing the batter for challenging. I know that they booed that. And then they also booed when I challenged and it ended up being a ball. So yeah, I guess they were booing the robot.”
How cool is it to win a challenge? The thrill of victory!
Dylan Carlson, aka the MVC (Most Valuable Challenger). (Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images)
A minor-league manager told me last year that there was a lot more riding on these challenges than balls and strikes.
“It’s like a baseball IQ test for the players,” he said. “You really find out who knows the strike zone and who doesn’t.”
So what did we learn about baseball IQ this spring? That catchers (of course) are baseball geniuses, the group that got the most challenges correct … and pitchers, um, not so much. But the hitters? According to preliminary data, they were somewhere in the middle.
That isn’t all we learned, though. For the hitters who consistently aced their challenges, that thrill of victory was the coolest thing ever.
Heading into this spring, Orioles outfielder Dylan Carlson didn’t figure he’d challenge much. But that was before he turned into the MVC (Most Valuable Challenger) of the whole darned spring.
In a span of a week and a half, he challenged four called third strikes — and got all four overturned. Two of them came in one game against the Twins. Three of them were on 3-2 pitches, so they magically transformed strikeouts into walks. And the fourth was on a 2-2 pitch, which canceled a strikeout and led to another walk.
And after that, he said with a laugh, “They kind of gave me the green light to use it whenever I wanted.”
So Carlson went into the final weekend of spring training with more than twice as many walks (eight) as strikeouts (three). If this hadn’t been The Spring of the Robot Ump, he’d have had more strikeouts (seven) than walks (four). And his on-base percentage would have been over 100 points lower (at .351 instead of .459).
You think that guy is a fan of this robot-ump thing, or what?
“For me personally,” he said, “just the swings — going from strikeouts to getting on base — a lot of those were leading off innings. So it kind of changes the whole inning in some ways. You get a leadoff runner on, right? Then it’s go time. So it’s been interesting, for sure.”
All spring, I’ve watched players challenge, then turn their attention to the ABS cartoon on the videoboard. They couldn’t have been paying closer attention if that board was telling them whether they’d just won 10 million bucks. So I asked Carlson to describe the feeling — of paying rapt attention to that animation and then finding out he was right … again.
“So actually, every time I’ve challenged,” he said, “I’ve asked the catcher too: ‘Hey, was that a strike?’ And every time they’ve all said yes. So I’ve been a little nervous looking up at the board. But fortunately, they’ve all gone my way.”
Which beats the alternative, obviously. Speaking of which …
How brutal is it to lose a big challenge? The agony of defeat!
Even in subdued spring training, real humans are playing. And sometimes, their future is riding on these games. So when you’re a pitcher, on the fringe of a big-league roster (or hoping to get there someday), and you lose a challenge, is that just a “get-the-call-right” moment? Or is it more?
Yankees manager Aaron Boone thinks it can often be more. There is always an emotional component to these games. And just last week, he saw a game change on a challenge — and a swing of emotion.
It was the sixth inning of a game against the Red Sox. Right-hander Geoff Hartlieb was on the mound. Pitching with a two-run lead, Hartlieb got the first two hitters out, then thought he’d dotted the outside corner with a 2-and-2 fastball to Kristian Campbell.
The home-plate ump, Roberto Ortiz, pumped his fist. Strike three. Campbell had other ideas and tapped his helmet. The ABS animation rolled. The robots ruled the pitch was a millimeter off the plate. So this inning wasn’t over. Want to guess what happened next?
On the next pitch, Campbell walked. Then the next hitter, Masataka Yoshida, pumped a game-tying homer. Boone was steaming.
“Strike three, pitcher walking off the mound,” Boone grumbled the next day. “Oh. Challenge. Overturned. So it’s like, you’ve got a pitcher getting out of an inning. Makes a pitch. Walking off. Boom. Oh, no. Next pitch, home run.
“I just don’t like it, honestly,” he said. “I feel like the umpires are getting so good — and look, I know I’m the poster child, sometimes, for arguing — but literally, sometimes I’m arguing when they’re missing by, like, (a fraction of an inch). But I feel like more and more, these umpires are really good. And just the frivolous challenge — like the 1-1 pitch in the second inning. It’s stop … ball … challenge … 2-and-1 … no wait, 1-and-2. I just don’t like it.”
So, because he brought this up …
A moment of silence for managerial ejections
There once was a time when I would have paid to go to the ballpark and watch Lou Piniella, Bobby Cox or Don Zimmer get booted from a game by their favorite men in blue. Old-school baseball didn’t get more entertaining than that.
But now? We’re in serious jeopardy of never seeing another manager ejected from any game again — if those robot umps take over the world.
We’ve already gotten a preview of where this could be heading, thanks to instant replay. As recently as 2011, there were nearly 50 ejections across MLB solely because of calls on the bases, according to research by Retrosheet founder Dave Smith. Then replay arrived in 2014 — and by 2019, there was only one ejection, over a call on the bases, all season.
So the good old-fashioned managerial ejection tirade was already in trouble even before the looming arrival of ABS in any form. Ejection legend Bobby Cox once got thrown out of 11 games in one season. Dave Roberts has been managing for a decade — and has 12 ejections in his whole career.
According to Retrosheet, more than 70 percent of all ejections these days revolve around ball/strike “disagreements.” So what happens in a world where we suddenly start getting all the “big” ball/strike calls right? Will any of these managers ever get heaved out of a game again?
“I only get ejected once or twice a year anyway,” said the Tigers’ A.J. Hinch. “But you know, it’s funny. All the veteran managers have always told me: ‘Your job is to manage the game, not manage a game from your desk in your office.’ So yeah, you’re right. It’s getting harder and harder to get ejected. I mean, what do I argue about?”
But you’ll be heartened to know that Boone — the self-professed “poster boy” for arguing, and a guy who has led his league in ejections four seasons in a row — is not ready to concede his tirade days are over.
If this happens, I told him, he’ll never get thrown out of another game.
“That’s not true,” he promised. “I’ll find something.”
Phew!
Would ABS end manager ejections? Aaron Boone would like a word. (Jayne Kamin-Oncea / Imagn Images)
What will broadcasters talk about?
You think it’s easy talking about baseball games into a microphone for three hours every night? It’s a great gig, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. So perhaps you’ve noticed that there’s a certain topic that’s pretty much guaranteed to come up every darned game. By which I mean …
C’mon. That pitch is not a strike/ball. How could he miss that pitch?
Have you ever wondered how many broadcast hours the work of the home-plate umpire has consumed over the past 50 years? Might be a million hours. Possibly a billion. Does Statcast track that stuff? It should.
But now imagine how different the life of the average broadcaster might be if some sort of technology was invented that would get every ball-strike call right — or at least the biggest ball-strike calls right. I can assure you that thought occurred to many a broadcaster this spring … when that technology suddenly arrived.
So I sought out Larry Andersen, the always-entertaining radio color analyst for the Phillies, a guy who has been known to express a few (affectionate) opinions about men standing behind home plate wearing blue jackets.
The Athletic: “I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but I’ve listened to you call games a few times. You don’t seem like you’re normally that happy with the umpires’ work beyond the plate. Would that be fair?”
Andersen: “That would be fair. I would say I’m not. But this is going to sound crazy, because they drive me nuts, but it’s gotten worse since they put the (strike-zone) box on TV.”
That, he said, is because now that there’s a depiction of the strike zone on the screen, it’s hard not to notice when a pitch misses that box “by 6 inches” and still gets called a strike. So guess what? He might mention that.
But Andersen also isn’t convinced (with good reason) that those TV boxes are totally accurate. Whereas the ABS rectangle is going to be basically 100 percent accurate, even if it might not correspond exactly to how humans call balls and strikes. So back to our original question.
TA: “So if we suddenly got every ball/strike call right in this sport, what would you talk about all night?”
Andersen: “Well, it would probably turn my wrath onto the players. And I don’t want to do that.”
TA: “Right. At least when you’re ripping the umpires, you’re a man of the people, because the people are with you on that. So if you weren’t ripping the umpires every night, what would happen?
Andersen: “It would really put a damper on my broadcasting career.”
So let’s ask this again, in a different context: Is that what you want? You know where to find me if you have some thoughts on that.
Thirteen of the 23 spring training ballparks were part of MLB’s ABS test. So, what’s next? (Mike Lang / Sarasota Herald-Tribune / USA Today Network via Imagn Images)
Are we sure this is what we want?
All right, let’s end where we began — with Alex Cora’s Game 7 dream/nightmare.
Game 7 of the World Series. Two outs in the ninth. Bases loaded. Here comes the 3-2 pitch. It pops the mitt. Strike three. You just won the World Series. Or did you?
Here comes the challenge animation. Was that pitch really 1-78th of an inch off the plate? According to ABS, it was. So don’t pop that champagne yet. This game is tied – thanks to those emotionless robot umps.
“I think most people would say: Well, it’s a ball, so it should be called a ball, and if that’s what determines the World Series, you should still call it,” said an executive of one contender.
He then rolled back the clock two springs and brought up the arrival of the pitch clock. Didn’t we hear the same stuff about the pitch clock? Would we really let a postseason game end on a clock violation?
“So what you described could be a possibility,” he said. “But I think the likelihood of that happening is pretty low.”
Then again, it’s not zero. Do we really want a World Series decided by a pitch that’s literally the width of a hair off the plate? I asked that question of an AL exec. He swatted it away like a piece of lint.
“Maybe just get the call right,” he said. “I mean, that’s not the ideal use of the system, but I heard the same argument when we went to replay. Hey, play at the plate. It’s bang, bang. The umpire rules him out. But we go to a replay. We wait. No, he’s actually safe. Game’s over. You win the World Series. What’s the difference? It’s the exact same thing.”
Is it, though? Of course, most want to use technology to make the game better. Of course, we want to get as many calls right as possible. Why wouldn’t we?
But I’ve spent all spring listening to people wonder whether we’re really making the sport better by using technology to decide ball/strike calls that are so close, the human eye can’t even detect them. It all depends, said another AL exec, on what the true goal is.
“I think the functionality of the system is great,” he said. “And it has worked seamlessly. But I do wonder a little bit: What are we trying to accomplish?”
When the sport first began testing ABS, he said, one of the big goals was to try to create a fixed strike zone that could reduce the strikeout rate and create more balls in play. Great idea. Never got there. No matter how the league adjusted the zone, no one ever figured out a variation that made more action happen.
“So that was the initial intent of the automated strike zone,” the exec said. “It has now morphed to (something else.) So I’m wondering: Is the focus now to try to get as many calls right as possible? Because if that’s really the goal, is it worth it? I’m not quite sure.”
You know who else is asking that question? Max Scherzer.
“Go back and look at the (2024) postseason,” Scherzer said on Starkville. “Are we really talking about (anything that) happened with the home-plate umpires and strikes or balls? No, I don’t think so. So what problem are we really solving?”
He, too, has seen the data that shows home-plate umpires are more accurate than ever. So use this technology, he said. Just use it to grade the umpires and make them even more accurate. But don’t fix what isn’t broken.
“We’re not saying there’s a problem,” Scherzer said. “We said in the postseason, there wasn’t a problem. Do we really need to be trying to change a fundamental part of the baseball experience? Pitching? Catching? I don’t think so. So that’s where I’m skeptical. That’s where I think, as an industry, we just need to have a conversation.”
But guess what? No matter how that conversation goes, it’s not going to keep the robot umps from invading one of these years. So let’s embrace those robots — and even boo them just to see if robots have feelings. But between now and the day they arrive for good, let’s also ask that fundamental question:
What’s the true goal here? What are we trying to accomplish?
Technology is awesome. Robots are the future. And right calls are better than wrong calls. But is the sport truly better off if a World Series gets decided on a pitch 1-78th of an inch outside a robotized strike zone? The answers are so much harder than the questions.
(Top photo: Christian Petersen / Getty Images)
Culture
Xia De-hong, 94, Dies; Persecuted in China, She Starred in Daughter’s Memoir
Xia De-hong, who survived persecution and torture as an official in Mao Zedong’s China and was later the central figure in her daughter’s best-selling 1991 memoir, “Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China,” died on April 15 in Chengdu, China. She was 94.
Ms. Xia’s death, in a hospital, was confirmed by her daughter Jung Chang.
Ms. Chang’s memoir, which was banned in China, was a groundbreaking, intimate account of the country’s turbulent 20th century and the iron grip of Mao’s Communist Party, told through the lives of three generations of women: herself, her mother and her grandmother. An epic of imprisonment, suffering and family loyalty, it sold over 15 million copies in 40 languages.
The story of Ms. Chang’s stoic mother holding the family together while battling on behalf of her husband, a functionary who was tortured and imprisoned during Mao’s regime, was the focus of “Wild Swans,” which emerged out of hours of recordings that Ms. Chang made when Ms. Xia visited her in London in 1988.
Ms. Xia was inspired as a teenager to become an ardent Communist revolutionary because of the mistreatment of women in the Republic of China, as well as the corruption of the Kuomintang nationalists in power. (Her own mother had been forced into concubinage at 15 by a powerful warlord.)
In 1947, in Ms. Xia’s home city of Jinzhou, the Communists were waging guerrilla war against the government. She joined the struggle by distributing pamphlets for Mao, rolling them up inside green peppers after they had been smuggled into the city in bundles of sorghum stalks.
Captured by the Kuomintang, she was forced to listen to “the screams of people being tortured in the rooms nearby,” her daughter later wrote. But that only stiffened her resolve.
She married Chang Shou-yu, an up-and-coming Communist civil servant and acolyte of Mao, in 1949.
It was then that disillusionment began to set in, according to her daughter. The newlyweds were ordered to travel a thousand miles to Sichuan, her husband’s home province. Because of Mr. Chang’s rank, he was allowed to ride in a jeep, but she had to walk, even though she was pregnant, and suffered a miscarriage as a result.
“She was vomiting all the time,” her daughter wrote. “Could he not let her travel in his jeep occasionally? He said he could not, because it would be taken as favoritism since my mother was not entitled to the car.”
That was the first of many times that her husband would insist she bow to the rigid dictates of the party, despite the immense suffering it caused.
When she was a party official in the mid-1950s, Ms. Xia was investigated for her “bourgeois” background and imprisoned for months. She received little support from Mr. Chang.
“As my mother was leaving for detention,” Ms. Chang wrote, “my father advised her: ‘Be completely honest with the party, and have complete trust in it. It will give you the right verdict.’ A wave of aversion swept over her.”
Upon her release in 1957, she told her husband, “You are a good Communist, but a rotten husband.” Mr. Chang could only nod in agreement.
He became one of the top officials in Sichuan, entitled to a life of privilege. But by the late 1960s, he had become outraged by the injustices of the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s blood-soaked purge, and was determined to register a formal complaint.
Ms. Xia was in despair; she knew what became of families who spoke out. “Why do you want to be a moth that throws itself into the fire?” she asked.
Mr. Chang’s career was over, and both he and his wife were subjected to physical abuse and imprisoned. Ms. Xia’s position was lower profile; she was in charge of resolving personal problems, such as housing, transfers and pensions, for people in her district. But that did not save her from brutal treatment.
Ms. Xia was made to kneel on broken glass; paraded through the streets of Chengdu wearing a dunce’s cap and a heavy placard with her name crossed out; and forced to bow to jeering crowds.
Still, she resisted pressure from the party to denounce her husband. And unlike many other women in her position, she refused to divorce him.
Twice she journeyed to Beijing to seek his release, the second time securing a meeting with the prime minister, Zhou Enlai, who was considered a moderate. Ms. Xia was “one of the very few spouses of victims who had the courage to go and appeal in Peking,” her daughter wrote in “Wild Swans.”
But Ms. Xia and her husband never criticized the Cultural Revolution in front of their children, checked by the party’s absolute power and the fear it inspired.
“My parents never said anything to me or my siblings,” Ms. Chang wrote. “The restraints which had kept them silent about politics before still prevented them from opening their minds to us.”
She was held at Xichiang prison camp from 1969 to 1971 as a “class enemy,” made to do heavy labor and endure denunciation meetings.
The camp, though less harsh than her husband’s, was a bitter experience. “She reflected with remorse on the pointlessness of her devotion,” her daughter wrote. “She found she missed her children with a pain which was almost unbearable.”
Xia De-hong was born on May 4, 1931, in Yixian, the daughter of Yang Yu-fang and Gen. Xue Zhi-heng, the inspector general of the metropolitan police in the nationalist government.
When she was an infant, her mother fled the house of the general, who was dying, and returned to her parents, eventually marrying a rich Manchurian doctor, Xia Rui-tang.
Ms. Xia grew up in Jinzhou, Manchuria, where she attended school before joining the Communist underground.
In the 1950s, when she began to have doubts about the Communist Party, she considered abandoning it and pursuing her dream of studying medicine, her daughter said. But the idea terrified her husband, Ms. Chang said in an interview, because it would have meant disavowing the Communists.
By the late 1950s, during the Mao-induced Great Famine that killed tens of millions, both of her parents had become “totally disillusioned,” Ms. Chang said, and “could no longer find excuses to forgive their party.”
Mr. Chang died in 1975, broken by years of imprisonment and ill treatment. Ms. Xia retired from her government service, as deputy head of the People’s Congress of the Eastern District of Chengdu, in 1983.
Besides Ms. Chang, Ms. Xia is survived by another daughter, Xiao-hong Chang; three sons, Jin-ming, Xiao-hei and Xiao-fang; and two grandchildren.
Jung Chang saw her mother for the last time in 2018. Ms. Chang’s criticism of the regime, in her memoir and a subsequent biography, made returning to China unthinkable. She told the BBC in a recent interview that she never knew whether her mother had read “Wild Swans.”
But the advice her mother gave her and her brother Xiao-hei, a journalist who also lives in London, was firm: “She only wanted us to write truthfully, and accurately.”
Culture
Why Is Everyone Obsessed With Bogs?
In prehistoric northern Europe, peatlands — areas of waterlogged soil rich with decaying plant matter — were considered spiritual sites. Since then, swords, jewelry and even human bodies have been found fossilized in their sludgy depths. More recently, however, many of these bogs have been depleted by overharvesting, neglect and development. But as awareness of their important role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere grows, more wetlands are being restored, while also serving as unlikely creative inspiration. Here’s how bogs are showing up in the culture.
Fashion
At fall 2026 Paris Fashion Week, several houses — including Louis Vuitton (above left) and Hermès — staged shows amid mossy sets featuring spongy green structures and mounds of vegetation. And the Danish fashion brand Solitude Studios is distressing its eerie, grungy looks (above right) by submerging them in a local peat bog.
Contemporary Art
For her exhibition at California’s San José Museum of Art, on view through October, the Chalon Nation artist Christine Howard Sandoval is presenting sculptures, drawings and plant-dyed works (above) exploring how the state’s wetlands were once sites of Indigenous resistance and community. This month, at Storm King Art Center in New York’s Hudson Valley, the conceptual artist Anicka Yi will unveil an outdoor installation featuring six-foot-tall transparent columns holding algae-rich ecosystems cultivated from nearby pond water and soil.
Architecture and Design
The Bog Bothy (above), a mobile design project by the Dublin-based architecture practice 12th Field in collaboration with the Irish Architecture Foundation, was inspired by the makeshift huts once used by peat cutters who harvested the material for fuel. After debuting in the Irish Midlands last year, it’ll tour the region again this summer. In Edinburgh, the designer Oisín Gallagher is making doorstops from subfossilized bog-oak scraps carbon-dated to 3300 B.C.
Fine Dining
At La Grenouillère on France’s north coast, the chef Alexandre Gauthier reflects the restaurant’s reedy, frog-filled river valley landscape with dishes like a “marsh bubble” of herbs encased in hardened sugar. This spring, Aponiente — the chef Ángel León’s restaurant inside a 19th-century tidal mill on Spain’s Bay of Cádiz — added an outdoor dining area on a pier above the neighboring marshland, serving local sea grasses and salt marsh flowers alongside seafood (above) from the estuary.
Literature
The Irish British writer Maggie O’Farrell’s forthcoming novel, “Land,” about an Irish cartographer and his son surveying the island in 1865 after the Great Famine, depicts haunting encounters with the verdant landscape, including its plentiful oozing bogs.
Culture
Book Review: ‘Selling Opportunity,’ by Mary Lisa Gavenas
SELLING OPPORTUNITY: The Story of Mary Kay, by Mary Lisa Gavenas
Mary Kay, the cosmetics company whose multilevel marketing included sales parties and whose biggest earners were awarded pink Cadillacs, was really in the business of selling second chances. Or, at least, that’s what Mary Lisa Gavenas argues in “Selling Opportunity,” a dual biography of the brand and the woman behind it.
Mary Kathlyn Wagner, who would become Mary Kay Ash, “the most famous saleswoman in the world” and “maybe the most famous ever,” in Gavenas’s extravagant words, was born in 1918 to a poor family and raised mostly in Houston. Although a good student, she eloped at 16 with a slightly older boy. The young couple had two babies in quick succession.
Mary Kay’s creation was a combination of timing and good luck. Door-to-door sales was a thriving industry — but, traditionally, a man’s world: Lugging heavy samples was not considered feminine, and entering the homes of strangers, unsafe. But things began to change during the Great Depression, Gavenas suggests, thanks to a convergence of factors — financial pressures and the rise of the aspirational prosperity gospel espoused by Dale Carnegie’s self-help manuals.
At the same time, female-run beauty lines like Annie Turnbo Malone’s Poro and Madam C.J. Walker’s were finding great success in Black communities. And, coincidentally or otherwise, the California Perfume Company changed its name to Avon Products in 1939.
Ash began by selling books door to door, moving on to Stanley Home Products in the 1940s. She was talented, but direct sales was a rough gig. Every party to show off wares was supposed to beget two more bookings; these led to sales that resulted in new recruits. But there was no real security or stability: no salary, no medical benefits, no vacations. “Stop selling and you would end up right back where you started. Or worse,” the author writes.
Gavenas, a onetime beauty editor who wrote “Color Stories,” takes her time unspooling Mary Kay’s tale, with a great deal of evident research. We learn about direct sales, women’s rights and Texas history.
But, be warned: Readers must really enjoy both this woman and this world to take pleasure in “Selling Opportunity.” Mary Kay the person keeps marrying, getting divorced or widowed and working her way through various sales jobs (it’s hard to keep track of the myriad companies and last names). Gavenas seems to leave no detail out. Thus, the 1963 founding of the eponymous beauty company doesn’t come until almost 200 pages in.
Beauty by Mary Kay included a Cleansing Cream, a Magic Masque and a Nite Cream (which containined ammoniated mercury, later banned by the F.D.A.). The full line of products — which was how Mary Kay strongly encouraged customers to buy them — ran to a steep $175 in today’s money. (To fail to acquire the whole set, Ash said, was “like giving you my recipe for chocolate cake but leaving out an important ingredient.”)
Potential clients attended gatherings at acquaintances’ homes — no undignified doorbell-ringing here — where they received a mini facial, then an application of cosmetics like foundation, lip color and cream rouge — and a wig. The company made $198,514 in sales its first year.
Although Ash may have seemed a pioneer, in many ways Mary Kay was a traditionalist company, whose philosophy was “God first, family second, career third.” Saleswomen, official literature dictated, were working to provide themselves with treats rather than necessities so as not to threaten their breadwinner husbands.
And yet, they were also encouraged to sell sell sell. Golden Goblet pendants were awarded for major orders. After the company started using custom pink Peterbilt trucks for shipping, it began commissioning those Cadillacs for top consultants. (Mary Kay preferred gifts to cash bonuses, lest women save the money to spend on practical things rather than the licensed frivolities.) The Cadillacs, always driven on company leases, would become industry legend and part of American pop culture lore. “Never to be run-down, repainted or resold, the cars would double as shining pink advertisements for her selling opportunity,” Gavenas writes.
The woman herself was iconic, too. While Ash was a product of the Depression, she was also undeniably over-the-top. She wore white suits with leopard trim, lived in a custom Frank L. Meier house and brought her poodle to the office.
Mary Kay went public in 1968, making her the first woman to chair a company on the New York Stock Exchange. By the 1990s, the Mary Kay headquarters near Dallas was almost 600,000 square feet. They commissioned a hagiographic company biopic; there was a Mary Kay consultant Barbie; they were making $1 billion in wholesale. When she died, in 2001, Ash was worth $98 million.
And yet, Gavenas cites that at the company’s height, in 1992, sales reps made on average just $2,400 per year.
Instead of so much time in the pink fantasia of Mary Kay, it would have been nice for a few detours showing how infrequently the opportunities the company sold were truly realized.
SELLING OPPORTUNITY: The Story of Mary Kay | By Mary Lisa Gavenas | Viking | 435 pp. | $35
-
San Francisco, CA6 minutes agoMother’s Day Gamethread: Giants vs. Pirates
-
Dallas, TX12 minutes agoCaitlin Clark Responds to Dallas Wings Win Over Indiana Fever
-
Miami, FL18 minutes agoJarvis Landry Doesn’t Hold Back on Dolphins Offseason
-
Boston, MA24 minutes agoOle Miss softball to play Boston in NCAA tournament Lubbock Regional
-
Denver, CO30 minutes agoNew video shows trespasser on Denver airport runway before deadly collision
-
Seattle, WA36 minutes agoGrowing memorials honor young employee found dead at North Seattle beer garden
-
San Diego, CA42 minutes agoPadres come back, walk off with win over Cardinals to split series
-
Milwaukee, WI48 minutes agoWSJ: Billionaire Milwaukee Bucks co-owner targeted in extortion scheme – UPI.com