Connect with us

Culture

Have NHL players maxed out the slap shot? The science behind the speed

Published

on

Have NHL players maxed out the slap shot? The science behind the speed

Thirty years ago, the average PGA golfer drove the ball 261.84 yards. Davis Love III was the longest hitter at 283.8 yards.

In 2024, the average distance is 300.9 yards, with Cameron Champ leading the way at a whopping 323.3 yards. Technological advances for both clubs and golf balls — combined with a greater focus on fitness — have turned 7,000-yard tracks into pitch-and-putts for the world’s best golfers.

Thirty years ago, Al Iafrate won the NHL’s hardest shot competition at the All-Star skills competition with a 102.7 mph blast, down from his 105.2 a year before.

At the 2024 All-Star weekend, Cale Makar won with a slap shot of 102.5 mph. Utah’s Michael Kesselring and the Buffalo Sabres’ Tage Thompson recently had blasts of 103.77 mph and 104.69 mph, respectively — the only two 100 mph clappers in the league this season. Last season, the 10 biggest bombers combined for 26 shots at or above 100 mph, with the Winnipeg Jets’ Colin Miller topping out at 102.59.

What gives? Iafrate was using an old-school wooden stick. Makar, Kesselring, Thompson, Miller and everyone else in the league is using a custom composite stick, designed to their exact body and mechanical specifications to generate maximum force. Yet the numbers are comparable. There might be more big shooters in the league — tracking data in the NHL only dates back to the 2021-22 season, so we’ll never know for sure — but they’re not really raising the bar by much. Certainly not to the degree that golfers are. Or tennis players are, for that matter.

Advertisement

In fact, it’s more akin to baseball, in which pitchers seem to have reached the limit of human capability at about 105 mph. More and more pitchers throw hard every year — 203 pitchers averaged a four-seam fastball of 95 mph or more this season, up from 123 just seven years ago — but the ceiling isn’t budging. Since Aroldis Chapman hit a record 105.8 mph back in 2010, only Ben Joyce and Jordan Hicks have touched 105, and only once each (Chapman did it nine times). Of course, pitchers aren’t using any equipment. It’s just muscle and mechanics. The human body can only do so much, no matter how feverishly you exercise, no matter how impeccable your nutritional habits are.

Hockey’s different, right? Shouldn’t there be 110 mph shots by now? Or 120, for that matter? Shouldn’t we be talking about scaling back the technology to preserve the integrity of the game, the way the golf world always is? Like every other sport, hockey players keep getting bigger and stronger. But the low-100s remains the gold standard for shot speed.

It begs two questions: Have we reached the ceiling of what a slap shot can be? And why?

“There’s always a limit,” said Detroit Red Wings defenseman Moritz Seider, who has reached 95.54 mph this season, in the league’s 91st percentile. “The human factor only allows you to do so much. And there does come a point where we’re not superhuman.”

Advertisement

Alain Haché knows a thing or two about high-speed projectiles. The experimental physicist and University of Moncton professor seemed to defy the very laws of physics in 2002 when he and one of his students sent a pulse of radiation 120 meters at superluminal speed — that’s faster than the speed of light. But Haché is a hockey nerd, too, the author of two books on the science behind the sport. It makes him uniquely qualified to address such an esoteric topic.

He believes the plateauing speeds of NHL slap shots means that we might have reached our technological limit when it comes to hockey sticks. Iafrate and Al MacInnis and Bobby Hull were physical freaks in the wooden-stick days. All the composites have done is let the rest of the league catch up to them.

“What it means probably is the limitation is no longer the stick itself,” Haché said. “Hockey sticks are pretty efficient already.”

A slap shot is pretty simple from a physics standpoint. When a player rears back and fires, he doesn’t aim for the puck, but rather a foot or so behind the puck. When the stick hits the ice, it flexes, or bends. By flexing the stick, a player is storing potential energy into the stick. When the stick unbends and whips back around, it’s turning that potential energy into kinetic energy, sending the puck on its way.

Energy is always lost in the bending and unbending of the stick, Haché said. A perfectly elastic stick would convert 100 percent of a player’s potential energy into kinetic energy, but modern sticks are pretty close. Haché estimated that modern composites convert “maybe 90 percent.”

Advertisement

“So if you improve your stick (even further), you’re not going to gain a lot,” he said. “You’re not going to double the amount of energy you can transfer. So the energy becomes limited by the player.”

In Iafrate’s and MacInnis’ day, the wooden sticks could flex only so much, and there wasn’t any significant variety from twig to twig.

These days, players have all sorts of options with composite sticks. A stick’s flex — or “whippiness,” in the players’ parlance — is assigned a number. A number above 100 is stiffer, a number below 100 is “whippier.”

Zdeno Chara, a nearly 7-foot-tall giant who holds the record for hardest shot in an NHL skills competition at 108.8 mph, used a famously stiff stick. Alex Ovechkin, on the verge of becoming the league’s all-time leading goal scorer largely on the strength of his cannonading one-timer slap shot, uses an extra whippy stick, in the mid-to-upper-70s. Connor Bedard, who doesn’t have the physical stature of either of those players, uses a super-whippy stick in the low-70s. Whatever suits the player’s mechanics best.


Chicago’s Connor Bedard uses a particularly “whippy” stick, with a flex in the low-70s. (Chris Tanouye / Freestyle Photography / Getty Images)

Naturally, there’s more to it than that, depending on how deep into the scientific weeds you want to get. There’s the “bounce effect,” which means a shot will have more velocity if the puck is moving toward the player at speed when he hits it — think of big Aaron Judge squaring up a 100 mph fastball and imagine the exit velocity. Judge wouldn’t be able to hit a ball off a tee nearly as far, or as fast. It’s not a one-for-one factor because it’s not a perfectly elastic collision; if a 60 mph pass from behind the net is one-timed back toward the net, the shooter won’t get an additional 60 mph on his shot. But he will get a bump.

Advertisement

Now if the player is carrying the puck up the ice at speed and manages to get off a slapper on the rush, he will get all that additional speed. Let’s say Connor McDavid is carrying the puck up ice at 23 mph, his top speed so far this season. If he somehow managed to rip a full slap shot at 83 mph, his top shot velocity this season, while the puck was still moving at 23 mph, his shot would go 106 mph. Easier said than done, but maybe Hall of Famer Marián Hossa was onto something when he would blast those slap shots while racing into the low slot during shootout attempts.

The stick — wood, fiberglass, carbon fiber, aluminum, whatever — is just a tool, though. Technique matters more than anything else. But a little muscle mass doesn’t hurt.

“The power comes entirely from the player,” Haché said. “He will rotate his body. He will time the slap shot so that he can put as much flex as he can in the stick.”

That’s why San Jose defenseman Jake Walman says his shots are harder and heavier earlier in the season, while he still has all the muscle he added over the summer. Players typically lose much of their bulk over the course of the grueling season, as weight-lifting takes a back seat to the endless cardio they’re doing night after night. Their shots can fade along with their weight.

But while behemoths such as Chara and Shea Weber (who nearly caught Chara with a 108.5 at the 2015 All-Star weekend) and the 6-6 Thompson have an inherent advantage, size isn’t everything. Timing is crucial. Pick the puck clean instead of hitting the ice first and the stick won’t flex and the puck will flutter weakly. Hit too far behind the puck and most of the kinetic energy will be spent before the blade even gets to the puck.

Advertisement

“Everyone shoots different, but there are certain things you have to do in order to have a hard shot,” said Chicago’s Seth Jones, who topped out at 97.97 mph last season. “You see small guys have hard shots all the time. You don’t need to be 220 pounds and 6-3 to have a hard shot. And the flex is whatever you’re comfortable with. Some guys shoot harder with (a) 100 flex, some guys shoot even harder with a 75. There’s no one way to do it.”


Zdeno Chara unleashes a 108.8 mph slap shot at the NHL’s 2012 hardest shot competition in Ottawa. (Bruce Bennett / Getty Images)

Power in one sport doesn’t necessarily mean power in the other. Walman’s best golf drives go a relatively modest 270 yards down the middle.

But oh, man, can Walman spin the ball.

“I’m hitting down on it pretty hard,” he said.

The Sharks defenseman blasted a slapper 101.6 mph last year in Vancouver when he was with the Detroit Red Wings. This year, he’s topped out at 94.93 mph. And it’s the same body mechanics that allow him to put so much backspin into a 9-iron that allow him to so consistently hit a hockey puck really hard — the way he rears back and opens up his upper body, the way he transfers nearly all the weight into his front foot with vicious body torque, the way he leans into the stick to create all that flex as he hits the ice six to 12 inches behind the puck, the way he follows through with all of his weight moving forward.

Advertisement

“You’re leaning over way more in hockey than in golf,” he said. “I’m bent over, all my power is generating into that one spot in front. … I’m leaning so far over the puck that all my weight is going down into the puck.”

Hardest shots by year since NHL tracking data implementation

Year Season Leader Speed (mph)

2024-25

104.69

2023-24

Advertisement

102.59

2022-23

101.71

2021-22

101.95

Advertisement

Walman’s always had a big shot, even when he didn’t have the right tools. He said he was pretty much the last kid in youth hockey to play with a wooden stick. His teammates chirped him for it, and his coaches “gave my mom and dad heck” for not buying him a composite stick. But even at a young age, Walman was able to bring out the flex in the wood and launch missiles all day. To this day, he still wonders which kind of stick is really more powerful when leveraged perfectly.

“I’d say the first 50 percent is everything that you do — the power you’re generating, leaning into it,” Walman said. “And then the stick takes over after that. The second half is the technology.”

So while Haché thinks sticks might be approaching the point of perfection, players aren’t so sure. Jones, for one, was skeptical when asked if the NHL had hit the ceiling.

“It depends on where the technology can go,” Jones said. “Athletes are developing every year, we’re getting faster and stronger and bigger, but it’s not just the human body. It’s a little different than pitching, where it’s just you and your arm and the ball. Here, we’re using equipment. Right now, it seems like it maxed out with how light and strong sticks are with the carbon fiber. But who knows in 10 years where the hell technology can be?”


There’s another question that needs to be addressed here: Does any of this even matter?

Advertisement

While MLB teams have high-tech “pitch labs” and huge staffs devoted to squeezing every last bit of velocity and spin out of their pitchers — if a pitcher’s velocity drops a single mile per hour from one start to the next, team medical staffs kick into gear and fan bases go into a panic — NHL players seem a lot less concerned with the science behind the shot.

See puck, hit puck. Puck go fast.

“I honestly have no idea” how the science works, said Edmonton’s Evan Bouchard, who hit 103 in an AHL skills competition.

Most of the biggest shots in the game come from defensemen, and you’ll see them firing off blasts from the point at that night’s starting goalie at the tail end of every morning skate. It’s more of a ritual than a rigorous scientific process, though.

“I just figure the more you do it, the better you get at it,” Bouchard said. “It’s just practice, repetition.”

Advertisement

When told he was in the top 10 percent in the league when it came to shot speed, Seider said: “That’s obviously cool. But that’s not a stat I’ve ever checked.”

See, a 100 mph shot is a great weapon in hockey. But there are several reasons why it’s not the be-all, end-all the way a 100 mph four-seam fastball is.

For one, full-bore slap shots are very difficult to get off in game situations. There’s a reason most of the biggest blasts come from skills competitions with pristine conditions — a free run-up, a stationary puck (the timing is too tricky to risk playing for the aforementioned bounce effect) and no defender. In a game, time and space are often nonexistent.

“The game is just way too fast for taking the time, going all the way to the top and letting one rip,” Seider said. “People are just in your way more. There’s better coverage, opponents have better sticks on you. You hardly ever get off your best slap shot in an actual game.”

Another reason it’s not as critical: Harder isn’t always better. Back when the Blackhawks were winning championships, they had big Brent Seabrook blasting shots from the point on the power play. But light-hitting Michal Rozsíval would get his share of power-play time, too. And his wimpy little shots just seemed to have a knack for getting through traffic, hitting the net and creating rebounds.

Advertisement

“It’s hard to get off a big shot nowadays,” Bouchard said. “Sometimes it’s better to throw a quick wrist shot on net and see what happens. It doesn’t always have to be as hard as you can hit it. That’s not always the best shot.”

A big windup also gives a defender an extra split second to throw himself in front of the puck. That said, Jones posited that one big shot that gets very painfully blocked might lead to an open lane later in the game, as a defender thinks twice about stepping in front of the next one.

But even he acknowledged that rarely happens.

“It’s a competitive sport,” Jones said. “You’re still going to see guys laying out in front of shots to win the Stanley Cup, whether it’s 80 miles per hour or 120.”

After all, physics might be able to explain how flex and torque and weight transfer and potential energy all add up to a classic clapper. But there’s no explaining what drives someone to step in front of one.

Advertisement

“No one said we’re smart,” Jones said with a chuckle. “We’re athletes.”

(Illustration: Meech Robinson / The Athletic. Photos: Bruce Bennett, Patrick Smith, Steph Chambers / Getty Images)

Culture

Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden

Published

on

Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Here’s the first of its four stanzas, read for us by Matthew McConaughey:

Advertisement

The More Loving One by W.H. Auden 

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 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Here’s Tracy K. Smith, a former U.S. poet laureate, with the second stanza:

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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:

Advertisement

Admirer as I think I am 

Of stars that do not give a damn, 

I cannot, now I see them, say 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

The fourth and final stanza, read by Yiyun Li, takes this disenchantment even further:

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

W.H. Auden in 1962. Sam Falk/The New York Times

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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!

Your first task: Learn the first four lines!

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

Advertisement

Let’s start with the first couplet. Fill in the rhyming words.

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well 

Advertisement

That, for all they care, I can go to hell, 

Advertisement

Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.

Advertisement

Ready for another round? Try your hand at the 2025 Poetry Challenge.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Culture

Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books

Published

on

Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books

Literature

‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

Who knew that there’s a major George Eliot novel that neither I nor any of my friends had ever heard of?

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

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.

Advertisement

We’d all have read it by now — right?

‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

More in Literature

See the rest of the issue

Continue Reading

Culture

6 Poems You Should Know by Heart

Published

on

6 Poems You Should Know by Heart

Literature

‘Prayer’ (1985) by Galway Kinnell

Advertisement

Whatever happens. Whatever
what is is is what
I want. Only that. But that.

Galway Kinnell in 1970. Photo by LaVerne Harrell Clark, © 1970 Arizona Board of Regents. Courtesy of the University of Arizona Poetry Center

Advertisement

“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.”

Advertisement

Lucille Clifton in 1995. Afro American Newspapers/Gado/Getty Images

“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?’”

Advertisement

‘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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

These interviews have been edited and condensed.

More in Literature

See the rest of the issue

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending