Connect with us

Culture

'It's a dream': Joseph brothers couldn't pass up opportunity to play together with Blues

Published

on

'It's a dream': Joseph brothers couldn't pass up opportunity to play together with Blues

From Bob, Barclay and Bill Plager to Brian, Rich and Ron Sutter, the St. Louis Blues are no strangers to having brothers on their roster.

In July, they added another family tree to their franchise history, making a trade with the Ottawa Senators for forward Mathieu Joseph, 27, and then signing free-agent defenseman Pierre-Olivier Joseph, 25, his brother.

As with all siblings, they have great reverence for one another, but there’s also the expected rivalry.

Plenty of examples of both popped up when the Joseph brothers sat down with The Athletic for an hour-long Zoom call recently.

You’ll learn a lot more about them, including which numbers they’ll be wearing this season and why. And you’ll also pick up on the fact they can hardly contain their excitement about this opportunity.

Advertisement

So sit back and enjoy our chat with the newest Blues brothers!

Note: The conversation has been edited lightly for length and clarity.


Jeremy: It’s really nice to meet you guys! Thanks for doing this! So where are you? What city? Whose house?

Mathieu: We’re in Brossard (Quebec, Canada). We’ve lived together in the summer for about three years now, and we’ve enjoyed it.

Pierre-Olivier: In the past, we’d only see each other for three months the whole year in the summer, so we were like, “We might as well stay together.” But now, I feel like we’re going to get our own places if we’re going to see each other all the time, haha!

Advertisement

Jeremy: I was going to ask about that. What are your living arrangements going to be like in St. Louis?

Pierre-Olivier: We’re going to live together. We’ve talked to a couple guys about renting their house. I played with Chad Ruhwedel in Pittsburgh and his wife is from St. Louis, so they have a house there, but Kasperi Kapanen is living there now. So no luck so far, but we’ll keep looking.

Jeremy: What have you heard about St. Louis?

Mathieu: I played with Brady Tkachuk in Ottawa and we actually went to his place in St. Louis for dinner last year, so I got to see a little bit of the area. Brady loves going back when he can, and honestly, every guy we’ve been talking to with the Blues loves playing there. I remember my first game in St. Louis. I was impressed with the song the crowd sings in the third period …

Jeremy: Country Roads?

Advertisement

Mathieu: Yeah, that’s it! I thought that was pretty cool the first time I saw it. I can tell the fans love their team, love the organization and love the city, so I’m definitely excited to be part of the community.

Jeremy: OK, Pierre … should I call you Pierre?

Mathieu: Never! Haha! It’s just P.O.

Pierre-Olivier: Actually, I got to the point where I don’t even care anymore.

Jeremy: Well P.O., tell me something good about living with your brother and something annoying.

Advertisement

Pierre-Olivier: Where do I start on the last one? No, it’s been good. He’s someone that I’ve been looking up to for so long. We work out together, we’re on the ice together, we’re on the golf course together. Everything we do is pretty much together. So it’s not really living with my brother, it’s living with my best buddy. He knows me by heart. He knows when to give me some motivation, and he knows when to give me some space.

Mathieu: I do get annoying, though. I talk too much, so sometimes I’ll say something and he doesn’t want to talk. I’ll just give him a face like “I get it.” But no, it’s been so easy. We don’t get on each other’s nerves very often and we share responsibility very well in the house. He’s a great cook!

Jeremy: P.O., what do you cook?

Pierre-Olivier: Anything and everything. Honestly, it just depends on what we have in the fridge. My crepes are something that I usually cook for us on Sunday. I do barbecue. Actually, Matt’s been pretty good this summer helping out on the barbecue side of the game.

Mathieu: I’ve been learning barbecue this year …

Advertisement

Pierre-Olivier: It’s nice not to be the only one cooking.

Jeremy: So growing up, did you guys ever play on the same team, and did you ever dream about playing on the same NHL team one day?

Pierre-Olivier: Back then, playing on the same team at any level wasn’t possible because of our ages. So every year, it was just trying to get to the next level.

Mathieu: I remember being mad one year in junior hockey. I was playing with the Saint John Sea Dogs in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. That was P.O.’s junior hockey draft year, and he was projected to go in the second or third round. He wasn’t taken in the second round, so when the third round rolled around, I’m like, “Saint John is going to pick him up and we’re going to play together.” But Saint John picked someone else, and then in the fifth round, he got picked by Charlottetown. I was super happy for him, but I remember being disappointed that Saint John didn’t draft him. That was the first time where I thought maybe we had a chance to play with one another. But then when we both got drafted in the NHL, we were like, “Wow, that would be cool if we could find a place that we could play together.”

Pierre-Olivier: We were even thinking about the possibility of it happening at the end of our careers in Europe, when we’re 37, 38 years old, haha!

Advertisement

Jeremy: So Mathieu got drafted by the Tampa Bay Lightning in the fourth round of the 2015 NHL Draft, and then won a Stanley Cup in 2021. P.O., what was it like watching that?

Pierre-Olivier: Yeah, it was a little bit of a s— show because of COVID. We were quarantining in Montreal and the next thing you know Mathieu is going into the Stanley Cup Final against Montreal. Tampa was up three games to one and headed back home for Game 5, and our parents couldn’t go because of work. They asked me if I wanted to go and I said, “Yeah!” But I remember there was a tropical storm in Tampa and flights were getting canceled. The only one available was from Montreal to L.A., then L.A. to Orlando (Fla.), and then drive 2 ½ hours to Tampa. I left at 6:30 p.m. and I got to Matt’s place at 10 a.m. the next day. I slept all day long, but then I had the chance to see him win the Cup. I had the chills, and that was a life memory that’s never going away. But at the same time, I was mad at him that he won it right in my face.

Mathieu: Hopefully we win it together one day!

Jeremy: So Mathieu, P.O. got drafted by the Arizona Coyotes in the first round of the 2017 NHL Draft and then traded to the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2019 in the Phil Kessel deal. How much have you been pulling for him?

Mathieu: I was probably more happy that he got drafted than when I got drafted. When he got to the NHL, I was trying to help him out with some things. With me being a forward and him being a defenseman, it was easy to talk about our game because what a forward sees and what a defenseman sees are different perspectives.

Pierre-Olivier: We got the NHL app a few years ago and we watch each other’s games when we can. But sometimes with the app, the state you’re in doesn’t allow you to watch his game …

Mathieu: Or we’d be playing at the same time. I guess it’ll be easier to watch his games this year, ha! But no, it’s been fun to follow each other’s careers. I’ve had some ups and downs that he’s helped me with, and I’ve helped him, too.

Jeremy: What’s something specific that you helped each other with during your career?

Advertisement

Mathieu: For me, the hardest part of the NHL is that it’s such a routine. It’s the same day every day. So if it’s not going well, it’s the same day that’s not going well. We both are guys that don’t really take life too seriously. We’re here to have fun, but sometimes I get away from that. I’ve had some downs that I felt like I couldn’t get out of and P.O. always has the right words. I always say he’s a really good therapist because all our friends ask him for advice because he’s such a good listener.

Pierre-Olivier: For me, sometimes I’m too careless in what I do, and he knows what I’m capable (of). He’s always there to remind me and push me. It might be lifting a little bit two pounds heavier in the gym that pushes me to be a more competitive person. That’s something I’ve learned a lot from him.

Mathieu: I’ve got to say, too, he’s a very generous guy and thinks about a lot of people before him. In this league, you want to be a good teammate and feel like you’re family. But selfishly, you also have to think a little bit about yourself — how I perform and how I need to be better. Sometimes P.O. forgets about that part, being too unselfish. I tell him, “You’ve got to shoot the puck.” Like I said, you don’t want to bother other teammates.

Pierre-Olivier: But at the same time, it bothers people that I’m not being more selfish.

Mathieu: Exactly! So sometimes I have to remind him, “I know you’re a good guy, but you’ve got to think about how you want to play well.” That’s going to build confidence and help everything else.

Advertisement

Jeremy: So where and when was the first NHL game that you played against each other?

Mathieu: It was in Pittsburgh last year.

Pierre-Olivier: Once the game started, it was Pittsburgh against Ottawa and not us against each other. But I could constantly hear him talking and talking …

Mathieu: He didn’t answer me once …

Pierre-Olivier: Because I know how he is. He’s just trying to get into my head. Playing tennis back when we were 12 years old, it was the same thing — just yapping.

Advertisement

Jeremy: Tell me about the high-sticking penalty in that game. P.O., you hit Mathieu with your stick, but you also got yourself, and you both went to the penalty box. What happened?

Pierre-Olivier: I saw him coming, but when I tried to get out of the way, I hit him in the face and then hit myself. We turned around and the referee saw both of us with our hands in our face. I was bleeding, but I didn’t want the ref to see that because then they would have reviewed it and they would have taken away the penalty on Mathieu. When I went into the penalty box, my towel was completely full of blood, but I had to hide it. He was a little mad.

Mathieu: It was so funny!

Jeremy: The reaction of your parents (Frantzi and France Joseph), who were at the game, was priceless. What did you think when you saw the video?

Pierre-Olivier: It was funny. The camera was perfectly on them at the right moment and it showed their personality. They know it’s part of the game, so as long as we’re not dropping the gloves, they know how competitive we are.

Advertisement

Jeremy: What’s it been like for your parents to watch you go through this journey together?

Mathieu: It’s been pretty cool. They get asked all the time, “Did you know your two kids were going to play in the NHL?” No, they just wanted us to work as hard as we could.

Pierre-Olivier: I remember they sat us down one time and said, “If you guys are going to play at a competitive level, we are ready to help you, but are you ready to do it for yourselves?”

Mathieu: They said, “We’re not going to push you guys to do it. But if you’re giving us 50 percent, then we’re not going to do that. We’re not going to spend that much money on it. You’re wasting time, and we would like for you to do something else.” I remember my mom asking P.O. when he got drafted to the NHL, “Do you still like hockey?” I’m like, “He just got drafted 23rd overall!”

Advertisement

Pierre-Olivier: I’m like, “Yeah, I’m pretty sure I like it.”

Jeremy: So Mathieu, you were traded to the Blues on July 2, and then P.O. signed with the team on July 3. How did all of this go down behind the scenes?

Pierre-Olivier: I started talking to different teams on July 1 and St. Louis was one of them. Then on July 2, we were sitting on the couch watching tennis on TV and Matt got a text from Ottawa telling him to call them.

Mathieu: I knew I was getting traded way before then, though.

Pierre-Olivier: But he didn’t know it was going to be St. Louis. So he’s got the phone on speaker and they tell him it’s the Blues. Well, he knew I was talking to St. Louis, too, so he gave me a little wink. So I talked to my agent and told him that it would be special playing with Mathieu and whatever offer was on the table from the Blues, I would just take it. My agent asked me about pushing it a little bit, but I told him that the chance I had was not going to happen often. So in a matter of 30 seconds, I was with Pittsburgh and he was with Ottawa, and the next thing you know we’re both in St. Louis.

Advertisement

Mathieu: We gave each other a big hug! Then we called our parents and said, “Sit down together, we’ve got something to tell you!” My dad was super happy, and my mom had a little bit of tears, knowing they won’t have two opposite jerseys now.

Jeremy: So what was that like, Mathieu, knowing that P.O. picked the Blues to make it happen?

Mathieu: To even know there was a possibility, I was so excited. I was pinching myself, like, “Oh my gosh, this is actually happening.”

Pierre-Olivier: Last week, the Blues sent us some new gear. We had two practices that day, and it was cool when we put both of our bags in the trunk and they were both “St. Louis Blues.” We love the colors already, and it’s fun to see Mathieu in the same logo as me.

Mathieu: No one knows yet, but we’ve actually picked our numbers.

Jeremy: Can we break some news here?

Mathieu: Of course! Our family number is No. 7 because our dad wore No. 7 his entire life. So I picked 71.

Pierre-Olivier: I went with the double seven, No. 77.

Advertisement

Jeremy: Nice! When you get your last name stitched on the back of both jerseys, are you going to get “Joseph” or your first initial and Joseph?

Mathieu: That’s a good question! He’s saying, “Are you going to have M. Joseph and P.O. Joseph?” When there’s two names that are the same on the team, you have the option. Like the Sedins wore “H. Sedin” and “D. Sedin.”

Pierre-Olivier: That’s true! I didn’t even think about that.

(Editor’s note: After this interview, the Blues announced that the brothers will both wear just “Joseph” on their jerseys this season. 

Jeremy: OK, I want to tell Blues fans what kind of players they’re getting in you guys. P.O., tell me about Mathieu, and vice versa.

Advertisement

Pierre-Olivier: They’re getting a fast skater, a competitive player, a guy who loves to play defensively, but I know he’s talented enough to put points on the board. But mainly a guy, they’re getting someone who plays with passion and plays for his teammates. He has a lot of character and that definitely helps the people around him work harder and become better players.

Mathieu: One of his biggest assets, his hockey IQ, is above average. He has good instinct offensively, and when he has confidence, he’s extremely fast and super dangerous on the ice. He’s an extremely smart player and how he outsmarts the opponent was annoying when I was playing against him. He’s also been very well-liked everywhere he’s been, and he brings tons of positivity around the room.

Jeremy: So when I’m watching practice and there’s an intense battle in the corner, am I going to know right away who it is without looking at the numbers?

Mathieu: 100 percent!

Pierre-Olivier: If we’re on different teams in camp, it’s going to be a compete level that’s as high as possible. It’s been that way since I was born. It’s going to be a continuation of pushing each other on and off the ice.

Advertisement

Mathieu: I’m so excited to have someone work with me on my game before and after practice. To be able to do it with my brother, it’s going to help each other for sure.

Jeremy: Does it seem real yet?

Pierre-Olivier: It’s a dream! I don’t think we’ll really comprehend it until we’re on the same ice together and being in front of the fans in St. Louis.

Mathieu: Hopefully we can help the Blues be a competitive team with our performance and our personalities. I told my dad, “Hopefully we can have a good season and enjoy it in St. Louis and play a couple of years there!”

(Photo of Mathieu Joseph with the Senators and Pierre-Olivier Joseph with the Penguins in January 2023: Joe Sargent / NHLI via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Culture

The Books We’re Excited About in Early 2025

Published

on

The Books We’re Excited About in Early 2025

A new year means new books to look forward to, and 2025 already promises a bounty — from the first volume of Bill Gates’s memoirs to a new novel by the reigning Nobel laureate, Han Kang, to a biography of Rosemary Woodruff Leary, the wife and psychedelic collaborator of the counterculture pioneer Timothy Leary.

On this week’s episode, Gilbert Cruz and Joumana Khatib talk about some of the upcoming books they’re most anticipating over the next several months.

Books discussed:

“Stone Yard Devotional,” by Charlotte Wood

“Silence,” by Pico Iyer

Advertisement

“Onyx Storm,” by Rebecca Yarros

“Gliff,” by Ali Smith

“The Dream Hotel,” by Laila Lalami

“The Colony,” by Annika Norlin

“We Do Not Part,” by Han Kang

Advertisement

“Playworld,” by Adam Ross

“Death of the Author,” by Nnedi Okorafor

“The Acid Queen: The Psychedelic Life and Counterculture Rebellion of Rosemary Woodruff Leary,” by Susannah Cahalan

“Tilt,” by Emma Pattee

“Dream Count,” by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Advertisement

“Hope: The Autobiography,” by Pope Francis

“Jesus Wept: Seven Popes and the Battle for the Soul of the Catholic Church,” by Philip Shenon

“The Antidote,” by Karen Russell

“Source Code,” by Bill Gates

“Great Big Beautiful Life,” by Emily Henry

Advertisement

“Sunrise on the Reaping,” by Suzanne Collins

We would love to hear your thoughts about this episode, and about the Book Review’s podcast in general. You can send them to books@nytimes.com.

Continue Reading

Culture

Grand Slam prize money is enormous. The economics of tennis tournaments is complicated

Published

on

Grand Slam prize money is enormous. The economics of tennis tournaments is complicated

Four times a year, one of the biggest and most important tennis tournaments in the world sends out an announcement full of dollar signs and zeroes with the words “record prize money” scattered liberally.

The four Grand Slams, the first of which begins Sunday in Melbourne, are the high points of the tennis calendar. Players at the 2025 Australian Open will compete for $59million (£47m) this year — over $6.2m more than last year. In 2024, the four tournaments paid out over $250m between them, while their leaders spent the year aligning themselves with the players who make their events unmissable, whose gravity pulls in the broadcast deals and sponsorships, with their own dollar signs and zeroes.

Led by Australian Open chief Craig Tiley, the Grand Slams led the movement for a so-called premium tour which would pare down the overloaded tennis calendar and guarantee top players always being in the same events, let alone time zones. It would also lock swaths of the globe out of the worldwide spectacle that tennis represents.

The great irony is that despite the largesse and the cozy relationship, the players get a smaller cut of the money at the Grand Slams than they do in most of the rest of the rest of that hectic, endless season — and a fraction of what the best athletes in other sports collect from their events. The Australian Open’s prize pool amounts to about a 15-20 percent cut of the overall revenues of Tennis Australia, the organization that owns and stages the tournament, which accounts for nearly all of its annual revenue. The exact numbers at the French Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open vary, but that essential split is roughly a constant. The 2023 U.S. Open had a prize pool of $65m against earned revenue from the tournament that came out at just over $514m, putting the cut at about 12 percent. The U.S. Open accounted for just under 90 percent of USTA revenues that year.

The explanations from the Grand Slams, which collectively generate over $1.5bn (£1.2bn) a year, run the gamut. They need to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fund junior tennis development and other, less profitable tournaments in their respective nations — an obligation pro sports leagues don’t have. There is a constant need to upgrade their facilities, in the silent race for prestige and primacy of which the constant prize money one-upmanship is just one element.

Advertisement

Aryna Sabalenka with her winner’s check at the 2024 U.S. Open. (Emaz / Corbis via Getty Images)

That dynamic is not lost on players — least of all Novak Djokovic, the top men’s player of the modern era and a co-founder of the five-year-old Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA).

“I’m just going to state a fact,” Djokovic said during a post-match news conference in Brisbane last week.  “The pie split between the governing bodies in major sports, all major American sports, like NFL, NBA, baseball, NHL, is 50 percent. Maybe more, maybe less, but around 50 percent.

“Ours is way lower than that.”


Since 1968, the first year in which the four majors offered prize money as part of the Open Era’s embrace of professional tennis players, the purses have only grown. The 1968 French Open was the first to offer prize money, with Ken Rosewall earning just over $3,000 for beating Rod Laver in the final. The women’s singles champion, Nancy Richey, was still an amateur player, so could not claim her $1,000 prize. By 1973, lobbying from Billie Jean King helped convince the U.S. Open to make prize money equal for men and women through the draws; it took another 28 years for the Australian Open to do so year in, year out. Venus Williams’ intervention helped force the French Open and Wimbledon to follow suit in 2007.

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

‘I think we deserve better’: How and why tennis lets women down

Advertisement

Fifty years after Rosewall’s triumph in Paris, the 2018 men’s champion Rafael Nadal took home $2.35million, an increase of over 73,000 percent. The year-on-year increases at each major are more modest, usually between 10 and 12 percent, but that percentage of tournament revenue remains steadfast, if not entirely immovable.

The Grand Slams argue that there are plenty of hungry mouths at their table, many more than just the 128 players that enter each singles draw each year.

Tennis Australia is a not-for-profit and a business model built on significant investment into delivering the event and promoting the sport to drive momentum on revenue and deliver consistently increasing prize money,” Darren Pearce, the organization’s chief spokesperson, said in a statement this week.

Money from the Australian Open also helps fund tournaments in Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart, as well as the United Cup, the combined men’s and women’s event in Perth and Sydney. Pearce said the prize money increases outpace the revenue growth.

The Grand Slams also point to the millions of dollars they spend on player travel, housing, transportation and meals during tournaments, though team sport athletes receive those as well. Eloise Tyson, a spokesperson for the All England Lawn Tennis Club, which stages Wimbledon, noted that overall Grand Slam prize money had risen from $209million in 2022 to $254m last year, a 22 percent increase.

Advertisement

“Alongside increasing our player compensation year-on-year, we continue to make significant investment into the facilities and services available for players and their teams at The Championships,” Tyson wrote in an email.

Officials with France’s tennis federation, the FFT, which owns the French Open, did not respond to a request for comment.

Brendan McIntyre, a spokesman for the United States Tennis Association, which owns the U.S. Open, released a statement this week touting the USTA’s pride in its leadership on player compensation, including offering equal prize money and the largest combined purse in tennis history at the 2024 US Open. A first-round exit earned $100,000, up 72 percent from 2019. Just making the qualifying draw was good for $25,000.

“As the national governing body for tennis in the U.S, we have a broader financial obligation to the sport as a whole,” the organization said.

“The USTA’s mission is to grow tennis at all levels, both in the U.S. and globally, and to make the sport accessible to all individuals in order to inspire healthier people and communities.”

Advertisement

The infrastructure required to stage a Grand Slam tournament is vast — on and off the court. (Glen Davis / Getty Images)

None of the organizations outlined a specific formula for determining the amount of prize money they offered each year, which is roughly the same as a percentage of their parent organizations overall revenues. That may be a coincidence, though the Grand Slams also have the benefit of not facing any threat to their primacy.

The USTA’s statement gestures at how the structure of tennis contributes to this financial irony. In soccer, countries and cities bid to host the Champions League and World Cup finals; the Olympics changes every four years and even the Super Bowl in the NFL moves around the United States, with cities and franchises trying to one-up one another.

The four Grand Slams, though, are the four Grand Slams. There are good reasons for this beyond prestige: the infrastructure, both physical and learned, required to host a two- or three-week event at the scale of a major year in, year out is available to a vanishingly small number of tennis facilities around the world. There is no opportunity for another organization or event to bid to replace one of the Grand Slams by offering a richer purse or other amenities.

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

A year ago, tennis was broken. It’s more broken now


This dynamic has been in place for years and has become more important in recent months. The PTPA has hired a group of antitrust lawyers to evaluate the structure of tennis. The lawyers are compiling a report on whether the the sport includes elements that are anti-competitive, preparing for a possible litigation with the potential to remake the sport.

Advertisement

The ATP and WTA Tours, which sanction 250-, 500- and 1000-level events as well as the end-of-season Tour Finals, give players a larger share of revenue. There is some disagreement between players and officials over how much it is and the methods of accounting; some player estimates hover around 25 percent, while tour estimates can be in the range of 40 percent. Both remain short of the team equivalents in the United States.

On the ATP Tour, the nine 1000-level tournaments have a profit-sharing agreement that, in addition to prize money, gives players 50 percent of the profits under an agreed-upon accounting formula that sets aside certain revenues and subtracts certain costs, including investments the tournaments make in their facilities. The WTA does not have such an agreement. It outlines a complex prize money formula in its rule book with pages of exceptions, not based on a guaranteed share of overall tour revenues.

The tours have argued that because media rights payments constitute a lower percentage of revenues than at the Grand Slams, and because the costs of putting on tournaments are so high, a 50-50 revenue share would simply turn some tournaments into loss-making entities and make tennis unsustainable as a sport.

James Quinn, one of the antitrust lawyers hired by the PTPA, said he saw serious problems with the model, describing a structure that prevents competition from rival tournaments.

Some events outside the 52-week program of tournaments — which see players earn ranking points as well as money — have official status (the Laver Cup is sanctioned by the ATP). But the remainder, such as the Six Kings Slam in Riyadh, which debuted this year and offered record prize money of over $6million to the winner, are not sanctioned, for now providing only a peripheral form of competition to ruling bodies’ control of the sport.

Advertisement

Jannik Sinner took home the money at the inaugural Six Kings Slam in Riyadh. (Richard Pelham / Getty Images)

The Grand Slams, ATP and WTA insist this is for the best. They see themselves as caretakers of global sport trying to bring some order where chaos might otherwise reign.

Djokovic doesn’t totally disagree. He understands tennis is different from the NBA. He’s led the Player Council at the ATP, which represents male professionals, and he has seen how the sausage gets made and how complicated it is with so many tournaments of all shapes and sizes in so many countries. At the end of the day, he still thinks players deserve more than a 20-percent cut, especially since the Grand Slams don’t make the kinds of contributions to player pension plans or end-of-the-year bonus pools that the ATP does, nor do they provide the year-round support of the WTA.

“It’s not easy to get everybody in the same room and say, ‘OK, let’s agree on a certain percentage,’” he said of the leaders of tournaments.

“We want more money, (but) they maybe don’t want to give us as much money when we talk about the prize money. There are so many different layers of the prize money that you have to look into. It’s not that simple.”

(Photos: Kelly Delfina / Getty Images, Steven / PA via Getty Images; design: Dan Goldfarb)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Culture

6 New Books We Recommend This Week

Published

on

6 New Books We Recommend This Week

Our recommended books this week tilt heavily toward European culture and history, with a new history of the Vikings, a group biography of the Tudor queens’ ladies-in-waiting, a collection of letters from the Romanian-born French poet Paul Celan and a biography of the great German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. We also recommend a fascinating true-crime memoir (written by the criminal in question) and, in fiction, Rebecca Kauffman’s warmhearted new novel about a complicated family. Happy reading. — Gregory Cowles

One of Europe’s most important postwar poets, Celan remains as intriguing as he is perplexing more than 50 years after his death. The autobiographical underpinnings of his work were beyond the reach of general readers until the 1990s, when the thousands of pages of Celan’s letters began to appear. The scholar Bertrand Badiou compiled the poet’s correspondence with his wife, the French graphic artist Gisèle Lestrange-Celan, and that collection is now available for the first time in English, translated by Jason Kavett.

NYRB Poets | Paperback, $28


Wilson’s biography of the German polymath Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) approaches its subject through his masterpiece and life’s work, the verse drama “Faust” — widely considered perhaps the single greatest work of German literature, stuffed to its limits with philosophical and earthy meditations on human existence.

Bloomsbury Continuum | $35

Advertisement

Through a series of vignettes, Kauffman’s fifth novel centers on a woman determined to spend Christmas with her extended family, including her future grandchild and ex-husband, and swivels to take in the perspectives of each family member in turn.


People love the blood-soaked sagas that chronicle the deeds of Viking raiders. But Barraclough, a British historian and broadcaster, looks beyond those soap-opera stories to uncover lesser-known details of Old Norse civilization beginning in A.D. 750 or so.

Norton | $29


Fifteen years ago, Ferrell gained a dubious fame after The New York Observer identified her as the “hipster grifter” who had prowled the Brooklyn bar scene scamming unsuspecting men even as she was wanted in Utah on felony fraud charges. Now older, wiser and released from jail, Ferrell emerges in this captivating, sharp and very funny memoir to detail her path from internet notoriety to self-knowledge.

St. Martin’s | $29

Advertisement

In her lively and vivid group biography of the women who served Henry VIII’s queens, Clarke, a British author and historian, finds a compelling side entrance into the Tudor industrial complex, showing that behind all the grandeur the royal court was human-size and small.

Continue Reading

Trending