Culture
The NHL playoff bandwagon guide to all the teams you could root for, and also Vegas
The playoffs are almost here, and while we’re still waiting on a couple of matchups, we know the 16 teams. If you root for one of them, you’re not reading this because you’re curled up in a little ball, twitching and sweating and trying not to puke. Playoffs, baby!
That leaves the rest of you, the fans of the 16 teams that spent the season being big losers strategically retooling for a brighter future. You’ve got to figure out who to root for over the coming weeks and months. You could skip that part entirely, of course, and just enjoy the playoffs as a neutral observer. You could hate-watch your team’s rivals. Or you could pick and choose, dropping in and out of whichever series looks good and cheering on whoever feels like the right choice in the moment.
Those are all valid options. But there’s another, and it’s a somewhat controversial one: You could pick a bandwagon team to ride with all spring. It’s good practice for the real thing, after all, giving you a taste of the ups and downs of following one team for as long as it can last. And when your team gets knocked out, you can feel bad for 10 minutes before shrugging and moving on to someone else.
If you’re considering a bandwagon team, I’ve got you covered. Here’s my annual look at all 16 playoff teams, ranked from the worst bandwagon options to the very best.
Why you should get on board: You’re a contrarian.
Why you shouldn’t: I’ve been doing these lists long enough that “Don’t root for the defending champs” has almost become a trope. It’s classic front-running, after all, and the rarity of repeat champions in the cap era suggests that it’s also usually futile. So yeah, in general, don’t root for the defending champ.
But these particular champs? Come on. Everyone hates the Golden Knights, the too-much-too-soon expansion team that won’t stop trading for All-Stars and skipped to the front of the line, partly by cheating the salary cap.
Bottom line: The Knights were always a fun pick for a specific type of bandwagon fan back when they were the new guys still trying to defy tradition and buck the odds. But now that they’ve won, this may be the easiest ranking in the history of this column.
Why you should get on board: It’s always fun to pick a wild card that goes on a run, and the Lightning look like a reasonable bet to do just that. And the narrative of the former champs trying to get back to the top of the mountain one more time before it all crumbles is one you could get behind.
Why you shouldn’t: Really, what’s the best-case scenario here? The Lightning pull off an upset or two, maybe even go all the way to the final, and … congratulations, you’re bandwagoning a team that’s already been there three times in four years. It’s all the risk of picking a wild-card team, without any of the fun underdog vibes.
Bottom line: There’s also the Nikita Kucherov factor, which will help or hurt depending on how much you like the idea of an MVP-level wizard who can also come across as kind of a jerk sometimes.
Why you should get on board: They’re a potential underdog, one that everyone seems to be forgetting about but that’s been building to this for years now. It’s not unheard of for teams like the Kings to emerge as contenders, and when they do everyone else is usually just a bit too late to figure out what they’re watching. You could be the one who already had their seat on the bandwagon.
Why you shouldn’t: The Kings peaked early, got some attention and then faded in the second half before finishing strong, so they fit the profile of a team that probably deserves more respect than they’re getting. But that doesn’t mean they’re not underdogs, and riding with them in a first-round matchup against a high-flying team in Dallas or Edmonton may not be your idea of fun.
Bottom line: Speaking of not all that fun, there’s also this whole thing. The Kings are going to rank high on this list some year soon, but that year is not this one.
Why you should get on board: One of the longest-suffering fan bases in the league is back in the playoffs yet again, this time with a crazy new coach to go with their crusty old GM. Nobody is picking them to win anything and their fans know it, so if you like a good “us against the world” story then you may have found your temporary home.
Why you shouldn’t: We won’t break out the dreaded “b” word, but we will point out that no playoff team other than Washington scores less than the Islanders, and their ticket to a long run probably involves riding their goaltending to a bunch of low-scoring wins. Choosing this team to bandwagon would feel just a little like having a cheat day on your diet and choosing to spend it at the salad bar.
Bottom line: If they beat the Hurricanes and go on to play the Rangers in Round 2, you have to get a Denis Potvin jersey. Just keep that in mind.
Why you should get on board: They’re a very good team with plenty of star players, including the likely MVP. And after last year’s first-round disaster against the Kraken, they should be motivated.
Why you shouldn’t: Shaky goaltending has led to a tough final stretch, meaning they’ll start the playoffs on the road against a very good Jets team in a series that’s basically a coin flip. And since they won it all in 2022, you don’t even get any underdog points for picking them.
Bottom line: For sheer fun factor, this roster is pretty stacked. But it’s a bit of a front-runner pick combined with a tough first matchup.
Why you should get on board: They were the top pick for the 2022 list, and an awful lot of what we said back then still holds. They’re a fun team, they’ve never won a Cup, and their fans have had to deal with endless negativity over the last few decades. Heck, they’d probably even welcome some bandwagon love. Oh, and they’re really good, having followed up a 2022 Presidents’ Trophy with a run to last year’s final.
Why you shouldn’t: A few weeks ago I tried to sell you on the Panthers as the NHL’s new team you love to hate, with mixed success. But yeah, between Matthew Tkachuk, Nick Cousins, Sam Bennett and others, you’re going to see them do something nasty over the next few weeks that you’ll have to pretend to defend.
Bottom line: They’re also playing the Lightning, the big brother that’s been kicking sand in their face for years. These guys can’t even villain correctly.
10. New York Rangers
Why you should get on board: They’re the best team in the league, at least according to their regular season record, and a roster stacked with talent appears to agree. But with only one Stanley Cup to show for the last 84 years, you’re hardly chasing after recent success here. If you’re looking for a bandwagon, you could do a lot worse than a big market with a great goalie and lots of star power that will get a ton of coverage.
Why you shouldn’t: The Rangers have been a fascinating team to watch this year, with at least some statistical evidence showing that they may not be as good as their record suggests they are, especially at the even strength that makes up most of how crucial playoff games are played. Then again, we’ve been having that argument for years, and they just keep winning.
Bottom line: Hey, do you feel like the first-place team in the league’s biggest U.S. market still somehow doesn’t get enough attention? Guess what: You do now, so don’t think too hard about it.
Why you should get on board: We say it every year, but it remains true — if you can get past the fact that it’s the Leafs, you’ve got a good team with lots of exciting offensive players, trying to snap a historic drought for one of the sports world’s most loyal fan bases. Remember how much fun it was when the Chicago Cubs finally won the World Series? It would be kind of like that.
Why you shouldn’t: You can’t get past the fact that it’s the Leafs. (Or you can, but you don’t see a path out of the Atlantic for a team with shaky goaltending and a history of postseason failure, which works too.)
Bottom line: There are three types of hockey fans: Insufferable Leafs fans, insufferable fans of other teams whose brains have been broken by the Leafs and fans who can’t understand what the big deal is. Only that third group is eligible here, but if that’s you, there are worse choices. But also better ones.
Why you should get on board: They’re arguably the league’s best second-half story, somehow turning a canceled team outing to a concert into a playoff push that just never stopped. They’ll be underdogs in every series, but have one of the league’s best goalies so they’ll always have a puncher’s chance. They hired a GM with no front-office experience and let him make a bunch of weird moves, and I think we can all agree this copycat league would be more fun if other teams had to follow that strategy.
And remember, they made their only final appearance in 2017 as a wild-card team, so there’s a recent-ish precedent here.
Why you shouldn’t: The U2 thing is cool now, but check back in the conference final if the Predators are still around and you’re hearing about it for the 400th time.
Bottom line: For the record, if you choose the Predators and they make the final, you pretty much have to take a roadie to Nashville.
Why you should get on board: They’re an excellent team that’s a year removed from a record-breaking season and didn’t take much of a step back this year despite losing their beloved franchise player to retirement. Since last year ended with a shocking first-round loss, they still have plenty to prove and don’t feel like an obvious front-runner pick. And while they’re an Original Six team with all the over-the-top pomp and circumstance that involves, they’ve won one Cup since 1972.
Also, David Pastrnak wears weird clothes to the game sometimes, if that’s your thing.
Why you shouldn’t: Brad Marchand. The Jack Edwards farewell tour, which his fans will love but your mileage may vary. Pat Maroon hogging all the Stanley Cups and never letting anyone else have a turn.
Bottom line: Look, I’m a bitter old man with a heart of stone, and even I love the goalie hugs. With Linus Ullmark probably getting traded in the summer, wouldn’t you love to see one last hug as the Cup is being passed around?
(Check back after the first few games of the Leafs series for my column on why goalie hugs should be banned.)
6. Washington Capitals
Why you should get on board: You like underdogs? You don’t get a bigger underdog than this, at least in the parity era. The Capitals were supposed to be rebuilding, with just about nobody picking them as a playoff team heading into the season, or even heading into April. You only bothered to learn their goalie’s name two weeks ago. They earned the last wild-card spot on their season’s final night, despite losing more games than they won and posting the worst goals differential on any postseason team since 1991. Their reward for all that will be a matchup with the Rangers, in a series nobody will think they can win. MoneyPuck has them with 0 percent Cup odds, which I’m not sure I’ve ever seen before. If you believe in no guts no glory, this is your team. Do it. Do it!
Why you shouldn’t: They’re not good.
Bottom line: Oh settle down, Capitals fans, you know it’s true. And it doesn’t matter because all the regular season is for is getting in. They’re in. Now anything can happen, and that’s the beauty of it. DO IT!
(You can pick a new team when they’re out by next weekend, it’s fine.)
Why you should get on board: They were my top pick last year, and not much has changed since. If anything, the Zach Hyman story might make them even more likable. Other than that, go back and read last year’s piece, all the arguments pretty much still apply.
Why you shouldn’t: They added Corey Perry to a team that already includes Evander Kane, so they’re clearly in “anything goes as long as we win” mode. That’s not necessarily a bad place to be if you’re a die-hard fan, but it might give bandwagoners some pause.
Bottom line: You deserve a little bit of cheering for Connor McDavid instead of being terrified of him, as a treat.
Why you should get on board: They’ve spent all year as one of the best teams in the league, but nobody outside of Vancouver seems to actually think they’re good, meaning you get the rare opportunity to bandwagon a top contender while also playing the “nobody believes in us” card. Beyond that, the Canucks are just a flat-out fun team, with all sorts of firepower and some interesting characters. And at 54 years and counting without a Cup, it’s fair to say they’re due.
Why you shouldn’t: Canucks fans have been waiting forever for a Cup, and they’ve been through some legitimate heartbreak along the way, so if they ever do get there, they may not take kindly to any bandwagon fans trying to crowd in on their glory. That’s reasonable, and part of being a good bandwagon fan is knowing your place, but keep it in mind.
Bottom line: Wait, 54 years without a Cup? Didn’t some other team have a famous drought like that, one that ended against … the Canucks? That team could even be the favorite to be waiting for the Canucks in the final. This feels like fate lining up, right? Oh man, I think I just spoiled this year’s playoffs, sorry everyone …
3. Carolina Hurricanes
Why you should get on board: Because the top of these rankings is really Western Conference heavy, and let’s be honest, nobody really wants to stay up that late.
Oh, and also the Hurricanes are a very good team, quite possibly the best in the conference. They have fun players, are well-coached and have a forward-thinking front office. They also have one of the best Old Guy Without A Cup stories of the year in Brent Burns, and an inspiring comeback from Frederik Andersen.
Why you shouldn’t: At some point, Rod Brind’Amour is going to say something that’s going to make you feel bad about your workout habits.
Bottom line: Also, a Hurricanes championship would make Montreal fans mad, which is a plus.
2. Winnipeg Jets
Why you should get on board: One year ago, we all figured they were done for, an inevitable rebuild starting years too late. Today, they’re finishing off a fantastic season, they have the presumptive Vezina winner in net, they were aggressive at the deadline and their coach is the ultimate OGWAC. And they’re doing it all in front of one of the best fan bases in the league, one that has a super-cool playoff tradition but has never seen their Jets get past the third round, and oh yeah, had no team at all for 16 long years.
Also, and Jets fans might not like me mentioning this but it has to be said: All your favorite players have the Jets on their no-trade list. That means that the Jets are building a contender with one hand tied behind their back. A deep run would be extra impressive under those circumstances, and it might also change a few minds.
Why you shouldn’t: They probably have to go through Colorado and Dallas to get out of the Central, which is quite possibly the ugliest playoff path that any team in the league is facing. There’s a very good chance this ends both badly and quickly.
Bottom line: Oh, and the franchise itself is in danger. But don’t let that guilt you into anything, go ahead and cheer for them to lose their team again, it’s not like it makes you a bad person.
1. Dallas Stars
Why you should get on board: They’re an incredibly skilled and entertaining team, they have a very good shot at winning the Stanley Cup, they haven’t won this century so it’s not quite a front-runner pick, and Joe Pavelski may be the single best OGWAC story in the league. Mix in alternate-OGWAC Ryan Suter, plus Matt Duchene’s comeback season, plus Mason Marchment trying to win the Cup that eluded his late father, plus not one but two fun rookie stories, and the Stars are just about the perfect bandwagon pick.
Why you shouldn’t: They’ve been known to cheat to win the Stanley Cup, or so it has been explained to me. Also, they were my pick to win both in October and earlier this week, so if they do then I’ll be even more insufferable than usual.
Bottom line: The Stars have so much going for them that it’s almost annoying, which I suppose could also be a reason to turn on them. But there’s no reason to overthink this one — in a league with a handful of very solid options, the Stars are the best of the bunch.
(Photo of Mark Stone and Connor McDavid: Ethan Miller / Getty Images)
Culture
Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books
Literature
‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot
Who knew that there’s a major George Eliot novel that neither I nor any of my friends had ever heard of?
“Romola” was Eliot’s fourth novel, published between “The Mill on the Floss” (1860) and “Middlemarch” (1870-71). If my friends and I didn’t get this particular memo, and “Romola” is familiar to every Eliot fan but us, please skip the following.
“Romola” isn’t some fluky misfire better left unmentioned in light of Eliot’s greater work. It’s her only historical novel, set in Florence during the Italian Renaissance. It embraces big subjects like power, religion, art and social upheaval, but it’s not dry or overly intellectual. Its central character is a gifted, freethinking young woman named Romola, who enters a marriage so disastrous as to make Anna Karenina’s look relatively good.
It probably matters that many of Eliot’s other books have been adapted into movies or TV series, with actors like Hugh Dancy, Ben Kingsley, Emily Watson and Rufus Sewell. The BBC may be doing even more than we thought to keep classic literature alive. (In 1924, “Romola” was made into a silent movie starring Lillian Gish. It doesn’t seem to have made much difference.)
Anthony Trollope, among others, loved “Romola.” He did, however, warn Eliot against aiming over her readers’ heads, which may help explain its obscurity.
All I can say, really, is that it’s a mystery why some great books stay with us and others don’t.
‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips
This was an Oprah Book of the Week, which probably disqualifies it from B-side status, but it’s not nearly as well known as Phillips’s debut story collection, “Black Tickets” (1979), or her most recent novel, “Night Watch” (2023), which won her a long-overdue Pulitzer Prize.
Phillips has no parallel in her use of potent, stylized language to shine a light into the darkest of corners. In “Quiet Dell,” her only true-crime novel, she’s at the height of her powers, which are particularly apparent when she aims her language laser at horrific events that actually occurred. Her gift for transforming skeevy little lives into what I can only call “Blade Runner” mythology is consistently stunning.
Consider this passage from the opening chapter of “Quiet Dell”:
“Up high the bells are ringing for everyone alive. There are silver and gold and glass bells you can see through, and sleigh bells a hundred years old. My grandmother said there was a whisper for each one dead that year, and a feather drifting for each one waiting to be born.”
The book is full of language like that — and of complex, often chillingly perverse characters. It’s a dark, underrecognized beauty.
‘Solaris’ (1961) by Stanislaw Lem
You could argue that, in America, at least, the Polish writer Stanislaw Lem didn’t produce any A-side novels. You could just as easily argue that that makes all his novels both A-side and B-side.
It’s science fiction. All right?
I love science and speculative fiction, but I know a lot of literary types who take pride in their utter lack of interest in it. I always urge those people to read “Solaris,” which might change their opinions about a vast number of popular books they dismiss as trivial. As far as I know, no one has yet taken me up on that.
“Solaris” involves the crew of a space station continuing the study of an aquatic planet that has long defied analysis by the astrophysicists of Earth. Part of what sets the book apart from a lot of other science-fiction novels is Lem’s respect for enigma. He doesn’t offer contrived explanations in an attempt to seduce readers into suspending disbelief. The crew members start to experience … manifestations? … drawn from their lives and memories. If the planet has any intentions, however, they remain mysterious. All anyone can tell is that their desires and their fears, some of which are summoned from their subconsciousness, are being received and reflected back to them so vividly that it becomes difficult to tell the real from the projected. “Solaris” has the peculiar distinction of having been made into not one but two bad movies. Read the book instead.
‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders
If one of the most significant living American writers had become hypervisible with his 2017 novel, “Lincoln in the Bardo,” we’d go back and read his earlier work, wouldn’t we? Yes, and we may very well have already done so with the story collections “Tenth of December” (2013) and “Pastoralia” (2000). But what if we hadn’t yet read Saunders’s 2013 novella, “Fox 8,” about an unusually intelligent fox who, by listening to a family from outside their windows at night, has learned to understand, and write, in fox-English?: “One day, walking neer one of your Yuman houses, smelling all the interest with snout, I herd, from inside, the most amazing sound. Turns out, what that sound is, was: the Yuman voice, making werds. They sounded grate! They sounded like prety music! I listened to those music werds until the sun went down.”
Once Saunders became more visible to more of us, we’d want to read a book that ventures into the consciousness of a different species (novels tend to be about human beings), that maps the differences and the overlaps in human and animal consciousness, explores the effects of language on consciousness and is great fun.
We’d all have read it by now — right?
‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf
You could argue that Woolf didn’t have any B-sides, and yet it’s hard to deny that more people have read “Mrs. Dalloway” (1925) and “To the Lighthouse” (1927) than have read “The Voyage Out” (1915) or “Monday or Tuesday” (1921). Those, along with “Orlando” (1928) and “The Waves” (1931), are Woolf’s most prominent novels.
Four momentous novels is a considerable number for any writer, even a great one. That said, “Between the Acts,” her last novel, really should be considered the fifth of her significant books. The phrase “embarrassment of riches” comes to mind.
Five great novels by the same author is a lot for any reader to take on. Our reading time is finite. We won’t live long enough to read all the important books, no matter how old we get to be. I don’t expect many readers to be as devoted to Woolf as are the cohort of us who consider her to have been some sort of dark saint of literature and will snatch up any relic we can find. Fanatics like me will have read “Between the Acts” as well as “The Voyage Out,” “Monday or Tuesday” and “Flush” (1933), the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Speaking for myself, I don’t blame anyone who hasn’t gotten to those.
I merely want to add “Between the Acts” to the A-side, lest anyone who’s either new to Woolf or a tourist in Woolf-landia fail to rank it along with the other four contenders.
As briefly as possible: It focuses on an annual village pageant that attempts to convey all of English history in a single evening. The pageant itself interweaves subtly, brilliantly, with the lives of the villagers playing the parts.
It’s one of Woolf’s most lusciously lyrical novels. And it’s a crash course, of sorts, in her genius for conjuring worlds in which the molehill matters as much as the mountain, never mind their differences in size.
It’s also the most accessible of her greatest books. It could work for some as an entry point, in more or less the way William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” (1930) can be the starter book before you go on to “The Sound and the Fury” (1929) or “Absalom, Absalom!” (1936).
As noted, there’s too much for us to read. We do the best we can.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
Culture
6 Poems You Should Know by Heart
Literature
‘Prayer’ (1985) by Galway Kinnell
Whatever happens. Whatever
what is is is what
I want. Only that. But that.
“I typically say Kinnell’s words at the start of my day, as I’m pedaling a traffic-laden path to my office,” says Major Jackson, 57, the author of six books of poetry, including “Razzle Dazzle” (2023). “The poem encourages a calm acceptance of the day’s events but also wants us to embrace the misapprehension and oblivion of life, to avoid probing too deeply for answers to inscrutable questions. I admire what Kinnell does with only 14 words; the repetition of ‘what,’ ‘that’ and ‘is’ would seem to limit the poem’s sentiment but, paradoxically, the poem opens widely to contain all manner of human experience. The three ‘is’es in the middle line give it a symmetry that makes its message feel part of a natural order, and even more convincing. Thanks to the skillful punctuation, pauses and staccato rhythm, a tonal quality of interior reflection emerges. Much like a haiku, it continues after its last words, lingering like the last note played on a piano that slowly fades.”
“Just as I was entering young adulthood, probably slow to claim romantic feelings, a girlfriend copied out a poem by Pablo Neruda and slipped it into an envelope with red lipstick kisses all over it. In turn, I recited this poem. It took me the remainder of that winter to memorize its lines,” says Jackson. “The poem captures the pitch of longing that defines love at its most intense. The speaker in Shakespeare’s most famous sonnet believes the poem creates the beloved, ‘So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.’ (Sonnet 18). In Rilke’s expressive declarations of yearning, the beloved remains elusive. Wherever the speaker looks or travels, she marks his world by her absence. I find this deeply moving.”
“Clifton faced many obstacles, including cancer, a kidney transplant and the loss of her husband and two of her children. Through it all, she crafted a long career as a pre-eminent American poet,” says Jackson. “Her poem ‘won’t you celebrate with me’ is a war cry, an invitation to share in her victories against life’s persistent challenges. The poem is meaningful to all who have had to stare down death in a hospital or had to bereave the passing of close relations. But, even for those who have yet to mourn life’s vicissitudes, the poem is instructive in cultivating resilience and a persevering attitude. I keep coming back to the image of the speaker’s hands and the spirit of steadying oneself in the face of unspeakable storms. She asks in a perfectly attuned gorgeously metrical line, ‘what did i see to be except myself?’”
‘Sonnet 94’ (1609) by William Shakespeare
They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmovèd, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven’s graces
And husband nature’s riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die;
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity.
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
“It’s one of the moments of Western consciousness,” says Frederick Seidel, 90, the author of more than a dozen collections of poetry, including “So What” (2024). “Shakespeare knows and says what he knows.”
“It trombones magnificent, unbearable sorrow,” says Seidel.
“It’s smartass and bitter and bright,” says Seidel.
These interviews have been edited and condensed.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
Culture
Classic and Contemporary Literature From France, Japan, India, the U.K. and Brazil
Literature
FRANCE
According to the writer Leïla Slimani, 44, the author of ‘The Country of Others’ (2020).
Classic
‘Essais de Montaigne’ (‘Essays of Montaigne,’ 1580)
“France is a country of nuance with a love of conversation and freedom and an aversion to fanaticism. It’s also a country built on reflexive subjectivity. Montaigne reveals all that, writing, ‘I am myself the matter of my book.’”
Contemporary
‘La Carte et le Territoire’ (‘The Map and the Territory,’ 2010) by Michel Houellebecq
“Houellebecq describes France as a museum, where landscape turns into décor and where rural areas are emptying out. He shows the gap between the Parisian elite and the rest of the population, which he paints as aging and disoriented by modernity. It’s a melancholic and yet ironic novel about a disenchanted nation.”
JAPAN
According to the writer Yoko Ogawa, 64, the author of ‘The Memory Police’ (1994).
Classic
‘Man’yoshu’ (late eighth century)
“‘Man’yoshu,’ the oldest extant collection of Japanese poetry, reflects a diversity of voices — from emperors to commoners. They bow their heads to the majesty of nature, weep at the loss of loved ones and find pathos in death. The pages pulse with the vitality of successive generations.”
Contemporary
‘Tenohira no Shosetsu’ (‘Palm-of-the-Hand Stories,’ 1923-72) by Yasunari Kawabata
“The essence of Japanese literature might lie in brevity: waka [a classical 31-syllable poetry form], haiku and short stories. There’s a tradition of cherishing words that seem to well up from the depths of the heart, imbued with warmth. Kawabata, too, exudes more charm in his short stories — especially these very short ‘palm-of-the-hand’ stories — than in his full-length novels. Good and evil, beauty and ugliness, love and hate — everything is contained in these modest worlds.”
INDIA
According to Aatish Taseer, 45, a T contributing writer and the author of ‘Stranger to History: A Son’s Journey Through Islamic Lands’ (2009).
Classic
‘The Kumarasambhava’ (‘The Birth of Kumara,’ circa fifth century) by Kalidasa
“This is an epic poem by the greatest of the classical Sanskrit poets and dramatists. The gods are in a pickle. They’re being tormented by a monster, but Shiva, their natural protector, is deep in meditation and cannot be disturbed. Kama, the god of love, armed with his flower bow, is sent down from the heavens to waken Shiva. Never a wise idea! The great god, in his fury, opens his third eye and incinerates Kama. But then, paradoxically, the death of the god of love engenders one of the greatest love stories ever told. In the final canto, Shiva and his wife, the goddess Parvati, have the most electrifying sex for days on end — and, 15 centuries on, in our now censorious time, it still leaves one agog at the sensual wonder that was India.”
Contemporary
‘The Complex’ (2026) by Karan Mahajan
“This state-of-the-nation novel, which was published just last month, captures the squalor and malice of Indian family life. Delhi is both my and Mahajan’s hometown and, in this sprawling homage to India’s capital, we see it on the eve of the economic liberalization of the 1990s, as the old socialist city gives way to a megalopolis of ambition, greed and political cynicism.”
THE UNITED KINGDOM
According to the writer Tessa Hadley, 70, the author of ‘The London Train’ (2011).
Classic
‘Jane Eyre’ (1847) by Charlotte Brontë
“Written almost 200 years ago, it remains an insight into our collective soul — or at least its female part. Somewhere at the heart of us there’s a small girl in a wintry room, curled up in the window seat with a book, watching the lashing rain on the window glass: ‘There was no possibility of taking a walk that day. …’ Jane’s solemnity, her outraged sense of justice, her trials to come, the wild weather outside, her longing for something better, for love in her future: All this speaks, perhaps problematically, to something buried in the foundations of our idea of ourselves.”
Contemporary
‘All That Man Is’ (2016) by David Szalay
“Though he isn’t quite completely British (he’s part Canadian, part Hungarian), Szalay is brilliant at catching certain aspects of British men — aspects that haven’t been written about for a while, now updated for a new era. Funny, exquisitely observed and terrifying, this novel reminds us, too, how absolutely our fate and our identity as a nation belong with the rest of Europe.”
BRAZIL
According to the writer and critic Noemi Jaffe, 64, the author of ‘What Are the Blind Men Dreaming?’ (2016).
Classic
‘Memórias Póstumas de Brás Cubas’ (‘The Posthumous Memoirs of Brás Cubas,’ 1881) by Machado de Assis
“Not only is it experimental in style — very short chapters mixed with long ones; different points of view; narrated by a corpse; metalinguistic — but it also introduces an extremely ironic view of the rising bourgeoisie in Rio de Janeiro at the time, revealing the hypocrisy of slave owners, the falsehood of love affairs and the only true reason for all social relationships: convenience and personal interest. After almost 150 years, it’s still modern, both formally and, unfortunately, also in content.”
Contemporary
‘Onde Pastam os Minotauros’ (‘Where Minotaurs Graze,’ 2023) by Joca Reiners Terron
“The two main characters — Cão and Crente — along with some of their colleagues, plan to escape and set fire to the slaughterhouse where they work under exploitative conditions. The men develop sympathy for the animals they kill, and one of them becomes a sort of philosopher, revealing the sheer nonsense of existence and the injustices of society in the deepest parts of Brazil.”
These interviews have been edited and condensed.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
-
Minneapolis, MN4 minutes agoBetween Minneapolis And Lake Superior Is The ‘Agate Capital Of The World’ With Cozy Charm And A State Park – Islands
-
Indianapolis, IN10 minutes ago1 dead after shooting on Indy’s near south side
-
Pittsburg, PA16 minutes agoGame #22: Tampa Bay Rays vs. Pittsburgh Pirates
-
Augusta, GA22 minutes agoWhat is the cheapest city in Georgia to live with a roomate?
-
Washington, D.C28 minutes ago12th Honor Flight Tallahassee returns home from successful trip to Washington D.C.
-
Cleveland, OH34 minutes agoSupercross: Results From Cleveland, OH
-
Austin, TX40 minutes agoHow Texas’ road, bridge conditions compare to other states
-
Alabama46 minutes agoAlabama edge to pattern his game after 2-time Super Bowl Champ