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

So why did baseball just spend spring training fiddling with a system that will not be used in a single regular-season game this year? It was all about the robot-ump strike-zone experience — “to get people some reps of experiencing the system,” Martinez said, “and seeing how it feels, particularly how the strike zone feels.”
In other words, it all comes down to this:
Every hitter, catcher and pitcher has an idea in his head of what a strike is and what a ball is. So for ABS to work — really work — the electronic strike zone has to feel essentially like the zone baseball players have in their heads.
You know what won’t work? If that zone feels just like some sort of technological creation.
So which was it this spring? Uh, let’s just say it’s a work in progress.
Rogers said that Tigers players had a chance to speak to commissioner Rob Manfred in person this spring. Guess what they asked about most when ABS came up? The strike zone.
“That’s the big thing we talked about with Rob,” Rogers said. “It becomes about: What is the strike zone? It’s the oldest rule in baseball. And then, when you start kind of tweaking it a little bit, it becomes different.”
Here’s what confused players the most, he said. As part of the ABS education process this spring, players were given an iPad that allowed them to review every pitch of a game, to see if the robot umps would have called it a strike or a ball. But they continued to get their usual postgame reports, looking at whether those same pitches were in or out of the zone — and they weren’t the same.
“It’s crazy,” Rogers said, “because on ABS, you look at the iPad … and (the pitch is) half an inch below the zone. And then we get our report back with the old strike zone, and it’s a full ball in the zone. So it’s like, wow, it looks like a strike. It feels like a strike. And all of a sudden, you’re thinking: Do you challenge, or do you not challenge? So you go back and look at it, and it’s a ball (on ABS).”
There’s a reason for that — even beyond the different technologies involved. Human umps are still being graded with a buffer zone that gives them wiggle room if a pitch is barely off the rule-book strike zone. But robot umps don’t know a buffer from a muffler. So a ball is either in the zone or out. Period.
Is that good? Is that what we all want? You won’t be surprised to learn that one player with some thoughts on that topic is Max Scherzer.
In his recent appearance on the Starkville podcast with me and Doug Glanville, Scherzer said one thing he’d like to see is “a buffer zone, maybe around the challenge system. So hey, if you challenge and it’s in the buffer, the call stands. So you keep human power, the human element, still with the umpire.
“I’m OK changing the call when it’s an egregious call,” the Blue Jays’ future Hall of Famer said. “But when we’re talking about a quarter of an inch that you can’t really detect it, I don’t necessarily know if that makes the game better.”
But when I mentioned Scherzer’s idea to an executive from an American League club, he swatted it away like a mosquito. What’s the point of honing the best technology, he wondered, if we’re then going to ignore it by dropping in a buffer zone?
“I think they’ve done enough research on it to come up with the right zone,” he said. “So I don’t think there needs to be a buffer zone. I think this ABS zone is very clear, very definitive. So I would not be in favor of a buffer zone. It’s just, that’s the strike zone. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere.”
What the powers that be would say is: What’s the difference between this and tennis? If a ball lands a 16th of an inch outside the line in the U.S. Open finals, you know what they’d call that — using the same Hawk-Eye technology? Out.
But when I ran that logic past one player this spring, he said: “This is not tennis. Tennis doesn’t have a catcher, right? There’s a reason why.”
GO DEEPER
Trea Turner challenges first pitch of the day from Max Scherzer
Max Scherzer would like to see a “buffer zone” incorporated into the ABS challenge system. (Jonathan Dyer / Imagn Images)
Did fans really boo the robots?
Boooooo.
Wait. Did I just hear what I thought I heard? It was a Feb. 28 game between the Phillies and Red Sox. Phillies center fielder Brandon Marsh had just taken a 2-and-2 fastball, slightly off the inside corner, from Red Sox ace Garret Crochet. So the count was full. Or was it?
Boston catcher Seby Zavala tapped his helmet. The robot-ump challenge cartoon played on the videoboard — and turned that ball three into strike three, much to the delight of …
Nobody watching this in the Phillies’ home ballpark, apparently — at least judging by that sound: Boooooo.
An inning later, there were still more boos when Realmuto and Red Sox prospect Marcelo Mayer challenged back-to-back pitches in the same at-bat, and both were called balls by the robot ump, handing Mayer a five-pitch walk.
“Did I really hear those fans booing the robot?” I asked Realmuto later.
“Well, it’s Philly, so there’s no telling what they were booing,” he said. “I think they were booing the batter for challenging. I know that they booed that. And then they also booed when I challenged and it ended up being a ball. So yeah, I guess they were booing the robot.”
How cool is it to win a challenge? The thrill of victory!
Dylan Carlson, aka the MVC (Most Valuable Challenger). (Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images)
A minor-league manager told me last year that there was a lot more riding on these challenges than balls and strikes.
“It’s like a baseball IQ test for the players,” he said. “You really find out who knows the strike zone and who doesn’t.”
So what did we learn about baseball IQ this spring? That catchers (of course) are baseball geniuses, the group that got the most challenges correct … and pitchers, um, not so much. But the hitters? According to preliminary data, they were somewhere in the middle.
That isn’t all we learned, though. For the hitters who consistently aced their challenges, that thrill of victory was the coolest thing ever.
Heading into this spring, Orioles outfielder Dylan Carlson didn’t figure he’d challenge much. But that was before he turned into the MVC (Most Valuable Challenger) of the whole darned spring.
In a span of a week and a half, he challenged four called third strikes — and got all four overturned. Two of them came in one game against the Twins. Three of them were on 3-2 pitches, so they magically transformed strikeouts into walks. And the fourth was on a 2-2 pitch, which canceled a strikeout and led to another walk.
And after that, he said with a laugh, “They kind of gave me the green light to use it whenever I wanted.”
So Carlson went into the final weekend of spring training with more than twice as many walks (eight) as strikeouts (three). If this hadn’t been The Spring of the Robot Ump, he’d have had more strikeouts (seven) than walks (four). And his on-base percentage would have been over 100 points lower (at .351 instead of .459).
You think that guy is a fan of this robot-ump thing, or what?
“For me personally,” he said, “just the swings — going from strikeouts to getting on base — a lot of those were leading off innings. So it kind of changes the whole inning in some ways. You get a leadoff runner on, right? Then it’s go time. So it’s been interesting, for sure.”
All spring, I’ve watched players challenge, then turn their attention to the ABS cartoon on the videoboard. They couldn’t have been paying closer attention if that board was telling them whether they’d just won 10 million bucks. So I asked Carlson to describe the feeling — of paying rapt attention to that animation and then finding out he was right … again.
“So actually, every time I’ve challenged,” he said, “I’ve asked the catcher too: ‘Hey, was that a strike?’ And every time they’ve all said yes. So I’ve been a little nervous looking up at the board. But fortunately, they’ve all gone my way.”
Which beats the alternative, obviously. Speaking of which …
How brutal is it to lose a big challenge? The agony of defeat!
Even in subdued spring training, real humans are playing. And sometimes, their future is riding on these games. So when you’re a pitcher, on the fringe of a big-league roster (or hoping to get there someday), and you lose a challenge, is that just a “get-the-call-right” moment? Or is it more?
Yankees manager Aaron Boone thinks it can often be more. There is always an emotional component to these games. And just last week, he saw a game change on a challenge — and a swing of emotion.
It was the sixth inning of a game against the Red Sox. Right-hander Geoff Hartlieb was on the mound. Pitching with a two-run lead, Hartlieb got the first two hitters out, then thought he’d dotted the outside corner with a 2-and-2 fastball to Kristian Campbell.
The home-plate ump, Roberto Ortiz, pumped his fist. Strike three. Campbell had other ideas and tapped his helmet. The ABS animation rolled. The robots ruled the pitch was a millimeter off the plate. So this inning wasn’t over. Want to guess what happened next?
On the next pitch, Campbell walked. Then the next hitter, Masataka Yoshida, pumped a game-tying homer. Boone was steaming.
“Strike three, pitcher walking off the mound,” Boone grumbled the next day. “Oh. Challenge. Overturned. So it’s like, you’ve got a pitcher getting out of an inning. Makes a pitch. Walking off. Boom. Oh, no. Next pitch, home run.
“I just don’t like it, honestly,” he said. “I feel like the umpires are getting so good — and look, I know I’m the poster child, sometimes, for arguing — but literally, sometimes I’m arguing when they’re missing by, like, (a fraction of an inch). But I feel like more and more, these umpires are really good. And just the frivolous challenge — like the 1-1 pitch in the second inning. It’s stop … ball … challenge … 2-and-1 … no wait, 1-and-2. I just don’t like it.”
So, because he brought this up …
A moment of silence for managerial ejections
There once was a time when I would have paid to go to the ballpark and watch Lou Piniella, Bobby Cox or Don Zimmer get booted from a game by their favorite men in blue. Old-school baseball didn’t get more entertaining than that.
But now? We’re in serious jeopardy of never seeing another manager ejected from any game again — if those robot umps take over the world.
We’ve already gotten a preview of where this could be heading, thanks to instant replay. As recently as 2011, there were nearly 50 ejections across MLB solely because of calls on the bases, according to research by Retrosheet founder Dave Smith. Then replay arrived in 2014 — and by 2019, there was only one ejection, over a call on the bases, all season.
So the good old-fashioned managerial ejection tirade was already in trouble even before the looming arrival of ABS in any form. Ejection legend Bobby Cox once got thrown out of 11 games in one season. Dave Roberts has been managing for a decade — and has 12 ejections in his whole career.
According to Retrosheet, more than 70 percent of all ejections these days revolve around ball/strike “disagreements.” So what happens in a world where we suddenly start getting all the “big” ball/strike calls right? Will any of these managers ever get heaved out of a game again?
“I only get ejected once or twice a year anyway,” said the Tigers’ A.J. Hinch. “But you know, it’s funny. All the veteran managers have always told me: ‘Your job is to manage the game, not manage a game from your desk in your office.’ So yeah, you’re right. It’s getting harder and harder to get ejected. I mean, what do I argue about?”
But you’ll be heartened to know that Boone — the self-professed “poster boy” for arguing, and a guy who has led his league in ejections four seasons in a row — is not ready to concede his tirade days are over.
If this happens, I told him, he’ll never get thrown out of another game.
“That’s not true,” he promised. “I’ll find something.”
Phew!
Would ABS end manager ejections? Aaron Boone would like a word. (Jayne Kamin-Oncea / Imagn Images)
What will broadcasters talk about?
You think it’s easy talking about baseball games into a microphone for three hours every night? It’s a great gig, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. So perhaps you’ve noticed that there’s a certain topic that’s pretty much guaranteed to come up every darned game. By which I mean …
C’mon. That pitch is not a strike/ball. How could he miss that pitch?
Have you ever wondered how many broadcast hours the work of the home-plate umpire has consumed over the past 50 years? Might be a million hours. Possibly a billion. Does Statcast track that stuff? It should.
But now imagine how different the life of the average broadcaster might be if some sort of technology was invented that would get every ball-strike call right — or at least the biggest ball-strike calls right. I can assure you that thought occurred to many a broadcaster this spring … when that technology suddenly arrived.
So I sought out Larry Andersen, the always-entertaining radio color analyst for the Phillies, a guy who has been known to express a few (affectionate) opinions about men standing behind home plate wearing blue jackets.
The Athletic: “I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but I’ve listened to you call games a few times. You don’t seem like you’re normally that happy with the umpires’ work beyond the plate. Would that be fair?”
Andersen: “That would be fair. I would say I’m not. But this is going to sound crazy, because they drive me nuts, but it’s gotten worse since they put the (strike-zone) box on TV.”
That, he said, is because now that there’s a depiction of the strike zone on the screen, it’s hard not to notice when a pitch misses that box “by 6 inches” and still gets called a strike. So guess what? He might mention that.
But Andersen also isn’t convinced (with good reason) that those TV boxes are totally accurate. Whereas the ABS rectangle is going to be basically 100 percent accurate, even if it might not correspond exactly to how humans call balls and strikes. So back to our original question.
TA: “So if we suddenly got every ball/strike call right in this sport, what would you talk about all night?”
Andersen: “Well, it would probably turn my wrath onto the players. And I don’t want to do that.”
TA: “Right. At least when you’re ripping the umpires, you’re a man of the people, because the people are with you on that. So if you weren’t ripping the umpires every night, what would happen?
Andersen: “It would really put a damper on my broadcasting career.”
So let’s ask this again, in a different context: Is that what you want? You know where to find me if you have some thoughts on that.
Thirteen of the 23 spring training ballparks were part of MLB’s ABS test. So, what’s next? (Mike Lang / Sarasota Herald-Tribune / USA Today Network via Imagn Images)
Are we sure this is what we want?
All right, let’s end where we began — with Alex Cora’s Game 7 dream/nightmare.
Game 7 of the World Series. Two outs in the ninth. Bases loaded. Here comes the 3-2 pitch. It pops the mitt. Strike three. You just won the World Series. Or did you?
Here comes the challenge animation. Was that pitch really 1-78th of an inch off the plate? According to ABS, it was. So don’t pop that champagne yet. This game is tied – thanks to those emotionless robot umps.
“I think most people would say: Well, it’s a ball, so it should be called a ball, and if that’s what determines the World Series, you should still call it,” said an executive of one contender.
He then rolled back the clock two springs and brought up the arrival of the pitch clock. Didn’t we hear the same stuff about the pitch clock? Would we really let a postseason game end on a clock violation?
“So what you described could be a possibility,” he said. “But I think the likelihood of that happening is pretty low.”
Then again, it’s not zero. Do we really want a World Series decided by a pitch that’s literally the width of a hair off the plate? I asked that question of an AL exec. He swatted it away like a piece of lint.
“Maybe just get the call right,” he said. “I mean, that’s not the ideal use of the system, but I heard the same argument when we went to replay. Hey, play at the plate. It’s bang, bang. The umpire rules him out. But we go to a replay. We wait. No, he’s actually safe. Game’s over. You win the World Series. What’s the difference? It’s the exact same thing.”
Is it, though? Of course, most want to use technology to make the game better. Of course, we want to get as many calls right as possible. Why wouldn’t we?
But I’ve spent all spring listening to people wonder whether we’re really making the sport better by using technology to decide ball/strike calls that are so close, the human eye can’t even detect them. It all depends, said another AL exec, on what the true goal is.
“I think the functionality of the system is great,” he said. “And it has worked seamlessly. But I do wonder a little bit: What are we trying to accomplish?”
When the sport first began testing ABS, he said, one of the big goals was to try to create a fixed strike zone that could reduce the strikeout rate and create more balls in play. Great idea. Never got there. No matter how the league adjusted the zone, no one ever figured out a variation that made more action happen.
“So that was the initial intent of the automated strike zone,” the exec said. “It has now morphed to (something else.) So I’m wondering: Is the focus now to try to get as many calls right as possible? Because if that’s really the goal, is it worth it? I’m not quite sure.”
You know who else is asking that question? Max Scherzer.
“Go back and look at the (2024) postseason,” Scherzer said on Starkville. “Are we really talking about (anything that) happened with the home-plate umpires and strikes or balls? No, I don’t think so. So what problem are we really solving?”
He, too, has seen the data that shows home-plate umpires are more accurate than ever. So use this technology, he said. Just use it to grade the umpires and make them even more accurate. But don’t fix what isn’t broken.
“We’re not saying there’s a problem,” Scherzer said. “We said in the postseason, there wasn’t a problem. Do we really need to be trying to change a fundamental part of the baseball experience? Pitching? Catching? I don’t think so. So that’s where I’m skeptical. That’s where I think, as an industry, we just need to have a conversation.”
But guess what? No matter how that conversation goes, it’s not going to keep the robot umps from invading one of these years. So let’s embrace those robots — and even boo them just to see if robots have feelings. But between now and the day they arrive for good, let’s also ask that fundamental question:
What’s the true goal here? What are we trying to accomplish?
Technology is awesome. Robots are the future. And right calls are better than wrong calls. But is the sport truly better off if a World Series gets decided on a pitch 1-78th of an inch outside a robotized strike zone? The answers are so much harder than the questions.
(Top photo: Christian Petersen / Getty Images)
Culture
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
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoGame 21: Tigers at Red Sox, Garrett Crochet battles both Detroit and the weather
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoWhy do gray whales keep dying in San Francisco’s waters?
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoDallas Mavericks Owners Might Be Making Big Mistake in Search for New GM
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoDefense dominates, Mensah flashes in Miami’s spring game – The Miami Hurricane
-
Boston, MA2 hours ago
A crowd scientist is helping the Boston Marathon manage a growing field of 30,000-plus runners
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDenver Nuggets Altitude broadcasts now being offered in Spanish for first time ever
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoNeed to shred? Free drive-up/ride-up shredding Wednesday at Village Green West Seattle
-
San Diego, CA2 hours agoGame 21: San Diego Padres at Los Angeles Angels