Connect with us

Culture

Wim Fissette and Iga Swiatek’s partnership: What to expect and how he coaches players

Published

on

Wim Fissette and Iga Swiatek’s partnership: What to expect and how he coaches players

What happens when you pair the best player on the WTA Tour with one of its most decorated coaches?

That was the question in October, when then world No. 1 Iga Swiatek brought on Wim Fissette as her head coach. Fissette, a cerebral 44-year-old from Belgium, is widely considered one of the top coaches on the women’s tour after achieving so much success with such a range of players.

Fissette, who never cracked the top 1,000 as a player in the 1990s and early 2000s, has excelled as a coach ever since his first job with compatriot Kim Clijsters. At 29, he coached Clijsters when she won the 2009 U.S. Open having only just returned from maternity leave, and was in her corner for three major titles in total.

He has since coached an all-star list of players, taking in Sabine Lisicki, Simona Halep, Victoria Azarenka (twice), Petra Kvitova, Sara Errani, Johanna Konta, Angelique Kerber, Zheng Qinwen and most recently Naomi Osaka. Fissette and Osaka split in September when she replaced him with the other most celebrated coach on the WTA Tour, Patrick Mouratoglou.

Under Fissette’s guidance, Osaka won the 2020 U.S. Open and 2021 Australian Open, taking his Grand Slam total as a coach to six after Kerber’s Wimbledon win of 2018. He also took both Lisicki (2013 Wimbledon) and Halep (2014 French Open) to their first Grand Slam finals. In 2017, he helped Konta win the WTA 1000 Miami Open and reach the Wimbledon semifinals for the first time, achieving a career-high ranking of No. 4.

Advertisement

His first tournament with Swiatek sees him tasked with defending a title and helping to orchestrate a possible return to the top of the world rankings after she relinquished the No. 1 slot to Aryna Sabalenka having dropped points for missing mandatory tournaments. She opens her WTA Tour Finals campaign in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia against Wimbledon champion Barbora Krejcikova, in a round-robin group also containing Coco Gauff and Jessica Pegula, the latter of whom Swiatek thrashed to win last year’s event in Cancun, Mexico.

Despite his reputation and glittering CV, Fissette has remained largely anonymous, in one of few sports where it is possible for an elite coach to keep a low media profile. It’s players who conduct post-match interviews and press conferences, unlike football in which, while players will speak, it’s the manager’s opinion and feelings that are sought after every win, draw, or defeat.


Wim Fissette and Iga Swiatek’s first event together is the WTA Tour Finals. (Robert Prange / Getty Images)

Speaking to those who have worked with Fissette and seen him operate up close, as well as sources close to Swiatek, some of whom have spoken anonymously to protect relationships, The Athletic has taken a deeper look at how the Belgian operates to understand one of the most exciting coaching partnerships in recent memory as it moves from the practice courts to a stadium for the first time.

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

After two years of chaos, Garbine Muguruza seeks WTA Tour Finals normality in Riyadh


There is an alchemy in the coach-player relationship that makes it not always so easy to predict, even with someone as experienced and adaptable as Fissette. Players frequently talk about their partnership with a coach in romantic terms, making the point that sometimes you click with someone, sometimes you don’t.

Advertisement

And every player needs a different kind of coach. At the Laver Cup in September, the American world No. 15 Frances Tiafoe explained his partnership with new coach David Witt, who formerly worked with U.S. Open finalist Jessica Pegula and before that Maria Sakkari.

“I’m definitely a unique personality, especially in this sport, and someone needs to push me and hold me accountable but also make it fun for me,” Tiafoe said in a news conference.

“I’m a guy where, if you come at me with a drill-sergeant-type mentality, I’m going to go the other way.”

“So much is about the chemistry,” Daniela Hantuchova, the former world No 5 said in a recent phone interview.

“I always felt that you could never tell how it would feel with a coach until you’d worked with them for a few months and you understood their personality, and how they work.

Advertisement

“He (Fissette) is a very impressive coach but just because it works for someone else doesn’t mean it will work for you. It’s very personal.”

When Swiatek split with coach Tomasz Wiktorowski in early October, well-placed sources within women’s tennis tipped Fissette to replace him, given his availability and Swiatek’s apparent willingness to rip up the formula that won her four out of her five Grand Slams. Since winning a third consecutive French Open in June, Swiatek’s performances and results have been patchy, and she’s spoken a few times of mental and physical exhaustion.

After discussions and analysis with her team, Swiatek approached Fissette for talks which drew her to his keenness to learn and develop.

“Iga was keen on working with someone who is open-minded, a good leader but a team player at the same time,” a member of her team told The Athletic.

“They both are very eager to constantly work on themselves, so they have a similar mindset. That’s why Iga believes they can get along well. His great experience with Grand Slam champions and other players who were ranked No 1 in the world was an additional advantage.”

Advertisement

‘Emotional intelligence’ is a phrase that sticks to Fissette, who combines it with an appreciation for data and statistics that goes all the way back to his first job as a coach: helping Clijsters win the 2009 U.S. Open in only her third tournament back after giving birth to her daughter, Jada.


Wim Fissette (left) with Kim Clijsters after she won the Miami Open title in 2010. (Clive Brunskill / Getty Images)

John Dolan was Clijsters’ manager at the time.

“Wim is an amazing coach. Very emotionally intelligent, and he can adapt his personality to the player he’s working with,” Dolan, a long-time WTA media liaison who is now the head of media for the British Lawn Tennis Association, said in an interview last month.

“He was a very good listener, and doesn’t talk a lot like some people. When he does say something it carries real importance and over the last 15 years his coaching credentials speak for themselves.

“If you’re a player how can you not listen to him?”

Advertisement

Knowing when to push and when to pull back is a key skill of any coach. Fissette is no hype man, so when he does really try to motivate his players, the effect is greater. With Clijsters, at her first tournament back in Cincinnati, she came to her coach with doubts about whether she was really good enough to compete. In an interview with Essentially Sports in 2018, Fissette said he told Clijsters that “there’s really nobody that is able to beat you when you’re going to be at your best.”

Ahead of her U.S. Open semifinal against Serena Williams, a player Clijsters had only beaten once in eight meetings prior, Fissette focused on not worrying and exploiting Williams’ weaknesses. Clijsters won 6-4, 7-5 in a match overshadowed by Williams being given a point penalty when down match point. Fissette had earlier that season bet Clijsters that if she won the tournament, he would shave his head. Both did their part in the deal.

“It sounds obvious but he knows how to work with tennis players,” Dolan said. “Some other coaches haven’t quite learned that reading the player is such a big part of it and a lot of coaches don’t have that. They focus too much on themselves.”


When Naomi Osaka began discussing who would coach her on her return to the tour after giving birth, reuniting with Fissette was the obvious choice. He did not say yes straight away.

He pushed Osaka on how her comeback would work and why it would be different to previous comebacks in 2021 and 2022 which ended prematurely. In the end, the second edition of Osaka-Fissette lasted just under a year.

Advertisement

An official at the WTA, who requested anonymity to protect relationships, outlined Fissette’s directness.

“He’s absolutely not a cheerleader,” they said.

“He’s very honest, and that is something some players aren’t used to all the time. He’ll say, ‘I have some ideas. If you’re open to that this is going to work — if you’re not going to be open to criticism, then it’s not.’”

“When you put in the effort, I make sure to praise it, while still being critical of errors,” Fissette writes on his website.

“I’m always looking for ways to make you better than the day before. Be positive, be better.”

Advertisement

Fissette undoubtedly has a ruthless streak. He joined up with Osaka in September 2023 having just taken Zheng to her first Grand Slam quarterfinal at the U.S. Open. Zheng said she was blindsided and heartbroken; Fissette told The Athletic in January that he was going to stop coaching Zheng regardless of Osaka. He had nothing but praise for Zheng — “a super nice girl” who always worked hard — but said that they did not click.


Wim Fissette (crouching) with Naomi Osaka in Los Angeles earlier this year. (Matt Futterman / The Athletic).

Similarly, in 2018, Fissette split with Kerber towards the end of what had been a very successful year and reunited with Azarenka shortly after. A terse statement from Kerber at the time read: “Wim Fissette is — with immediate effect — exempted from his duties as coach of Angelique Kerber. In spite of the successful cooperation since the beginning of the season, this step is necessary due to differences of opinion regarding the future of the alignment.”

A year earlier, Fissette and Konta split, with the former saying in an interview with the Times of London: “It was a good match but not a perfect match. We are kind of different and we see things a little different.”

The split was amicable with the now de rigueur posts on social media praising each other; Konta was unavailable for interview for this piece when asked by The Athletic.

Fissette’s willingness to curtail a partnership that doesn’t work — which players will share — stands in apparent contrast to the depth to which he will tailor his approach to a player’s needs. He is “very tour-friendly,” the WTA official said.

Advertisement

“He sees coaching as an art form. He understands how it works and really cares about what he does,” they added.

Fissette would get so nervous during Konta’s matches that he would have to go for a run afterwards to unwind.

In an interview with ESPN.com in 2018, Fissette detailed the spectrum on which his players would understand their own matches, with Azarenka’s desire for large amounts of data contrasting to Kerber wanting “two, three important things.”

This was partly a determination of style: Kerber’s at-times scarcely believable ability to turn defense into attack was reliant on knowledge of an opponent’s preferred attacking shots and patterns, allowing her to be strategically proactive rather than merely reacting to the ball in front of her.

When he was coaching Konta, Fissette was more prescriptive than usual. She liked clear messaging and so Fissette would have her recite the gameplan and a few key thoughts to him and herself before she went on court. But Konta was more lighthearted before matches than some of the players he’d worked with, so Fissette lent into that too. “We all tell jokes. Everybody is different,” Fissette told the Press Association during Konta’s run to the Wimbledon semifinals in 2017.

Advertisement

This is true of Fissette himself, who modelled his game on counter-punching as a player but has since made aggression one of the key tenets of his coaching. On the way to Kerber’s win at Wimbledon in 2018, he told her to up her aggression more than usual in moments where she would feel compelled to be safe; he used a similar strategy with Osaka when she came within a point of knocking Swiatek out of this year’s French Open.

“The way you think about tennis and play tennis trickles down into how you coach and how you play tennis,” Filip Dewulf said in a phone interview earlier this month.

Dewulf, 52, is a former French Open semifinalist and world No. 39; he was playing when Fissette was trying to make it on the ATP Tour. They got to know each other then and live near each other in Belgium, sometimes meeting for a drink and a catch-up.


Wim Fissette and Angelique Kerber celebrating victory at Wimbledon in 2018. (Clive Mason / Getty Images)

“He’s very data-driven. Both about his own player but also the opponent. He is preparing himself really well every match, and every practice, looking at the numbers every day,” Dewulf said.

Fissette would use an iPad between sets when coaching Kerber, and his use of data combined with the emotional intelligence that Dewulf, like most people interviewed for this article, cites as key to his success results in a drive to improve and develop, but with a real end result. Developing but losing is not Fissette’s goal.

Advertisement

“We had three nice years, we won two slams, and it was really good. But I was, in some ways, disappointed,” he told The Athletic in January of his first stint with Osaka.


How these coaching philosophies will translate into Swiatek’s game, mentality, and team will unfold over time, but those who have worked with him offer perspectives on where he fits into her way of approaching tennis. Dewulf has labelled Fissette as a “good organizer” with the ability to analyze an existing partnership from a removed perspective, appreciating its strengths while looking into its weaknesses.

Konta and Azarenka worked with a mental coach and psychologist respectively while Fissette coached them; at the very start of their first partnership in 2020, Osaka was in a dark place. She had lost to Coco Gauff in the Australian Open third round as the defending champion, and then lost her good friend Kobe Bryant, who died shortly after. The COVID-19 pandemic led to tennis being stopped a couple of months later, but Osaka found the equilibrium to win that year’s U.S. Open in September 2020 and then the Australian Open the following year.

“If they have been the same way for a long time, he works out what the weakness are and he gets other people in to get a better team around them,” Dewulf said.

This will be an interesting sub-plot with Swiatek, who has a number of longstanding team members including psychologist Daria Abramowicz. Fissette has been known to experiment: he and Osaka’s team brought in ballet dancer Simone Elliott to help her improve her movement.

Advertisement

Swiatek has said that tactical and technical adaptations to her game will come in the off-season, with too little time between hiring Fissette and the Tour Finals to implement meaningful changes, but she has already discussed what is coming.

“I for sure want to improve my serve, as I’ve been doing for past years,” she said in a news conference in Riyadh. “I think tactically there are many ways I could go and have more variety on court. Wim has some nice ideas.”

Swiatek has added more speed to her serve and abbreviated her motion in 2024, but recent defeats have been marked by an inability to change the momentum of matches, too often trying to hit through opponents in the way that usually wins her matches, instead of changing tempo or adding margin with topspin — one of her great strengths — to earn an easier ball back. This simplification of her game, introduced by Wiktorowski, brought her great success and continues to do so; it still needs an alternative for when it isn’t quite working.

Fissette worked with Kerber and Azarenka extensively on their serves, and spent time with Osaka trying to develop an aggressive open-stance backhand — a shot that a handful of players, including Swiatek, can perform reliably.

chart visualization

As Swiatek heads into defending her WTA Tour Finals title, Fissette’s generally quick starts may prove a boon. Clijsters is the most obvious example but Konta won Miami, the biggest title of her career, within a few months of working with him. Lisicki was a shock Wimbledon finalist after an even shorter time working with Fissette, while Halep reached her first Grand Slam quarterfinal in her first major with Fissette, before reaching the French Open final in her second.

This instant impact is something a few observers have pointed to as a Fissette trademark.

Advertisement

Ultimately, it’s Fissette’s record of success that sets him apart, says his coaching rival Mouratoglou, who won 10 Grand Slams with Serena Williams between 2012 and 2017. “I judge the quality of a coach on the results,” Mouratoglou said from France via a Zoom interview this week.

There are some guys who make results and some guys who don’t, and some who do it sometimes. It’s the same if you look at the football, there are a few coaches every time they take a team — success. Of course, they’re great teams, but with other coaches, they wouldn’t make that success.”

“I have a good relationship with him, he’s one of the guys that I’m always happy to see even though we are in competition,” Mouratoglou said.

“I think we have very different personalities but it’s good that there are different options for the players.”

One undoubted advantage is how intimately Fissette knows a number of Swatek’s rivals from working with them. Coaching Osaka at the 2020 U.S. Open final, Fissette felt as though he could predict every shot that Azarenka was going to hit. He will now be able to tell Swiatek precisely what her opponents will be anticipating from her because he was in the role of anticipator for Osaka only a few months ago.

Advertisement

Fissette’s expertise on the WTA Tour leads to the inevitable question about why he has never coached a male player, but the answer is that the opportunity hasn’t come up. He is open to doing so but his early success with Clijsters led to job offers on the women’s side and that’s how it’s been ever since. It’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t be a success there, given what he’s achieved in 15 years on the WTA side.

It feels difficult to envisage a situation where the partnering of two such elite practitioners won’t equate to success either in the medium term or more immediately, like some of Fissette’s previous partnerships. What makes tennis so exciting is not quite knowing how things will go — even if this feels like the closest thing to a sure bet.

(Top photo: Robert Prange / Getty Images)

Culture

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

Published

on

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

Advertisement

Let’s memorize a poem! Not because it’s good for us or because we think we should, but because it’s fun, a mental challenge with a solid aesthetic reward. You can amuse yourself, impress your friends and maybe discover that your way of thinking about the world — or even, as you’ll see, the universe — has shifted a bit.

Over the next five days, we’ll look closely at a great poem by one of our favorite poets, and we’ll have games, readings and lots of encouragement to help you learn it by heart. Some of you know how this works: Last year more Times readers than we could count memorized a jaunty 18-line recap of an all-night ferry ride. (If you missed that adventure, it’s not too late to embark. The ticket is still valid.)

This time, we’re training our telescopes on W.H. Auden’s “The More Loving One” — a clever, compact meditation on love, disappointment and the night sky.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

The More Loving One by W.H. Auden 

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well 

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

But on earth indifference is the least 

Advertisement

We have to dread from man or beast. 

Matthew McConaughey, actor and poet

In four short lines we get a brisk, cynical tour of the universe: hell and the heavens, people and animals, coldness and cruelty. Commonplace observations — that the stars are distant; that life can be dangerous — are wound into a charming, provocative insight. The tone is conversational, mixing decorum and mild profanity in a manner that makes it a pleasure to keep reading.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

How should we like it were stars to burn 

With a passion for us we could not return? 

If equal affection cannot be, 

Let the more loving one be me. 

Advertisement

Tracy K. Smith, poet

These lines abruptly shift the focus from astronomy to love, from the universal to the personal. Imagine how it would feel if the stars had massive, unrequited crushes on us! The speaker, couching his skepticism in a coy, hypothetical question, seems certain that we wouldn’t like this at all.

This certainty leads him to a remarkable confession, a moment of startling vulnerability. The poem’s title, “The More Loving One,” is restated with sweet, disarming frankness. Our friend is wearing his heart on his well-tailored sleeve.

Advertisement

The poem could end right there: two stanzas, point and counterpoint, about how we appreciate the stars in spite of their indifference because we would rather love than be loved.

But the third stanza takes it all back. Here’s Alison Bechdel reading it:

Advertisement

Admirer as I think I am 

Of stars that do not give a damn, 

I cannot, now I see them, say 

Advertisement

I missed one terribly all day. 

Alison Bechdel, graphic novelist

The speaker downgrades his foolish devotion to qualified admiration. No sooner has he established himself as “the more loving one” than he gives us — and perhaps himself — reason to doubt his ardor. He likes the stars fine, he guesses, but not so much as to think about them when they aren’t around.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

Were all stars to disappear or die, 

I should learn to look at an empty sky 

And feel its total dark sublime, 

Though this might take me a little time. 

Advertisement

Yiyun Li, author

Wounded defiance gives way to a more rueful, resigned state of mind. If the universe were to snuff out its lights entirely, the speaker reckons he would find beauty in the void. A starless sky would make him just as happy.

Though perhaps, like so many spurned lovers before and after, he protests a little too much. Every fan of popular music knows that a song about how you don’t care that your baby left you is usually saying the opposite.

Advertisement

The last line puts a brave face on heartbreak.

So there you have it. In just 16 lines, this poem manages to be somber and funny, transparent and elusive. But there’s more to it than that. There is, for one thing, a voice — a thinking, feeling person behind those lines.

Advertisement

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

When he wrote “The More Loving One,” in the 1950s, Wystan Hugh Auden was among the most beloved writers in the English-speaking world. Before this week is over there will be more to say about Auden, but like most poets he would have preferred that we give our primary attention to the poem.

Advertisement

Its structure is straightforward and ingenious. Each of the four stanzas is virtually a poem unto itself — a complete thought expressed in one or two sentences tied up in a neat pair of couplets. Every quatrain is a concise, witty observation: what literary scholars call an epigram.

This makes the work of memorization seem less daunting. We can take “The More Loving One” one epigram at a time, marvelling at how the four add up to something stranger, deeper and more complex than might first appear.

Advertisement

So let’s go back to the beginning and try to memorize that insouciant, knowing first stanza. Below you’ll find a game we made to get you started. Give it a shot, and come back tomorrow for more!

Your first task: Learn the first four lines!

Play a game to learn it by heart. Need more practice? Listen to Ada Limón, Matthew McConaughey, W.H. Auden and others recite our poem.

Question 1/6

Advertisement

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

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well 

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

Edited by Gregory Cowles, Alicia DeSantis and Nick Donofrio. Additional editing by Emily Eakin,
Joumana Khatib, Emma Lumeij and Miguel Salazar. Design and development by Umi Syam. Additional
game design by Eden Weingart. Video editing by Meg Felling. Photo editing by Erica Ackerberg.
Illustration art direction by Tala Safie.

Illustrations by Daniel Barreto.

Text and audio recording of “The More Loving One,” by W.H. Auden, copyright © by the Estate of
W.H. Auden. Reprinted by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd. Photograph accompanying Auden recording
from Imagno/Getty Images.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Culture

Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books

Published

on

Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books

Literature

‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

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

Advertisement

“Romola” was Eliot’s fourth novel, published between “The Mill on the Floss” (1860) and “Middlemarch” (1870-71). If my friends and I didn’t get this particular memo, and “Romola” is familiar to every Eliot fan but us, please skip the following.

“Romola” isn’t some fluky misfire better left unmentioned in light of Eliot’s greater work. It’s her only historical novel, set in Florence during the Italian Renaissance. It embraces big subjects like power, religion, art and social upheaval, but it’s not dry or overly intellectual. Its central character is a gifted, freethinking young woman named Romola, who enters a marriage so disastrous as to make Anna Karenina’s look relatively good.

Advertisement

It probably matters that many of Eliot’s other books have been adapted into movies or TV series, with actors like Hugh Dancy, Ben Kingsley, Emily Watson and Rufus Sewell. The BBC may be doing even more than we thought to keep classic literature alive. (In 1924, “Romola” was made into a silent movie starring Lillian Gish. It doesn’t seem to have made much difference.)

Anthony Trollope, among others, loved “Romola.” He did, however, warn Eliot against aiming over her readers’ heads, which may help explain its obscurity.

All I can say, really, is that it’s a mystery why some great books stay with us and others don’t.

Advertisement

‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

This was an Oprah Book of the Week, which probably disqualifies it from B-side status, but it’s not nearly as well known as Phillips’s debut story collection, “Black Tickets” (1979), or her most recent novel, “Night Watch” (2023), which won her a long-overdue Pulitzer Prize.

Phillips has no parallel in her use of potent, stylized language to shine a light into the darkest of corners. In “Quiet Dell,” her only true-crime novel, she’s at the height of her powers, which are particularly apparent when she aims her language laser at horrific events that actually occurred. Her gift for transforming skeevy little lives into what I can only call “Blade Runner” mythology is consistently stunning.

Advertisement

Consider this passage from the opening chapter of “Quiet Dell”:

“Up high the bells are ringing for everyone alive. There are silver and gold and glass bells you can see through, and sleigh bells a hundred years old. My grandmother said there was a whisper for each one dead that year, and a feather drifting for each one waiting to be born.”

Advertisement

The book is full of language like that — and of complex, often chillingly perverse characters. It’s a dark, underrecognized beauty.

‘Solaris’ (1961) by Stanislaw Lem

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

You could argue that, in America, at least, the Polish writer Stanislaw Lem didn’t produce any A-side novels. You could just as easily argue that that makes all his novels both A-side and B-side.

Advertisement

It’s science fiction. All right?

I love science and speculative fiction, but I know a lot of literary types who take pride in their utter lack of interest in it. I always urge those people to read “Solaris,” which might change their opinions about a vast number of popular books they dismiss as trivial. As far as I know, no one has yet taken me up on that.

“Solaris” involves the crew of a space station continuing the study of an aquatic planet that has long defied analysis by the astrophysicists of Earth. Part of what sets the book apart from a lot of other science-fiction novels is Lem’s respect for enigma. He doesn’t offer contrived explanations in an attempt to seduce readers into suspending disbelief. The crew members start to experience … manifestations? … drawn from their lives and memories. If the planet has any intentions, however, they remain mysterious. All anyone can tell is that their desires and their fears, some of which are summoned from their subconsciousness, are being received and reflected back to them so vividly that it becomes difficult to tell the real from the projected. “Solaris” has the peculiar distinction of having been made into not one but two bad movies. Read the book instead.

Advertisement

‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

If one of the most significant living American writers had become hypervisible with his 2017 novel, “Lincoln in the Bardo,” we’d go back and read his earlier work, wouldn’t we? Yes, and we may very well have already done so with the story collections “Tenth of December” (2013) and “Pastoralia” (2000). But what if we hadn’t yet read Saunders’s 2013 novella, “Fox 8,” about an unusually intelligent fox who, by listening to a family from outside their windows at night, has learned to understand, and write, in fox-English?: “One day, walking neer one of your Yuman houses, smelling all the interest with snout, I herd, from inside, the most amazing sound. Turns out, what that sound is, was: the Yuman voice, making werds. They sounded grate! They sounded like prety music! I listened to those music werds until the sun went down.”

Once Saunders became more visible to more of us, we’d want to read a book that ventures into the consciousness of a different species (novels tend to be about human beings), that maps the differences and the overlaps in human and animal consciousness, explores the effects of language on consciousness and is great fun.

Advertisement

We’d all have read it by now — right?

‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf

Advertisement

Karl Leitz for Anthony Cotsifas Studio

You could argue that Woolf didn’t have any B-sides, and yet it’s hard to deny that more people have read “Mrs. Dalloway” (1925) and “To the Lighthouse” (1927) than have read “The Voyage Out” (1915) or “Monday or Tuesday” (1921). Those, along with “Orlando” (1928) and “The Waves” (1931), are Woolf’s most prominent novels.

Advertisement

Four momentous novels is a considerable number for any writer, even a great one. That said, “Between the Acts,” her last novel, really should be considered the fifth of her significant books. The phrase “embarrassment of riches” comes to mind.

Five great novels by the same author is a lot for any reader to take on. Our reading time is finite. We won’t live long enough to read all the important books, no matter how old we get to be. I don’t expect many readers to be as devoted to Woolf as are the cohort of us who consider her to have been some sort of dark saint of literature and will snatch up any relic we can find. Fanatics like me will have read “Between the Acts” as well as “The Voyage Out,” “Monday or Tuesday” and “Flush” (1933), the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Speaking for myself, I don’t blame anyone who hasn’t gotten to those.

Advertisement

I merely want to add “Between the Acts” to the A-side, lest anyone who’s either new to Woolf or a tourist in Woolf-landia fail to rank it along with the other four contenders.

As briefly as possible: It focuses on an annual village pageant that attempts to convey all of English history in a single evening. The pageant itself interweaves subtly, brilliantly, with the lives of the villagers playing the parts.

It’s one of Woolf’s most lusciously lyrical novels. And it’s a crash course, of sorts, in her genius for conjuring worlds in which the molehill matters as much as the mountain, never mind their differences in size.

Advertisement

It’s also the most accessible of her greatest books. It could work for some as an entry point, in more or less the way William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” (1930) can be the starter book before you go on to “The Sound and the Fury” (1929) or “Absalom, Absalom!” (1936).

As noted, there’s too much for us to read. We do the best we can.

Advertisement

More in Literature

See the rest of the issue

Continue Reading

Culture

6 Poems You Should Know by Heart

Published

on

6 Poems You Should Know by Heart

Literature

‘Prayer’ (1985) by Galway Kinnell

Advertisement

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

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

Advertisement

“I typically say Kinnell’s words at the start of my day, as I’m pedaling a traffic-laden path to my office,” says Major Jackson, 57, the author of six books of poetry, including “Razzle Dazzle” (2023). “The poem encourages a calm acceptance of the day’s events but also wants us to embrace the misapprehension and oblivion of life, to avoid probing too deeply for answers to inscrutable questions. I admire what Kinnell does with only 14 words; the repetition of ‘what,’ ‘that’ and ‘is’ would seem to limit the poem’s sentiment but, paradoxically, the poem opens widely to contain all manner of human experience. The three ‘is’es in the middle line give it a symmetry that makes its message feel part of a natural order, and even more convincing. Thanks to the skillful punctuation, pauses and staccato rhythm, a tonal quality of interior reflection emerges. Much like a haiku, it continues after its last words, lingering like the last note played on a piano that slowly fades.”

“Just as I was entering young adulthood, probably slow to claim romantic feelings, a girlfriend copied out a poem by Pablo Neruda and slipped it into an envelope with red lipstick kisses all over it. In turn, I recited this poem. It took me the remainder of that winter to memorize its lines,” says Jackson. “The poem captures the pitch of longing that defines love at its most intense. The speaker in Shakespeare’s most famous sonnet believes the poem creates the beloved, ‘So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.’ (Sonnet 18). In Rilke’s expressive declarations of yearning, the beloved remains elusive. Wherever the speaker looks or travels, she marks his world by her absence. I find this deeply moving.”

Advertisement

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

“Clifton faced many obstacles, including cancer, a kidney transplant and the loss of her husband and two of her children. Through it all, she crafted a long career as a pre-eminent American poet,” says Jackson. “Her poem ‘won’t you celebrate with me’ is a war cry, an invitation to share in her victories against life’s persistent challenges. The poem is meaningful to all who have had to stare down death in a hospital or had to bereave the passing of close relations. But, even for those who have yet to mourn life’s vicissitudes, the poem is instructive in cultivating resilience and a persevering attitude. I keep coming back to the image of the speaker’s hands and the spirit of steadying oneself in the face of unspeakable storms. She asks in a perfectly attuned gorgeously metrical line, ‘what did i see to be except myself?’”

Advertisement

‘Sonnet 94’ (1609) by William Shakespeare

They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmovèd, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven’s graces
And husband nature’s riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die;
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity.
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.

Advertisement

“It’s one of the moments of Western consciousness,” says Frederick Seidel, 90, the author of more than a dozen collections of poetry, including “So What” (2024). “Shakespeare knows and says what he knows.”

“It trombones magnificent, unbearable sorrow,” says Seidel.

“It’s smartass and bitter and bright,” says Seidel.

Advertisement

These interviews have been edited and condensed.

More in Literature

See the rest of the issue

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending