Connect with us

Culture

Woody Johnson’s Jets: ‘Madden’ ratings, a lost season and ‘the most dysfunctional place imaginable’

Published

on

Woody Johnson’s Jets: ‘Madden’ ratings, a lost season and ‘the most dysfunctional place imaginable’

By Zack Rosenblatt, Dianna Russini and Michael Silver

Woody Johnson decided to do his own research.

The New York Jets’ owner was at his house in Palm Beach, Fla., last February, discussing potential offseason acquisitions with team decision-makers as they watched game tape. Wide receiver Jerry Jeudy, a former Denver Broncos first-round pick, flashed on the screen. Jets general manager Joe Douglas expressed interest, according to someone familiar with the meeting. Johnson took out his phone and started typing.

A few weeks later, Douglas and his Broncos counterpart, George Paton, were deep in negotiations for a trade that would have sent Jeudy to the Jets and given future Hall of Fame quarterback Aaron Rodgers another potential playmaker. The Broncos felt a deal was near. Then, abruptly, it all fell apart. In Denver’s executive offices, they couldn’t believe the reason why.

Douglas told the Broncos that Johnson didn’t want to make the trade because the owner felt Jeudy’s player rating in “Madden NFL,” the popular video game, wasn’t high enough, according to multiple league sources. The Broncos ultimately traded the receiver to the Cleveland Browns. Last Sunday, Jeudy crossed the 1,000-yard receiving mark for the first time in his career.

Advertisement

Coming into this season, the Jets had hopes of ending the franchise’s 13-year playoff drought — the longest in the four major men’s North American sports — and quieting years of talk about the franchise’s dysfunction. Instead, this season has only cemented the Jets’ reputation.

Head coach Robert Saleh was fired five games into the campaign. Douglas was fired six weeks later. Johnson suggested benching Rodgers due to poor performance — a Jets spokesperson said the owner was “being provocative. He made the statement in jest to see how it would be handled.” A week later, the Jets traded for Davante Adams, the All-Pro wideout and Rodgers’ close friend and former teammate in Green Bay. New York has stumbled to a 4-10 record and will miss the postseason for the 14th straight season.

Another offseason of turnover awaits, and at the root of the franchise’s problems is Johnson, who was characterized as an over-involved, impulsive owner in conversations with more than 20 people in and around the Jets organization — current and former players, coaches and team executives — who were granted anonymity in order to speak openly without fear of reprisal.

“They keep on doing the same thing over and over: they change the football people. The football people are not the issue,” one former executive said. “It’s, ‘Hey, I have brain cancer.’ And, ‘Well, just cut off your foot.’”

Johnson, who declined The Athletic’s request for comment, soured on his franchise quarterback less than a year after betting big on him, denigrated his own players in the locker room and seemed to follow decision-making advice from his teenage sons, according to various team and league sources. And the proposed Jeudy trade wasn’t the only time Johnson cited “Madden” ratings when evaluating players.

Advertisement

“There are organizations where it is all set up for you to win,” said a player with the team in 2023. “It feels completely different (with the Jets). It’s the most dysfunctional place imaginable.”


Ahead of the Jets-Giants preseason finale at MetLife Stadium in 2019, an administrative assistant popped into the team’s coaching offices to make an announcement to then-head coach Adam Gase and his staff. Woody Johnson, then serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom in the Trump administration, was temporarily returning from London. The assistant said everyone should refer to Johnson as “Mr. Ambassador.”

That has held true long after Johnson left government and returned to his role as Jets chairman in January 2021, striking a discordant tone among those who believe the organization has long been plagued by mismanagement.

“I guess that’s what you’d call him,” one assistant coach said. “I’d never been around royalty before.”

Johnson is an heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune, but he spends most of his working days at the Jets facility in Florham Park, N.J., and often meets with the head coach and general manager. When he bought the team in 2000, Johnson thought he was inheriting Bill Belichick as coach — hand-picked by Bill Parcells to take over before Parcells resigned. Belichick lasted only one day, scribbling “I resign as HC of the NYJ” on a napkin at his introductory news conference before bolting for the New England Patriots.

Advertisement

The legendary coach has spent much of the past two decades torturing the Jets franchise, on the field and off of it. While out of coaching this fall, Belichick mocked Johnson in various media appearances (Belichick’s camp also reached out to the Jets about their head-coaching vacancy). In an appearance on ESPN’s “ManningCast” during a Monday night game between the Jets and Bills on Oct. 14 — New York’s first game since firing Saleh — Belichick described the owner’s approach to running the organization as “ready, fire, aim.”

Many who have been part of the Jets organization during Johnson’s tenure heard that comment and agreed. Others pointed to the owner’s words on Oct. 15, the day the Jets acquired Adams, when Johnson said, “Thinking is overrated.”

“Woody is just acting on instinct,” said a current Jets executive. “With Woody, it’s like, ‘I’m right — prove me wrong.’ You just don’t know what to expect … He’s been right enough, just with his random opinions, that (a bad decision) doesn’t dissuade him. And when he’s wrong, who’s gonna hold him accountable?”

During the annual NFL Draft, Johnson is known to keep to himself while decisions are being made, according to one former executive, then exit the room and retreat to a nearby snack bar with confidants to make “smart-ass lines” about the front office’s decisions. Team decision-makers didn’t appreciate Johnson’s after-the-fact critiques, but the owner was occasionally proven correct: The executive remembers Johnson being especially vocal when former general manager Mike Maccagnan drafted quarterback Christian Hackenberg out of Penn State in the second round of the 2016 Draft. Hackenberg never played a regular-season snap for the Jets.

Some inside the organization believe Johnson is consumed with the public perception of his franchise, sometimes at the expense of on-the-field success. When the Jets traded quarterback Zach Wilson to the Broncos last April, Denver asked Douglas to include the final pick of the draft (257th overall). According to a source familiar with the negotiations, Johnson instructed Douglas to instead trade the 256th pick — which the Jets also owned — so New York could select “Mr. Irrelevant,” the final pick of the draft who is annually celebrated upon his selection.

Advertisement

“Can you believe that?” the source said. “He thought he needed the Mr. Irrelevant pick to get a Brock Purdy (the final pick of the 2022 draft who has emerged as a franchise quarterback in San Francisco). I don’t think that’s ever happened in the history of the NFL: A team wanted a worse pick.”

The Broncos used pick No. 256 to take offensive guard Nick Gargiulo, who is now on the Broncos’ active roster. The Jets used the “Mr. Irrelevant” pick on Alabama safety Jaylen Key, who didn’t survive the final roster cutdown and is no longer on their practice squad.

Johnson weighs in on matters throughout the organization, from lineup decisions (he forced interim head coach Jeff Ulbrich to bench starting safety Tony Adams in November) to the team schedule (he wanted the Jets to practice during their bye week, much to the chagrin of team leaders). “He’s like most team owners,” the team spokesperson said. “He asks questions of his staff to better understand what their plans are.”

“Your job becomes managing Woody,” a current team executive said. “That’s not unique for an NFL GM — the difference here is that not only are you managing Woody, but you have to manage all the people who influence him. That could be family, that could be media, that could be people in the building.”


An heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune, Woody Johnson purchased the Jets for $635 million in January 2000. (Sean M. Haffey / Getty Images)

When Johnson left for the U.K. in 2017, his sons, Brick and Jack, were 11 and 9, respectively. When he returned, they were teenagers. Last year, Johnson started including his sons in some meetings at the team facility. For some Jets employees, the sons’ increasing involvement clarified their father’s propensity for sharing posts from X and articles from various outlets, including a blog called “Jets X-Factor,” with the organization’s top decision-makers.

Advertisement

“When we’re discussing things, you’ll hear Woody cite something that Brick or Jack read online that’s being weighed equally against whatever opinion someone else in the department has,” said one Jets executive.

“I answer to a teenager,” Douglas quipped to people close to him before the season in an acknowledgment of the perceived power dynamic.

Johnson’s reference to Jeudy’s “Madden” rating was, to some in the Jets’ organization, a sign of Brick and Jack’s influence. Another example came when Johnson pushed back on signing free-agent guard John Simpson due to a lackluster “awareness” rating in Madden. The Jets signed Simpson anyway, and he has had a solid season: Pro Football Focus currently has him graded as the eighth-best guard in the NFL.

The Jets spokesperson disputed the idea that Brick and Jack’s observations impact the organization’s decision-making process. “It is used as a reference point; it is not determinative,” the spokesperson said. “It’s really sad that an adult would use a misleading anecdote about teenagers to make their father look bad. It’s ridiculous, quite honestly, the idea that this was used to influence the opinion of experienced executives.

“(The sons) have no roles in the organization. It’s completely ridiculous to suggest that any outside info is intended to replace the opinions of (Woody Johnson’s) staff.”

Advertisement

The Johnson family’s behavior inside the Jets locker room has also become an issue, according to team and league sources. NFL locker rooms are restricted-access spaces typically limited to players, coaches, team personnel and media members. But Brick and Jack have brought friends — male and female — into the locker room, and current and former players and coaches told The Athletic that Woody Johnson, his wife, Suzanne Ircha Johnson, and his sons criticized players inside the locker room.

In 2022, quarterback Mike White played through broken ribs in a late-season game against the Seahawks with postseason hopes on the line. White played poorly; the Jets lost and were eliminated from playoff contention. After the game, with the quarterback in the showers after throwing his helmet to the locker room floor, multiple Jets players said they heard Woody Johnson say, “You should throw your helmet, you f—ing suck.” The statement got back to White. The team spokesperson said Johnson apologized to the quarterback, who declined to comment for this story.

In the postgame locker room after last year’s Week 17 loss to the Cleveland Browns, multiple players said they heard Johnson’s sons loudly disparaging certain Jets players.

This year, on Halloween night, the Jets registered their first victory since Saleh’s firing four weeks earlier. It was a significant moment for a struggling team. Rodgers walked into an energized locker room with a game ball in hand, and it was expected that he’d give the ball to Ulbrich, a customary gesture when a coach gets his first NFL win.

But before Rodgers could speak, Brick Johnson took another game ball and awarded it to wide receiver Garrett Wilson in a profanity-laced exclamation, which the owner’s son later posted to Instagram. Woody Johnson then gave Ulbrich the ball Rodgers had been holding. Multiple players said the energy felt drained out of the room.

Advertisement

“It was the most awkward, cringe-worthy, brutal experience,” one player said.


The high point of the Johnson-Rodgers marriage came at Rodgers’ introductory news conference, when he spoke of the Jets’ lone Super Bowl trophy — won in 1969 — looking a little “lonely.” New York entered the 2023 season as one of the league’s buzziest teams — and potentially Super Bowl contenders — and the Jets were selected to appear on HBO’s “Hard Knocks” during training camp. Johnson wore a custom-made chain featuring 80 carats of emeralds and diamonds spelling out “Woody,” a gift from star cornerback Sauce Gardner.

Then Rodgers tore his Achilles on the fourth play of the season, and everything changed. Following surgery, Rodgers rehabbed with the goal of potentially returning at the end of the season, but only if the Jets were still in playoff contention.

In Week 14, New York was mathematically eliminated with a 30-0 loss to the Dolphins. Rodgers preferred to rehab on his own in Los Angeles with an eye toward the 2024 season, but Johnson, according to team sources, insisted that Rodgers practice with the team, so the quarterback reluctantly returned to New York. When Rodgers was activated off injured reserve five days before Christmas, which resulted in the release of fullback Nick Bawden, Rodgers said on “The Pat McAfee Show” that the move wasn’t his idea.

“There was a conversation: ‘Do you want to practice?’ And I said, ‘Not at the expense of somebody getting cut.’ I know how this works,” Rodgers said. “I didn’t feel like I needed to practice to continue my rehab. I could do on-the-field stuff on the side. But obviously I got overruled there.”

Advertisement

Several Jets players and coaches — Garrett Wilson and running back Breece Hall, in particular — were unhappy with offensive coordinator Nathaniel Hackett throughout the 2023 campaign. There were rumblings that Johnson wanted to fire Hackett, so Rodgers, who considers the coach a close friend, brought it up with the owner at the end of the season. The conversation “didn’t go over well” with Johnson, according to a current Jets executive.

Johnson ultimately didn’t force Saleh to fire Hackett, as he had with Mike LaFleur after the 2022 season. In the offseason, Saleh tried to hire a veteran offensive coach to join the Jets staff and potentially reduce Hackett’s role, speaking with Arthur Smith, Kliff Kingsbury, Luke Getsy and Eric Bieniemy. Rodgers got on the phone in an attempt to recruit, but each coach took jobs with offensive coordinator titles elsewhere.

Before this season, according to a team source, Johnson demanded that Saleh’s signature phrase — “All Gas, No Brakes” — be stripped off the walls around the facility. “Another completely out-of-context and false narrative,” the team spokesperson said. “That was removed as part of the entire organizational rebrand.” Saleh later introduced a new team motto: “Love and Regard,” which was not displayed on the facility’s walls.

Rodgers and Johnson spoke on Oct. 7, just after the Jets lost to the Vikings in London to drop to 2-3, a game behind the Bills in the AFC East with Buffalo coming to MetLife Stadium the following Monday night. According to a team source, Rodgers implored Johnson to remain patient.

The following morning, Saleh called Rodgers to let him know he was demoting Hackett and installing passing game coordinator Todd Downing as the new play caller. Rodgers made it clear to Saleh that he did not agree with the decision — so much so that Saleh told his staff to get backup Tyrod Taylor ready to play in case a banged-up, disgruntled Rodgers wouldn’t, according to a team source.

Advertisement

Shortly afterward, around 10 a.m. ET, Woody and Christopher Johnson, Woody’s brother and the Jets’ vice chairman, walked into Saleh’s office. Woody told Saleh he was fired. Saleh asked why. Woody told him he didn’t think Saleh could turn the season around and that the team needed a spark. Then the Johnsons walked out of the room.

Ulbrich, installed as the interim coach, went forward with Saleh’s plan to demote Hackett and managed to calm the waters with Rodgers, who hadn’t been in favor of firing Saleh, according to multiple team sources.

On the Dec. 3 episode of McAfee’s show, Rodgers, in reference to the 12-2 Detroit Lions, talked about how much of a difference it makes when owners back their coaches and general managers both privately and publicly. The next day, he was asked by members of the media if he felt that Jets ownership operates in that way.

“Is that a rhetorical question?” Rodgers said. “I cited an example I’ve seen. There were other examples in Green Bay, both for and maybe not, as for whoever was in charge. But I think it’s an important part of ownership to hire the right guys, set the vision and support them when the outside world is trying to tear them down.”

On follow-up, he was asked again whether he believes that’s been done in New York. “I’d have to look,” he replied. “I’ll ask you guys, has there been a lot of public comments? Supportive comments?”

Advertisement

The response from reporters that day? Not really, there have been firings.

“Yeah, there’s your answer,” Rodgers replied.

The Jets kept the exchange out of the transcript of Rodgers’ news conference.


In addition to firing the head coach and general manager and suggesting the benching of the star quarterback, Johnson has pursued cuts across the Jets organization.

This offseason, he forced Saleh to fire five coaches and wouldn’t allow Douglas to replace former assistant GM Rex Hogan (who Johnson forced Douglas to fire in January). “The open role was used to re-organize the staff,” the team spokesperson said. “The notion that he didn’t want that position replaced is untrue. The responsibilities were filled by employees who deserved promotions.”

Advertisement

The Jets didn’t hire officials for training camp, a standard practice in the NFL, after being the most penalized team in the league in 2023 (they are the third-most penalized team in 2024). They did have officials for two joint practices with the New York Giants and Washington Commanders, respectively.

Several men from Johnson’s investment group have been attending free agent, draft and other football operations meetings at Johnson’s behest over the last year, according to a current Jets executive. They’ve also interviewed Jets employees from across the organization about their roles and ways they feel the Jets can improve. “It was a positive initiative that identified real gaps in process and communication and collaboration,” the Jets spokesperson said. “(Woody Johnson) values the independent feedback. It’s a way to avoid groupthink. We learned a lot from it.”

Multiple Jets employees refer to the group of men as “The Bobs,” a nod to the condescending corporate efficiency consultants from the film “Office Space.” The arrival of “The Bobs” has only heightened a sense of dread around the building, where some employees don’t feel like they can speak freely.

“There’s no nice way to say what we need to say, which is: Unless we drastically alter our culture and the way we do things from the top down, we have no chance,” one executive said. “There’s not a comfortable environment where you can speak your mind and try to address things that could improve the situation. You have to tiptoe around it.”

The Jets spokesperson disputed that characterization. “That’s just a false premise,” the spokesperson said. “(Woody Johnson) really just seeks out and welcomes feedback and debate. We wouldn’t have been named one of the best places to work in New Jersey if people thought that way … there’s never been a complaint.”

Advertisement

Whether or not Aaron Rodgers will return for a third season in New York is one of the key questions facing the Jets this offseason. (Mike Ehrmann / Getty Images)

As recently as three-and-a-half years ago, there was a different atmosphere at Florham Park. Woody Johnson’s absence during the first Trump presidential term meant that Christopher was running the show.

Like Woody, Christopher Johnson was influenced perhaps too heavily by media coverage — one team source said he was known to lean on prominent media members for advice during his head coach and GM searches in 2019 — but the impression he gave to many in the building was that he wanted to give the keys to the people he hired and let them take the wheel.

“Chris was really, really laid back,” said a former Jets coach. “He’s not a person with any type of ego. When he would talk with you, he was really a regular dude. He never, ever acted like he was the owner or he was in charge; he was just basically trying to get along.”

When Christopher Johnson hired Douglas (in 2019) and Saleh (in 2021), both were under the impression that, when he returned, Woody Johnson would take a similarly hands-off approach. They quickly learned how wrong that assumption was as Woody took control and Chris stepped back.

“It’s not like he just disappeared, but you wouldn’t know if Chris was in the building or even in the room with you,” a former Jets executive said. “He’s just so quiet and reserved. And that’s not a bad thing.”

Advertisement

Some Jets employees hoped Woody might retake his ambassadorship in the U.K. after Donald Trump was elected president in November, which would once again put Christopher in charge. But on Dec. 2, Trump nominated billionaire Arkansas investment banker Warren Stephens to the post. According to team sources, the decision came as a surprise to the Jets owner.

As the Jets close the 2024 season, they’ll enter an offseason promising wholesale change, familiar territory for an organization that hasn’t found much stability since Johnson bought the franchise from the estate of Leon Hess in 2000. In 25 years, the Jets have employed eight interim or full-time head coaches (nine if you count Belichick) and seven general managers. They’ll need another new head coach and general manager and must decide if they want to bring Rodgers back for what would be his 21st NFL season — if he wants to return.

Those decisions remain Woody Johnson’s to make.

(Illustration: Demetrius Robinson / The Athletic; photos: Chris Coduto, Matthew Stockman, Cooper Neil, Perry Knotts / Getty Images)

Advertisement

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