June 30, 2026 At Work Rachel Aviv’s Act of Revision: On You Won’t Get Free of It By Stephanie DeGooyer At a glance, Rachel Aviv’s new book looks like a conventional kind of essay collection: six pieces drawn from more than a decade of writing for The New Yorker, framed by a new preface. You Won’t Get Free of It gathers some of Aviv’s most celebrated portraits, including those of Hannah Upp, who disappeared three times in nine years during episodes of dissociative fugue, and Andrea Robin Skinner, whose childhood abuse was suppressed within her family even as her mother—the writer Alice Munro—refracted it through fiction. But You Won’t Get Free of It is not just a greatest-hits compilation. Subtitled Stories of Mothers and Daughters, it is also an act of revision. As Aviv notes in the preface, she reported many of the older stories in the book while “feeling, existentially, like a daughter.” Years later, after having children, she returned to these pieces—newly aware, she writes, of “the drama on the mother’s side, too.” She revisited her notes to find details she might not have fully grasped as a younger reporter and reinterviewed subjects about facts whose significance she’d missed the first time. Read More
June 30, 2026 On Art United Nations Art Tour By Asha Schechter Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd, Non-Violence, 1980, bronze, 79 x 44 x 50″ (donated by Luxembourg, 1989). All photographs courtesy of the author. On January 30, 2026, the New York Times published an article with the headline “U.N. Says It’s in Danger of Financial Collapse Because of Unpaid Dues.” The United States owes the lion’s share of those dues—95 percent, totaling about $2.2 billion. Eight days prior, the charter for a new organization called the Board of Peace had been signed in a ceremony at Davos (naturally). The Board of Peace, an invention of Donald Trump’s, was supposedly established to execute the Gaza Peace Plan. Trump has appointed himself chair for life, and charges each country $3 billion in dues for permanent membership. The name, as it appears on official branding materials, is notably not prefaced by the, so, when spoken aloud, it sounds like an expression of ennui, or the title of an early-aughts teen movie about the skateboarding child of a diplomat. The Board of Peace seems designed to replace the United Nations with a more U.S.-centric organization, devoid of even feeble protections to limit U.S. domination of international affairs. This turmoil was the backdrop for an art tour I took at the UN, a guided look at the collection described on the UN’s website as “a combination of artworks, historic objects, and architectural components donated by member states, foundations, and individual donors since 1950.” Our guide was a Greek woman named Regina, who began by rattling off the goals of the UN: peace and security, zero hunger, climate action, inclusion, education, women’s rights, global health, ending poverty, clean energy, disaster relief, et cetera. These, she said, were reflected in the art collection, which was intended to “catch the eye, warm the heart, and light up the imagination.” Read More
June 28, 2026 At Work The Mariah Carey Fan Club: A Conversation with Alex Da Corte By Hazel Byers From Alex Da Corte’s Rubber Pencil Devil. The cover of our new Summer issue features a detail from The End, a painting by the Venezuelan American artist Alex Da Corte. Da Corte works across film, sculpture, installation, and performance; using costumes and prosthetics, he has assumed the guises of Eminem, Mister Rogers, the Wicked Witch of the West, the Pink Panther, and Marcel Duchamp, among countless others. At the beginning of June, I went to Philadelphia to speak with Da Corte in his studio, tucked away in a warehouse behind the gates of a labyrinthine high school campus. In the back room, filled with books, papers, and a number of cartoonish props, we talked about Judy Garland, Mariah Carey, and Carey’s 1999 album Rainbow. When we broke from chatting to have lunch, Da Corte served me an excellent tuna salad. INTERVIEWER Will you tell us about The End? ALEX DA CORTE The End is what I call a CD painting, a reverse-glass painting I painted on plexiglass to obscure part of an image from the cover of Mariah Carey’s Rainbow. INTERVIEWER I was listening to “Heartbreaker” last night. She is so good. Why that album? DA CORTE I probably shouldn’t go on too much about how I love her, but I was part of the Mariah Carey fan club in the late eighties, and I wrote letters to her as early as I could. I remember reading that her father was Venezuelan, and I was like, Oh, my father’s Venezuelan! I was eighteen when I first heard Rainbow, and while my relationship to music, to my own sexuality, has changed since then, I also listened to the album just yesterday. INTERVIEWER What do you mean by “CD painting”? DA CORTE The CD paintings were born out of an interest in the readymade, a term associated with the work of Marcel Duchamp, relating to the idea of the found object. If I think about how I first began listening to music, part of what drove me to buy a CD was the image on the cover of the album. It never changes, but the image gets scratched, the liner notes get wrinkled, a kind of touch is transferred onto the music. The CD paintings are evidence of that transference. To make them, I took the liner notes of all the CDs I had that were beloved to me—Janet Jackson, Madonna, Mariah Carey—and scanned them and had them made into flags at a store across the street from the Betsy Ross House in Philadelphia. The image that was scanned from the liner notes became a flag printed on cotton, stretched the way one might stretch a canvas. Then I laid a piece of plexiglass over the flag and painted a layer onto the plexiglass that obscured some of the image printed on the flag. Read More
June 26, 2026 On Sports At the Crucible: Snooker’s World Series By Julian Waddell Ronnie O’Sullivan at the German Masters, 2012. Photograph by DerHexer, via Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. When I arrived in Sheffield, England, last year and walked to the Crucible Theatre, it was not immediately clear that I was approaching the mecca of a sport watched by millions. Sheffield feels more like a large village, whose greatest claim to historical fame is industrializing so-called crucible steel, which revolutionized the cutlery trade. Today it has a reputation for being a sporting city—soccer foremost, then rugby, then ice hockey, then basketball (Minnesota Timberwolves head coach Chris Finch spent ten years playing for and coaching the Sheffield Sharks). By far the most-watched sport in Sheffield, however, is snooker. Last year, more people in China watched the final of the World Snooker Championship than Americans watched the Super Bowl. Yet few Americans even know the game exists. Snooker is pool’s nightmarishly difficult cousin. While a pool table can range from seven to nine feet long, a snooker table spans twelve feet of green baize. In place of five-inch pockets, players aim for targets just three and a half inches wide. There are twenty-one balls on the table—fifteen reds, arranged in a pyramid on one end, and six in a range of colors, lined up into a pointillistic T. Players must alternate between pocketing a red ball (worth one point) and any “color”—a somewhat technical term that means any shade besides red: yellow, green, brown, blue, pink, black (in ascending order of value). Referees return the colored balls to their designated spots on the table to allow the cycle to continue, until every red has been potted. Snooker requires thinking at least three moves ahead: a good shot always secures position to make a second ball at the correct angle to play for a third. When no offensive opportunity presents itself, players aim to hide the cue ball behind one of the colored balls up-table. To prevent the opponent from having a clear view of the next ball is to “snooker” them. Games are won when there aren’t enough points left for opponents to overcome their deficits (typically seventy to eighty points). Players are regularly seen hunched over the table, mentally calculating which colors they need to pocket to ensure victory. But great matches transcend the goal of simply winning. Even when a player has technically triumphed, they are allowed to continue shooting until they miss. These technically pointless displays of skill, however, become a game within the game—a test of meeting certain scoring thresholds. Scoring a hundred points during a single visit is called a century. A “maximum” is a score of 147, achievable only when players exclusively pocket the black ball (worth seven points) after each red. After a successful maximum, the referee removes one white glove to shake the player’s hand. Each April, snooker’s most avid fans embark on a pilgrimage to Sheffield for the World Snooker Championship, the sport’s most prestigious affair by far. But walking into the Crucible felt like attending a community play. The theater accommodates just nine hundred and eighty people, and its limited capacity means no large crowds descend on Sheffield. Neighboring streets and pubs retain a distinctly local atmosphere. Inside, guests silently fill panels of seats surrounding a central sunken pit. The small capacity heightens the intensity; the audience looms closely over the action. (The Welsh snooker star Mark Williams once reached into the audience midmatch to help himself to a spectator’s candy.) Players are not granted the luxury of an anonymous, distant crowd. “The Crucible can be a very lonely place, despite being in the company of so many,” the 1979 world champion Terry Griffiths once said. “In fact, it’s the company of so many that’s the problem.” As I chatted with other snooker devotees in the Crucible, I realized I was a demographic outlier: American and young. The audience embodied the game’s subdued energy—perhaps out of respect for the event, or maybe because most in attendance could accurately be described as near geriatric. Snooker fandom has translated poorly across the generations in Britain. Only two British players younger than thirty-four qualified for the World Championship this year. In China, however, the sport has grown exponentially over the past decade. Three hundred thousand snooker halls now line city streets across Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou. As attention to the sport shifts across the globe, tournaments now regularly pit a slate of aging UK stars against a flock of young Chinese players that have suddenly begun to dominate the game. Read More
June 26, 2026 On Sports A Short Defense of Sports Clichés By Isabella Cacdac Ampil Photograph by Erik Drost, via Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under CC BY 2.0. At times of especially blessed sports spectatorship, which the Knicks’ past few weeks have undoubtedly been, I often return to David Foster Wallace’s 2007 essay “How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart.” Ostensibly a pan of the tennis player’s 1992 memoir, Beyond Center Court, the piece is really about the perceived chasm between a great athlete’s genius and their apparent inability to talk about it after the fact. Whether players are recounting their in-game heroics moments later, as in a postgame interview, or years later, as in memoir form, they tend to deliver the same clichés: We’re taking each game one point at a time, focusing on the fundamentals, believing in the team. I thought of this again after Game Four of the NBA Finals, when OG Anunoby addressed reporters at Madison Square Garden. They were marveling at his now-famous tip-in, sunk with 1.2 seconds left on the clock. “You just hit the game-winning shot in an NBA Finals game in front of your home crowd,” asked one reporter. “How does that feel?” “It feels cool.” This said shrugging. “I mean, everyone’s pretty excited. I’m excited too.” An eruption of laughter; OG’s guileless what-am-I-supposed-to-say smile. “We’re all excited,” he elaborated. “We’re just focused on the next game now.” Read More
June 25, 2026 First Person The Mudder, the Lawyer, the Prince, and Mr. Wrong By Lisa Carver Glowing tree mold photographed after the October 1968 eruption of Kilauea volcano in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey, via Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under CC BY 2.0. In 2015 I was dating three fellows at once. A mudder, a lawyer, and a prince. The mudder was Greek and on weekdays he did something with computers in a sealed room where dust meant ruination, and on weekends he’d train to race in this extreme obstacle course where you had to crawl under barbed wire through mud and then jump on a bicycle and wild turkeys attacked you. He kind of looked like a flatworm. The most attractive flatworm on earth: lithely muscular, bendy, slippery. I wanted to lick him. Yet, can you believe it, he said yes to mud and barbed wire and turkey attacks but no to fooling around with me?? And for such a reason! His reason was this: “My judgment regarding our future compatibility is clouded by physical attraction. I don’t want to get broadsided by darkness.” What the hell! We’re not a hundred years old! It’s not the future! It’s right now. We’re on a date. These are our bodies on earth that we drag around everywhere. I thought getting broadsided by darkness was what everyone longed for … to have the burden of self, the responsibility of existence, temporarily annihilated by tidal wave. To be helpless. I thought (still think?) that’s what sexual love is: the closest you can get to death and still live. He seemed to want a love both convenient and long-lasting? What?? And I don’t know how he thought he was getting closer to finding such a thing by simultaneously refusing to either accept me or reject me. Read More