Content Feed

Here's a confession that might get me banned from every book club in existence: the first time I tried to read 'The Sea, the Sea,' I threw it across the room. Not because it was bad—God, no—but because Iris Murdoch had the audacity to make me feel like the intellectual equivalent of a golden retriever staring at a calculus equation. Twenty-seven years after her death, this Irish-born philosopher-novelist continues to haunt our literary consciousness like a particularly well-read ghost who refuses to dumb things down for the rest of us.

Iris Murdoch died on February 8, 1999, in Oxford, succumbing to Alzheimer's disease—a cruel irony for a woman whose entire career was built on the architecture of the mind. She left behind twenty-six novels, a mountain of philosophical treatises, and generations of readers who still argue about whether her characters are profound or just profoundly irritating. Spoiler alert: they're both.

Let's talk about 'Under the Net,' her 1954 debut that basically invented a whole new way of being confused in English literature. Jake Donaghue, our hapless protagonist, stumbles through London like a philosophical pinball, bouncing between women, odd jobs, and existential crises. The novel reads like someone fed Sartre and P.G. Wodehouse into a blender and hit 'puree.' Critics called it picaresque. I call it the literary equivalent of watching someone's quarter-life crisis in real-time, except somehow it makes you question everything you thought you knew about truth and language. Murdoch wasn't just writing stories; she was performing intellectual surgery without anesthesia.

'The Black Prince' from 1973 might be her most deliciously unhinged work. Bradley Pearson, a fifty-eight-year-old writer who hasn't written anything in years, falls obsessively in love with his rival's twenty-year-old daughter. Yes, it's uncomfortable. Yes, it's supposed to be. Murdoch never met a moral gray area she didn't want to explore with a flashlight and a magnifying glass. The novel comes with multiple postscripts from different characters, each contradicting the others, because apparently Murdoch thought regular unreliable narrators were too easy. She wanted unreliable everything.

But here's where Murdoch gets genuinely subversive, and why she matters more now than ever. In an age where we're drowning in self-help mantras about 'living your truth' and 'following your heart,' Murdoch would have laughed herself hoarse. Her entire philosophical project was about how spectacularly bad we are at seeing reality clearly. We're all trapped in what she called 'the fat relentless ego,' constructing elaborate fantasies about ourselves and others. Her novels don't offer redemption arcs or tidy resolutions. They offer the terrifying possibility that we might never really know anyone—including ourselves.

'The Sea, the Sea,' which won the Booker Prize in 1978, is essentially a 500-page masterclass in self-delusion. Charles Arrowby, a retired theater director, retreats to a coastal house to write his memoirs and achieve inner peace. Instead, he becomes obsessed with a childhood sweetheart, attempts to essentially kidnap her, and descends into what can only be described as high-brow stalking. It's uncomfortable, brilliant, and infuriatingly human. Murdoch understood that the monsters aren't always obvious; sometimes they're cultured men who quote Shakespeare while destroying lives.

What makes Murdoch essential reading in 2026 is her unflinching examination of obsessive love—not the romantic comedy kind, but the kind that devours. Her characters don't fall in love; they fall into obsession, projection, and elaborate psychological games. In an era of parasocial relationships, online stalking, and the commodification of intimacy, her dissections of how we construct the objects of our desire feel prophetic. She was writing about the dangers of the male gaze before we had a term for it.

Murdoch was also, let's not forget, one of the twentieth century's most important moral philosophers. Her book 'The Sovereignty of Good' argued that genuine morality requires attention—the patient, humble act of really seeing other people as they are, not as we wish them to be. In a world of hot takes, snap judgments, and algorithmic echo chambers, her call for slow, careful moral perception feels almost radical. She believed goodness was possible but difficult, requiring constant effort against our natural self-centeredness. No shortcuts. No life hacks. Just the hard, unglamorous work of paying attention.

Her influence on contemporary literature runs deeper than most readers realize. Every novelist who writes about intellectuals behaving badly owes her a debt. Every exploration of obsessive love, every unreliable narrator who doesn't know they're unreliable, every novel that refuses easy moral categorization—Murdoch was there first, doing it better, with more philosophical depth. Writers like Rachel Cusk, Sally Rooney, and Zadie Smith have all acknowledged her shadow.

The tragedy of her final years—watching Alzheimer's slowly dismantle one of the century's greatest minds—was documented with heartbreaking honesty by her husband John Bayley in 'Elegy for Iris.' The 2001 film adaptation starring Kate Winslet and Judi Dench brought her story to wider audiences, though it necessarily simplified her intellectual legacy. Murdoch deserves to be remembered not just as a tragic figure, but as the fierce, funny, occasionally infuriating writer who dared to suggest that maybe, just maybe, we're all a little less good than we think we are.

So here we are, twenty-seven years later, still grappling with the questions she raised. Still uncomfortable. Still confused. Still, if we're honest, a little bit in love with her difficult, demanding, gloriously imperfect novels. Iris Murdoch didn't write books you enjoy—she wrote books that change you, whether you like it or not. And in a literary landscape increasingly dominated by comfort reads and algorithmic recommendations, that kind of challenging, unapologetic brilliance feels more necessary than ever. Pick up one of her novels today. Just maybe don't throw it across the room.

Here's a confession that might get me banned from every literary circle in Buenos Aires: most people who claim to love Julio Cortázar have never actually finished Hopscotch. They've flipped through it, admired its clever structure, posted about it on social media, and quietly returned it to the shelf. And honestly? Cortázar would have found that hilarious.

Forty-two years ago today, on February 12, 1984, one of the most audacious literary minds of the twentieth century stopped breathing in Paris. But here's the thing about Cortázar—he never really believed in endings anyway. His novels loop back on themselves, his stories dissolve into ambiguity, and his characters exist in perpetual states of becoming. Death, for a writer like him, was probably just another chapter you could choose to skip.

Let's talk about Hopscotch for a moment, because it's the elephant in every room where Cortázar is discussed. Published in 1963, this monster of a novel came with instructions: you could read it straight through, or you could hopscotch between chapters following an alternative sequence the author provided. It was like a literary choose-your-own-adventure for intellectuals who smoked too much and argued about jazz at 3 AM. The book didn't just break the fourth wall; it invited you to help demolish the entire building.

What made Cortázar genuinely dangerous—and I use that word deliberately—was his refusal to accept that fiction had rules. When he wrote "Blow-Up," the short story that Michelangelo Antonioni would transform into his iconic 1966 film, he created something that still messes with your head decades later. A photographer enlarges his images and discovers... what exactly? A murder? A hallucination? The limits of perception itself? Cortázar never tells you, because telling you would be a betrayal of everything he believed about art. The uncertainty IS the point.

But here's where things get spicy. Cortázar wasn't just some avant-garde trickster playing games with narrative structure. The man was deeply political, fiercely committed to leftist causes in Latin America, and spent his final years advocating for human rights in Argentina during the military dictatorship. He gave away the prize money from his Médicis Prize to support political prisoners. This wasn't a writer hiding in an ivory tower made of experimental prose—this was someone who believed that breaking literary conventions and breaking political oppression were part of the same revolutionary project.

"62: A Model Kit" might be his most underrated work, and also his most infuriating. It's essentially Cortázar taking a throwaway idea from Chapter 62 of Hopscotch and spinning it into its own novel. Characters blur into each other, cities overlap, time becomes negotiable. Reading it feels like trying to assemble IKEA furniture while mildly intoxicated—you know all the pieces are there, you're just not sure they go together the way the instructions suggest. And maybe that's the point. Maybe the instructions are lying to you.

What's remarkable about Cortázar's influence today is how it operates through channels most people don't recognize. Every time a video game presents you with a non-linear narrative, every time a prestige TV show plays with timeline and perspective, every time a novelist decides that the reader should work for their meaning—there's a ghost of Cortázar hovering nearby, chain-smoking Gitanes and looking smug. He didn't invent metafiction, but he made it sexy. He made it feel like rebellion rather than pretension.

The Latin American literary boom of the 1960s and 70s gave us García Márquez's magical villages and Borges's infinite libraries. Cortázar contributed something different: the city as labyrinth, the everyday as portal to the uncanny. His Paris and Buenos Aires are places where reality has thin spots, where stepping through a door might land you somewhere logic refuses to follow. In an age when we're all doom-scrolling through digital labyrinths of our own making, his vision feels uncomfortably prescient.

Here's my controversial take, and I'm sticking to it: Cortázar is more relevant now than he was when he died. We live in an era of hyperlinks and rabbit holes, where information doesn't flow linearly but branches and loops. We consume narratives through binge-watching and choose-your-own-path streaming specials. We've built an entire internet that functions exactly like Hopscotch—you can go through it in order, or you can jump around following your own weird algorithm of interest. Cortázar saw this coming, or maybe he helped create it.

The man once said that literature is a game, but a game you can lose your life to. Not waste your life on—lose it to, like falling into something that swallows you whole. Forty-two years after his death, that invitation still stands. You can pick up Hopscotch and read it the boring way, or you can trust the author's mad hopscotch pattern and see where you land. You can treat "Blow-Up" as a puzzle to be solved, or you can accept that some mysteries are meant to stay mysterious.

So here we are, four decades and change later, still arguing about what Cortázar meant, still discovering new readers who stumble into his labyrinths and emerge slightly different. The Paris rain that fell the day he died has long since dried, but something he planted keeps growing—in literature, in film, in the very way we think about what stories can do. Not bad for a tall Argentine who believed that reality was just one option among many, and probably not even the most interesting one.

On February 10th, 1837, a 37-year-old man with wild curly hair and African heritage lay dying from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. He had just lost a duel to a French military officer who was sleeping with his wife. That man was Alexander Pushkin, and Russia has never quite recovered from his death. Here we are, 189 years later, still obsessing over his verse like it's some kind of cultural religion—and honestly, maybe it is.

Let's get one thing straight: calling Pushkin "the Shakespeare of Russia" is both accurate and deeply insulting to the man. Shakespeare wrote in a language that already had Chaucer and Marlowe behind it. Pushkin essentially invented modern Russian literature from scratch, like some linguistic mad scientist who decided that Russian deserved to be beautiful. Before him, Russian literary language was this stiff, Church Slavonic-infected thing that nobody actually spoke. Pushkin grabbed it by the collar, dragged it into the 19th century, and made it dance.

Take 'Eugene Onegin'—a novel in verse that somehow manages to be a love story, a social satire, a philosophical meditation, and a comedy all at once. The plot sounds like something from a soap opera: bored aristocrat rejects innocent country girl, she grows up to become a sophisticated society woman, he falls desperately in love with her, she rejects him. Done. But the way Pushkin tells it—with that lilting, conversational tone, those devastating one-liners, those digressions about everything from ballet to champagne—transforms melodrama into something that feels uncomfortably true. Every Russian has met an Onegin: that guy who's too clever for his own good, too cynical to love, too proud to admit he's hollow inside. Hell, most of us have been Onegin at some point.

And here's the kicker: 'Eugene Onegin' basically invented the "superfluous man" archetype that would haunt Russian literature for the next two centuries. Lermontov's Pechorin, Turgenev's Rudin, Dostoevsky's underground man—they're all Onegin's bastard children. Even today, when we encounter someone who's intelligent, charming, and completely incapable of meaningful human connection, we're essentially describing Pushkin's creation. The man wrote a character so perfectly that he became a permanent fixture of the human psyche.

But if 'Onegin' is Pushkin at his most playful, 'The Captain's Daughter' shows him at his most deceptively simple. On the surface, it's a historical adventure novel about a young officer during the Pugachev Rebellion of the 1770s. Battles, romance, narrow escapes—standard stuff. But Pushkin does something sneaky: he makes Pugachev, the rebel leader who's technically the villain, into the most compelling character in the book. This illiterate Cossack pretending to be a dead tsar becomes a figure of terrifying charisma and strange honor. He's brutal, he's ridiculous, and yet there's something almost noble about him. Pushkin was essentially asking: what makes a legitimate ruler? Is it blood, power, or something else entirely? For a writer living under Tsar Nicholas I, this was playing with dynamite.

Then there's 'The Queen of Spades,' which might be the most influential short story in Russian literature. It's a ghost story about gambling, obsession, and whether the supernatural even matters when human greed is horrifying enough on its own. Hermann, the protagonist, is obsessed with discovering a secret formula for winning at cards. He manipulates, stalks, and ultimately terrorizes an old countess to death for this secret. When her ghost appears and gives him three winning cards, we're left wondering: is this supernatural revenge, or has Hermann simply gone mad from his own obsession? Dostoevsky would later take this theme and run with it all the way to 'Crime and Punishment.' Tchaikovsky turned it into an opera. Modern writers from Nabokov to Bulgakov have paid homage to it. The story is only about 30 pages long, and it's shaped an entire tradition.

What makes Pushkin still relevant isn't just his influence on other writers—it's that his observations about human nature remain devastatingly accurate. When Onegin dismisses Tatiana's love letter with a condescending lecture about how she'll get over it and find someone more suitable, haven't we all either delivered or received that speech? When Hermann convinces himself that the ends justify his increasingly horrible means, aren't we watching the birth of every tech bro and crypto fraudster who ever existed? When the narrator of 'The Queen of Spades' reports that Hermann went mad but "now sits at the Obukhov Hospital in Ward Number 17, never answering questions, but muttering with unusual rapidity: 'Three, seven, ace! Three, seven, queen!'"—that image of obsession crystallized into insanity feels more contemporary than most things written last week.

Pushkin also understood something that many writers still don't: brevity isn't just the soul of wit, it's the soul of art. His complete works fit into about ten volumes. Compare that to Tolstoy's doorstop-sized novels or Dostoevsky's psychological marathons. Pushkin could accomplish in a single stanza what others needed chapters to achieve. There's a famous anecdote about a reader who complained that 'Onegin' was too short. Pushkin's response: "The reader is always right, but not when he's wrong." That's the man in a nutshell—charming, arrogant, and absolutely correct.

The manner of his death only amplified his legend. Dying in a duel over his wife's honor at 37, just as his powers were reaching their peak—it's the kind of romantic tragedy that seems designed by a novelist. D'Anthès, the man who killed him, lived until 1895 and was universally despised. Pushkin's body was secretly transported to a monastery for burial to prevent demonstrations. The government was terrified of what his funeral might spark. They were right to worry: Pushkin's death became a rallying cry for literary freedom, a martyr's tale that energized generations of Russian writers.

So here's the uncomfortable truth: Pushkin matters because he's not dead. Not in any meaningful sense. His words are still being quoted at Russian weddings, his stories are still being adapted into films and operas, his innovations in language are still embedded in how Russians think and speak. Every time someone describes a cynical intellectual who can't commit, they're channeling Onegin. Every time someone writes a twist ending about gambling and madness, they're standing in Pushkin's shadow. Every time someone tries to write poetry that sounds like actual human speech rather than elevated rhetoric, they're following the path he blazed.

One hundred eighty-nine years after a bullet tore through his intestines on a frozen St. Petersburg afternoon, Alexander Pushkin remains inescapable. That's not just legacy—that's literary immortality. And if you've never read him, you're missing out on conversations that humanity has been having for two centuries. The duel may have killed the man, but it couldn't touch the words. D'Anthès might have won on that snowy field, but Pushkin won everywhere else, forever.