2016 - Novak Djokovic's Grand Slam quest

While the final in Basel pointed to Nadal making steps towards his best and offered a good look at Federer at his aggressive best, it is still hard to look beyond a certain Serbian to be overwhelming favourite at all the tournaments that count next year. I believe Djokovic has ‘Grand Slam’ on the mind and here are some reasons why he should be reasonably optimistic.

Will Novak solve the riddle of Roland Garros in 2016 and achieve a Grand Slam?

He has no real rivals over five setters. Roger Federer and Andy Murray have challenged and beaten Novak this year, turning in stellar performances. But these wins were over three sets. They have been unable to really take a tilt at Djokovic at the Slams. Murray lost to Novak easily in Melbourne and folded in the fifth at Paris. Federer played a match for the ages in his Wimbledon semifinal against Murray, but was always playing catch-up in the finals. At New York, almost everything went Federer’s way - he played short matches, not dropping a set and being as fresh as possible, the crowd at Flushing Meadow was not even remotely fair, resembling a Davis Cup crowd rather than a neutral crowd and he managed to play superbly for two and a half sets. But the signs were always pointing to trouble. He came into the final not having dropped serve over two or more tournaments and found himself under severe pressure in almost every game in the first set. It really seemed as if Djokovic could break at will. And in a two-horse race, Roger was always second best. Beyond Murray and Federer stand Wawrinka, who plays his best at the business end of tournaments and does not suffer from the pressure of performance there and actually competes well with Novak especially in Melbourne and Paris,  and Nadal (if he continues to work his way back and even then, only on clay probably)

He is thinking about it. During the US Open, Novak was asked about his chances of winning the Grand Slam one year. His answer was very informative. Instead of the usual ‘take it one match at a time’ platitude that players love trotting out, he just said to the interviewer ‘from your mouth to God’s ears’. I think all the attention on Serena’s Grand Slam pursuit has put it firmly in his mind.

He ended up with a better Slam year than Serena in 2015: Djokovic had a better year in the Slams than Serena (27-1 to 26-1). Wawrinka played lights out tennis in Paris and that is pretty much what it takes to beat Djokovic anywhere.  His pursuit of the calendar Grand Slam is more realistically achievable than anyone since Federer in 2005 (before you-know-who came and bossed the clay). His celebrations of late have become more muted, which seems to indicate that he is chasing history.

He is not being stretched: After winning three Slams, Djokovic won the next two tournaments convincingly. Every match and every set was dominated except for one set against Tomic. On average, he broke his opponents twice each set they played. And he always seemed to have an extra gear. Who would bet against him running the table through to the end of the year?

Basel 2015: Roger Federer wins and Rafael Nadal leaves encouraged too

It was a good day for Swiss tennis fans.

It was the best result for them - their hero, unsatisfied with six titles, powered his way to a seventh. And the cherry on top was the fact that he did it against his primary rival, Nadal. They hadn't met since last year's Australian Open and you had to go further back for a meeting in a final (Rome 2013). Federer, second only to Djokovic indoors, was pretty much in control for almost all of the match barring a brief phase at the end of the second set, where Nadal reminded him of the slender margins of this game as well as laying a marker for the rest of the tour. For the rest of the match a wonderfully aggressive Federer was able to handle everything Nadal threw at him, served with great power and accuracy and rarely made to chase. Too much game on a surface that suits his game to a T, and his wonderful commitment to aggression over the last year and a half has only done him good.

Nadal, meanwhile, did not have too much to cry about. After a woeful 2015, he has started to approach consistency over the last three tournaments he has played - a runner-up to Djokovic at Beijing, a semifinal at Shanghai and now a runner up - these matches have shown him making his way back towards his best. More work has to be done, but it is thrilling to have him in the mix again. If the first set against Djokovic in Beijing showed glimmers, here he was able to mount a serious challenge at times, dazzling the crowd with some vintage shots.

I was hoping that tennis would win and while not a classic, the match was compelling with plenty of winners and almost customary ‘wow-did-you-see-that’ shots from both men. Federer and Nadal will leave Basel encouraged for the rest of the year and for 2016. And after that, who knows?

Both men are closer to the end than the beginning but rather than sadden, it need only make us enjoy each match they play a little more. Don't forget, this too shall pass.

It was a good day for tennis fans.

A Little Life: When does suffering end?

In Steve Martin's L.A Story, he remarks 'Why is it that we don't always recognize the moment when love begins but we always know when it ends?' In a similar vein, while we can probably identify the start of a story of abuse, how do we determine when it ends? There is a great human need to see each story as having an arc, every suffering an end and all life stories moving forward, in various manners of speaking.

But, as we all know, life does not always have a lesson or a meaning. The truth is that bad things happen to good people every day, victims of abuse and torture need not always see a light at the end of the tunnel. Being struck by lightning today does not reduce your odds tomorrow. In the papers and the news channels we read and watch stories of people who have undergone terrible trauma or abuse and in some way, the printing of the news story, the sharing of the tale, the nabbing of the abuser, say - all these act as some kind of turning point as per the story. The victim is finally out from under the oppressors thumb and can now start healing and get on the road to recovery, to live a rewarding life.

Even more than the impacted person, we the readers of these depressing news stories need to believe that.

But what if someone doesn't get better. It is not a question of them not wanting to as much not being able to? What if a victim of abuse is not able to appreciate the greatest, most wonderful gifts enough to shed the skin of abuse? Do you blame them for not being able to 'move on' in life? Or do we realise that just because we want something so, it does not happen; just because it would suit our narrative.

This, I think, is the primary point of Hanya Yanagihara(HY)'s novel, A Little Life. On the surface and initially it appears to be about four well-educated East Coast Americans who make their life in NYC, pursuing fame and/or wealth. The tropes are standard - Willem the aspiring actor, Malcolm the architect, JB the artist and Jude the lawyer. So far, so normal. The friends engage in easy banter and they all seem to have their future plans clear enough, whether or not success is a part of it. 

Slowly the narrative starts to focus on one of the friends more than the others - the enigmatic Jude St Francis (named after the patron saint, not so subtly), who plays his cards close to his chest, to put it mildly. His closest friends do not know anything about his background (which is slowly revealed to us over the course of the book - each chapter of his past more horrific than what went before, pushing our tolerance), his parentage (orphan left to be found) or his sexuality (none to speak of).

And just as horrific has his childhood was, Jude turns a corner into a golden present and future. After getting into the right schools and dazzling people with his brilliance and excellence (at most everything, it would seem) he manages to write himself a winning lottery ticket. His mentors are kind and understanding, patient and incredibly generous. His friends are all loyal, especially Willem, the budding actor, who never allows his girlfriends to make him choose between Jude and them (this must strike a familiar chord with us all, being one of the pitfalls of dating a person who doesn't care for your friends). HY moves the story along well, even though the book is long and we find ourselves wanting to know both what exactly happened in Jude's past as well as what the future holds for him. I found myself dreading his future (surely he had had his share of abuse and would now get to live a happy life, I hoped) more than I wanted to find out about his future (relentlessly gloomy and depressing, passed around from one abuser to another, trust broken repeatedly till he is but a shell of a functioning human being).

I think the purpose of the length of the book is to show that none of us can judge those who have been through something like abuse. Again and again I found myself thinking (or mentally screaming to Jude) that 'this is good. Get over it. Move on' and other ridiculous phrases that are so easy to say and so hard to implement. And I began to get the point of HY's book - none of us, not even the all knowing reader is in a position to pass judgement on Jude's moods or Jude's inability to get over his demons, because IT DID NOT HAPPEN TO US.

It is a sobering lesson because it stands in opposition to what we are fed by the daily media all around it - You can win. Get moving on. Get busy living or get busy dying. In today's world if a movie or a book doesn't inspire you, or at least give you a smidgen of hope then it would be hard pressed to justify its existence. Grime and sorry and pain are excellent for act 1. But you better make sure that Hope comes around for the finale. Even if it is an artistic, mostly hidden, sliver of hope, that's ok. But it has to be Hope.

So I walk around now, still thinking of the main characters of this book, and I overlook the few criticisms I have and choose to imbibe the depressing lesson of the book, the difficulty of reading about so much violence (both externally inflicted and self-inflicted) to the point of cringing.

It is a sad book. But while we go on complaining about how short life is and how quickly it is over, it is also the longest thing we know. Or for some, at least.

The Manhattan List

I think everyone should have a Manhattan list. Maybe that should be 'must' have a Manhattan list.

For the uninitiated, the Manhattan list is a list of the most famous people you would like to visit on the island of Manhattan. And kill.

Huh?

Just kidding. Relax. Dont take everything so seriously.

The Manhattan list stems from a famous scene in Woody Allen's classic 1979 film of the same name. The scene goes like this:
Woody Allen's character talks into a recorder, listing out the things that make life worth living. His list goes like this : "Why is life worth living? It's a very good question. Um... Well, There are certain things I guess that make it worthwhile. uh... Like what... okay... um... For me, uh... ooh... I would say... what, Groucho Marx, to name one thing... uh... um... and Wilie Mays... and um... the 2nd movement of the Jupiter Symphony... and um... Louis Armstrong, recording of Potato Head Blues... um... Swedish movies, naturally... Sentimental Education by Flaubert... uh... Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra... um... those incredible Apples and Pears by Cezanne... uh... the crabs at Sam Wo's... uh... Tracy's face..."

So basically the list has to be
one movie star/comedian, one sportsman, two bits of music, one genre or type of movies, a book, two actors, a painting, a food item and the one you love. (its my idea, so its my rules :) )

Here is my list:
Groucho Marx, Rafa Nadal, Traveling Wilbury's End of the Line, Bob Dylan's Simple Twist of Fate, Truffaut movies, Anna Karenina, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro,  Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring, the pongal breakfast at HSB in Chennai, and ...well, that's personal :)

So, if you stumble onto this page while looking for montytalks or by design, feel free to put in your own Manhattan list in the comments. And if you dont have one, hang your head in shame, for you should.