Ole No Longer at the Wheel

Y'all, I'm tired. I could have written this week's piece about the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, but it was painfully obvious what was going to happen, starting when the judge prohibited the prosecution from referring to the victims as... victims. I think back to the Trayvon Martin verdict, which also hinged on reasonable doubt; that felt radical, that such a miscarriage of justice could occur, but in 2021 it feels commonplace.

So instead I'm going to fiddle while Rome burns and write about Ole Gunnar Solskjær's inevitable departure from Manchester United, after a shocking run of results. It's narrow, it's inconsequential, but it isn't the harbinger of lawlessness and collapse that a murder trial effectively allowing vigilantism, so let's talk about that this morning, instead.

I was quite excited when Ole took over, back in 2018. I'd spent the past two decades loving to hate United, but somehow the idea that they'd bring him in after sacking José Mourinho felt romantic, rather than the latest mercenary super-manager from the continent. Of course I'm always happy to see an Italian manager do well, in particular, but the idea of hiring Antonio Conte or Massimiliano Allegri (to say nothing of Mauricio Pochettino, Carlo Ancelotti, Zinedine Zidane, etc) just contributes to the sense of a class divide in management, where the same foreign coaches get the big jobs and the same British or English coaches get the mediocre ones.

Obviously Ole's not British himself, but there was something in his appointment that suggested the divide wasn't a foregone conclusion, even if it was just an interim appointment at first. He then surprised everyone by doing really well, and getting the job permanently, after which his results dipped for the rest of the 2018-19 season.

There have been ups and downs since then, the most significant up being the transfer in of Bruno Fernandes, who quickly turned into one of the league's best players. The team posted a couple of top-four finishes in the last couple of seasons, but notably won no trophies, despite doing well in various cup and European competitions. This was fairly ominous, as was the seesawing of results, with humiliating scorelines becoming rather common.

As long as Ole's team got results, I felt the criticisms were a bit snobbish (I'm thinking of Jonathan Wilson here). I wouldn't claim Solskjær is some unheralded tactical genius, but he got the team organized after the lows of the Mourinho era, and then picked a gem like Fernandes out of complete obscurity to take the league (and fantasy league) by storm. This was without a sporting director, mind you, and no clear link between Ole and Fernandes, unlike David Moyes bringing in Marouane Fellaini during his tenure because he'd coached Fellaini at Everton.

The subsequent signings have seemed a little scattershot, like Donny Van De Beek, and haven't really addressed the side's biggest faults. Though the signing of Raphaël Varane was a step in the right direction, and Edinson Cavani turned out to have more life in him than you'd have expected of a 34-year-old striker, they didn't address the issue of midfield and the focus came onto big-name signings like Jadon Sancho.

I think the thing that upset the whole balance, though, is the arrival of Cristiano Ronaldo. Despite him still being sort of a cartoon super villain on the pitch, and a problematic figure off it, he's a fiercely talented and ferociously hardworking player. But as loads of commentators have pointed out, he doesn't play the game the way it's played now, with the entire team involved in attack and defense, and as a result he no longer makes teams better. The pressure to pick him means that United doesn't pick Cavani or Sancho, which in turn suggests that they blew £73 million to make one of England's most promising players squander his best years sitting on the bench.

But the question is, how much of that is Solskjær's fault, and how much the board's? As I say, there's no sporting director, so the signing strategy is split between the coach and the chief executives, and it's clear that the executives thought getting Ronaldo in was more important than winning trophies. I could be wrong, and Ole could have floated the idea, since they played together for a few years at United, but it's just not in keeping with the same manager who brought in Fernandes.

Though maybe that's the tactical muddledness of Solskjær in a nutshell? After all, he signed Van De Beek and promptly parked him on the bench, too (ironically he scored the only United goal in Ole's last game in charge, the loss at Watford).

So what's next for Ole? He'll likely dip down the league if he stays in English management, though with his strong Manchester United association it's hard to see any of their rivals taking him on. More probable is a return to Scandinavia, and perhaps one day a stint managing Norway's national team.

As for United, they're starting to bandy around names again, like Mauricio Pochettino. I'm a little unconvinced by him, because even though he turned Spurs into genuine contenders, they also never won any trophies during his tenure. His style also leaves the players jaded and burned out after a few years, so it doesn't feel like an appointment for the long term (though it might also be wrong to frame "long-term" in terms of Alex Ferguson's million years in charge).

Conte's now spoken for, at Spurs himself, but he'd have been a short-term appointment too, since he falls out with club boards quite regularly, especially when he wins leagues. The big one I can think of who's available and a potential fit is Allegri, though whether he'd fancy working with Ronaldo again is an open question. I'm sure there are loads of Spanish coaches that have the profile United is looking for, as well.

Or...

Apparently Michael Carrick will be caretaker, until they find an interim manager to see out the end of the season. Maybe he'll do well enough in the position to hold onto it longer? It's unlikely, especially since the last club legend just flamed out so spectacularly, but the board might be so scattershot that it could even happen...

Thoughts on Shang-Chi

Because I'm not going to the cinema yet, my ability to watch new movies this year has been limited to what's available on streaming. And while I appreciate that there are certain financial ramifications to that, it was a bit of a shame that Scarlett Johansson's lawsuit against Disney over Black Widow has meant that the new MCU films aren't streaming on day one, even if Disney was at least charging extra for them, unlike HBO Max.

This means I'm either waiting for some recent movies to become available on streaming, or am considering renting them. The list, at the moment, consists of No Time to Die, Venom: Let There Be Carnage, Eternals, and until Friday, Shang-Chi. Possible spoilers after the jump:

Finally Doing NaNoWriMo

Every November for years I've seen people talking about NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month), but I've never joined up myself. It always felt a little gimmicky, or I had other stuff I was working on, or any number of other dumb reasons.

This year, though, I've decided to give it a try. I've felt a little directionless with my writing for the past 18 months or so (gosh, I wonder what that could be related to), even when I had stuff to revise or write down. More importantly, it's been a long time since I've felt able to work on something longer than a short story (and even those didn't seem to be coming to me), so this felt like the right time to do it.

On top of that is the realization that to properly get ahead in publishing, it helps to have longer works. I've been focusing a lot on novellas lately, but have also been finding it hard to find markets that would take them. A novel, on the other hand, seems easier to shop around to agents, which seems like the most reasonable port of call for getting ahead with my writing.

It helped that I finally had a novel idea, which I spent a little while developing earlier this year. I outlined it and wrote a few world-building type documents, that would help me get a sense of the structure of the story and the tone I wanted to strike, but then I found myself distracted by my tech/telecoms blog, and didn't do anything more on the novel idea for a while.

Incidentally, the tech/telecoms blog was so easy to work on because I knew, month to month, what I wanted to do with it. This is what I mean when I say my fiction writing has felt directionless - I had a short story idea a few months ago, and I got as far as the first (hand-written) draft, but in the transition to the typed second draft, I couldn't make it work or muster much more interest. With the other blog, on the other hand, the subject (comparisons of age-related mobile plans in various countries in Europe) dictated the structure, so I knew that after I finished writing about plans aimed at seniors in Italy, I could write about plans in Italy that were aimed at kids.

It's the same with the novel I'm currently working on. Because I spent some time figuring out the structure earlier this year, I know what I want to accomplish in most of the chapters, and can spend my precious and limited writing time accomplishing it, rather than getting hamstrung by all the possible things I can do. Of course, this is the kind of thing that works for me, so maybe a different type of writer thrives on that ambiguity.

As far as the actual NaNoWriMo, it turns out the goal is to write 50,000 words in November, whereas I always thought it was 30k. It doesn't matter either way, as the important thing is to have something workable at the end of the month, and because my writing sessions are regularly yielding much less than 1,000 words, let alone the 1,667 I'd need to average to get to 50k. It's still satisfying to go to the website and input the number of words I've written that day, and see the little meter tick up. I probably should have tried gamifying my writing ages ago...

In any case, it seems to be working, i.e. I have something to write that's holding my interest, and crucially I'm looking forward to certain scenes later on in the story. Even if I don't have the full 50k words by the end of November, I'm aiming to continue writing this initial draft into December, so fingers crossed that I'll be able to do something with it in 2022.

Thoughts on Dune

Another week, another review of a movie that's premiering simultaneously in theaters and on HBO. However, in marked contrast to the Many Saints of Newark (aka Sopranos Babies), I've managed to watch Denis Villeneuve's Dune (Part One) in its entirety before writing my thoughts on it.

This isn't a proper review, just some scattered thoughts (as the title implies), but the main questions to answer are: is it a good movie (yes) and should you watch it (yes)

To start off, it's worth noting that I'm one of those who read Frank Herbert's novel way back in their teen years, and whose view of science fiction has been shaped as a result. I read the rest of the main novels in the last year or so of college, though the series didn't improve as it went on, and I gave up on the prequel books written by Frank's son Brian with Kevin J Anderson, whose work I knew from various Star Wars tie-in novels. Every once in a while I'd look at the Wikipedia page for the Brian-Kevin books, and see that they'd mined some aspect of the history, but I've never felt the need to revisit.

I also saw David Lynch's movie version after I'd read the first novel. Oddly enough, I had Kyle MacLachlan in my head as Paul the whole time I was reading the book, so in a lot of ways I think that was the best casting of the character. Sting was pretty bonkers as Feyd-Rautha, and the entire thing was weird and, if not entirely successful, at least memorable. Less successful (for me) was the Sci-Fi channel miniseries, which I didn't ever manage to finish.

So where does Denis Villeneuve's version fit into this timeline? Despite the fact that it's probably been twenty years or more since I last read Dune, so much of the movie was immediately recognizable to me. I remembered many of the scenes from the book, and the ones that I didn't seemed to be improvements.

Just as crucially, the design is suitably epic. The book evokes images of gigantic starships and monumental architecture, and this movie brings both of those, with overtones of mind-bending French comics like the Metabarons - which was written by Alejandro Jodorowsky, who was heavily influenced by Dune in making the Metabarons, and who spent part of 1973 trying to film his own version of Dune. There are a lot of flowing imperial robes, impressively bonkers head-dresses, and vehicle design that's reminiscent of animals.

Incidentally, there were similar overtones to the design of David Lynch's version, which makes it interesting to think that such epic, far-future SF should inspire such bonkers and dream-like costumes, ships and architecture.

I mentioned improvements, and a key one has to be that Baron Harkonnen is no longer portrayed as an Evil Gay Dude. This aspect of the character was problematic when I read the book in 1997 (especially because his corpulence and disgusting skin condition were implicitly linked to his proclivity for young boys), and only slightly fixed when the Brian-Kevin prequels revealed that his conditions were actually the result of Bene Gesserit poisoning. On the other hand, I'm glad to see that aspect is not touched on in this version - though who knows what Part 2 will bring?

They also recast Liet-Kynes as a Black woman, which strikes me as a reasonable choice to make - though how much more daring would it have been if the Atreides clan had been recast as non-white? At least then you wouldn't have accusations of the White Savior Trope, which Dune contains in spades. In Dune's defense, Paul is the White Savior not because he's white, but because of Bene Gesserit scheming over millennia - though, yeah, the White Savior thing is still prominent.

But turning to the director, this is now the third film I've seen by him, after Arrival and Blade Runner 2049. I'm not sure I can point to any real commonalities among the three movies, apart from the sense of scale in all of them. That's not to say that Villeneuve's a generic director, because they're each unlike any other science fiction film around today. But comparing Villeneuve with Christopher Nolan's SF movies (Interstellar, Inception and Tenet), Nolan's appear to be more grounded in reality, with the trappings of Hollywood action films, while Villeneuve's atmospheres are more dreamlike and harder to fit into the Hollywood template.

I also think the two directors stand up to close comparisons, as they've made the best science fiction movies of the last decade (specifically Interstellar and Arrival, in that order). As a result, it's clear that Villeneuve was the right person to make a new Dune, since it fits with his aesthetic and his sense of what makes a good SF film. Meanwhile, Nolan would probably have made a good remake of 2001 (you could argue that Interstellar is just that).

Overall, as I've said, Denis Villeneuve's Dune is a good movie, fantastic-looking and well worth the two hours and change that it lasts, which feels quite slim compared with some other recent epics, or indeed compared with Blade Runner 2049. It helps that this film contains only about the first half of the story from the novel - it allows him to be expansive and really build out his world, without worrying about hitting the final beats in times that are reasonable for a Hollywood film. And if the movie ends abruptly, at least the ending comes at a point where you're looking forward to seeing more - similar to how a TV episode might end, while pointing to the next.

From what I've read on the internet, Part 2 isn't even written yet, let alone ready for theaters. However, I'll be interested to see how it turns out, and whether Villeneuve will follow the arc that the novels took if he gets to Dune Messiah or beyond. I'll also be interested to see if this film, or series, manages to turn Dune into a household name, the way Star Wars is... especially since Star Wars was so heavily influenced by Dune.

Thoughts on the Many Saints of Newark and the Sopranos

Like a New Year's resolution, I always swear this time will be different, but then I let myself down. In this case, I was all set to not write this blog until I'd actually finished watching the damn movie in question, but the conveyor belt of content waits for no one. So here we are: I'm most of the way through HBO Max's Many Saints of Newark and thinking back to the Sopranos.

I've actually resisted watching it for a while, to the point where I wasn't sure it'd even still be on HBO Max. I didn't even twig that it was a prequel to the Sopranos until about the fifth time I saw the trailer, and then I was even less sure that I wanted to watch it: I have a bit of a complicated relationship with the Sopranos, and wasn't convinced I'd enjoy this.

On the other hand, I kept seeing memes relating to it, and the final straw was listening (yesterday) to Marc Maron interviewing David Chase. There were a lot of interesting insights (like the big mystery of who Ray Liotta plays in this movie, or the point where Silvio Dante decides on a hairpiece), but listening to them talk about it made me think that it would be a little more than just a romp through the Sopranos's greatest (unseen) hits.

First of all, I love the casting in this movie. James Gandolfini's son Michael is quite enjoyable as a young Tony, while Alessandro Nivola is magnetic as young Tony's mentor Gentleman Dick Moltisanti (the father of Christopher!). I'm also loving Leslie Odom Jr as Harold McBrayer, the foil for Dick's machinations and the center of the racial subplot running through the movie. The best of the supporting characters are Jon Bernthal as Tony's father Johnny, and Vera Farmiga as his mother Livia - Farmiga, in particular, is an MVP here, because she does a great job of evoking not only Nancy Marchand's older version of the character from the series, but she's also made up to look exactly like Edie Falco, who played Tony's wife. When I saw her in the trailer, I honestly thought it was Edie Falco at first (Maron said the same thing on his podcast, btw).

I'm also enjoying that racial subplot. It takes place against the backdrop of the Newark race riots in the 60s, and I've found I really like these period pieces showing how the different communities interacted at the time. Other examples would be Boardwalk Empire, and the critically maligned Green Book.

The movie also makes the show look better to me, which I wasn't totally expecting. I need to qualify that statement, though, because I don't want to give the impression that I don't like the Sopranos. I just don't think it's the second-coming of the gangster movie that people have been saying for twenty years.

I've seen all of it, of course, though not in order. As a result, I saw certain characters die before they were introduced, and saw the beginnings of certain other storylines. But I don't think that's why I'm so conflicted about - rather, I thought some of the storylines in the show didn't hold up as well as they could have, and I thought the Wire (my absolute favorite show ever) had tighter storytelling.

What I admired about the Sopranos was the family drama, and the way Tony corrupted everything and everyone around him, and also simply the way this was a story about the American Dream. He was both absolutely steeped in it, by virtue of achieving it through dishonest means and by constantly striving for the trappings of it, while also being stuck on the outside of it... again, by virtue of his criminality but also the way Italian-Americans have adapted to the US. The most devastating episode for me was the one where Tony befriends all these middle-class professional guys, but realizes they're getting off on hanging out with the gangster.

Another one that came back to my mind was the one where we see Dr Melfi's family, and how they live their Italian-ness; David Chase mentioned it in the podcast, saying that her family represented a strand of Italians who'd tried to "pass" by Americanizing, much more than Tony's type of Italians. I'm a completely different type of Italian-American, maybe closer to German by virtue of having come from the north and having arrived in the 1980s, but these questions have been present in my family, too.

Anyway, now that I'm almost done with Many Saints, I'm wondering if it'll be time to rewatch the Sopranos soon - I'll have a lot of the stories fresh in my mind when I do. Maybe I'll appreciate the show more on the second go?

Foam Rolling and Acupressure

I've heard it said that the things everyone is looking for on the internet are how to get rich, how to get skinny and how to get laid (I'd also add how to get published). I don't know that I have any insights on any of those things that you can't get anywhere else, although I'm partial to the slow-but-steady school of achieving them all, if that helps.

But on the subject of getting skinny, I've been thinking a lot about recovery lately. Specifically, I've been thinking about various sore or tight muscles, and how to get them not to be sore and tight. The journey I'm on is currently ongoing, but I'd say that it's worth it, so these resources might be helpful.

The first thing to do is to find a personal trainer. I've talked in the past about how they're not always so helpful, but this is one area where they're really worth it. Depending on your goals they can recommend the best ways to tackle your specific pains and tightnesses, and they can diagnose the real problem behind a continuing ache you might have. The game-changer for me was a few years ago, when my trainer at the time explained that a tight muscle is a weak muscle: therefore, rehabbing that muscle means rolling it, stretching it and exercising it, in that order.

For those, like me, who are reluctant to go back into the gym until the pandemic is a little more beaten, there are now virtual training sessions. My gym, 24 Hour Fitness, offers them for cheaper than in-person sessions, though they can be a little tough to find. The obvious downside to virtual training is that you need to get your own equipment, so that's where the next section comes in.

The first thing to have at home is the actual foam roller, and this is the brand that I have at home. TriggerPoint makes them in a variety of sizes and softnesses, as well as varying amounts of things sticking out of them. Larger rollers mean you can roll both legs at the same time, but may be less portable; I prefer the orange Grid travel, because it's neither too firm nor too soft. The ones with studs coming out of them are good for getting into hard-to-reach areas, but may be too painful for beginners.

For getting into smaller areas, I have a set of massage balls similar to these (which appear to be sold out). My set has a more spiky second ball, but the smooth one is the one I use the most - I'll typically pin it against the wall and work it around the tightest back and shoulder muscles. You can also use them for rolling out the soles of your feet, but if you want to really hit the smallest trigger points there, I recommend golf balls.

For additional resources on foam rolling and acupressure, I'm currently reading Becoming a Supple Leopard by Kelly Starrett. His book has its detractors, and it requires even more equipment than I've got, but it's good for finding all the different parts of your various muscles that you can smash or floss or roll. I've worked my way down to his section on the adductors, which has been a revelation.

A slightly less intense beginners' routine is here. It walks you through various ways of rolling out some of the more common muscles that need it, and includes a primer on what fascia is and why you should get it in working order. I also sometimes listen to Bret's podcast, when it's got someone interesting talking on it - they're not all about fitness, but I think those are the ones I listen to most commonly.

Those are some of my resources for rehabbing my muscles. I've found that these routines have helped a lot in releasing tightness in my back, neck and calves (my worst trouble spots), as well as hamstrings, quadriceps and glutei. And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go sort out my shoulder...

Let's Normalize Masking and Distancing

Bit of a controversial statement there, but I'm going to stand by it. Incidentally, I'm not advocating masking in every circumstance forever and ever, but ever since I started watching Japanese reality show Terrace House last year, I've been struck by how normal it is to wear a mask when you're felling sick over there.

This is a nice change from our Anglo-Saxon free-for-all of germs. I used to have a flatmate back in London who would sit in the living room when he got sick, coughing really loudly and not trying to cover it up. I asked him to cover his mouth once, and his response was that I was going to get it anyway, so why bother? Not super helpful.

A few years later, a coworker here in the US was famous in the office for coming in whenever he was sick, even though he was perfectly able to work from home (and would have saved himself a long commute on top of that). Of course he'd spread whatever he had to the rest of us, but what made it worse was that his boss didn't think anything of it - the company's policy was even to pool vacation time and sick time together (at least for their division; mine were separate), which only increased the incentive to come in and make everyone else sick.

I do remember my own experiences in years before that, where I'd have to evaluate whether I was sick enough to stay home, and if not I'd travel to work crammed onto the Tube, then sit in my office and presumably spread my germs to everyone around me. Those were different times though, when we weren't routinely given laptops and so it was harder to actually work from home. All the same, I think managers then, as now, could have been more aggressive about having sick employees stay home where possible.

We could also normalize wearing surgical masks when we're sick, or around others who are, like people in East Asia seem to do. It's a shame it's become politicized here, because it's not a big deal to put on a surgical mask - they may not be as protective as N95s or KN95s, but they seem to do something, and they're not hard to get hold of... in normal circumstances, anyway.

I read this morning about some dimwit in Missouri complaining that schools shouldn't mandate masks, because then kids won't learn about facial cues. On the contrary, I'd argue that if kids only have someone's eyes to look at, they'll get a lot better at reading facial cues - after all, don't models talk about "smize-ing", where you make your smile look genuine by smiling with your eyes? I'm sure I learned this from Tyra Banks.

This future I'm positing doesn't even require 100% mask-wearing compliance in all situations (perhaps idealistically, I'm imagining a future where we aren't in a pandemic - I am, after all, a writer of fantasy). It just requires people to be grown up about listening to their own bodies, and wearing a mask when they start sneezing and coughing to not infect those around them. It also requires us not to conform to this free-market ideal that we show our usefulness by powering through our illnesses and going to work when we probably shouldn't.

Again, these thoughts may be too fanciful for the cultural moment where we find ourselves, but they're worthy goals. If (when!) we get back to the normal run of leaving the house and going to offices and seeing humans, I'll aim to continue wearing masks when I feel it's warranted.

Of course, the damn things being so politicized means I'll be paranoid about some right-wing jerk beating me up for it because I've triggered him somehow. But I'm being the change I want to see in the world. In an absurd, meaningless existence such as our own, that's the one freedom left to us.