Tennis at the 02

Above: a very blurry shot of Rafael Nadal warming up for his round robin match against Nikolai Davydenko.

One of the things that surprises most people about me is my obsession with watching tennis. I am as far from a typical fan as you can get. I've never played, I'm unfit, I have no interest in any other sports. But there is something about tennis that fascinates me enough to contemplate using up precious holiday to enjoy the Wimbledon fortnight in full.

I love in tennis because:

• two people enter only one person leaves. Unlike team sports the focus is on the individual to perform or not. There's no coaching, nothing to hide behind, just you vs the other person who blinks first
  
• the trappings. From the contrast between the cool old England lawns of Wimbledon to the hyped up, entertainment focused US Open tennis is played all over the world.
  
• the commentary. Putting aside the excellent Sue Barker where else could you hear the surreal rambling humour of Boris Becker, the hysterical yet incisive analysis of John McEnroe facing off against a series of slightly bemused brits like Andrew Castle and our very own Henman. Listening to experts talk about something they love it one of lives rare pleasures. My favourite moment, when even they are reduced to incoherent whoops. Sometimes a shot really is that good.
• the fans. Whether it's the union jack clad ladies, vocal aussies, to the wag in the crowd who shouts out 'come on Tim' even though Henman is long retired, I love them all
  
• everybody has their favourites. Like a soap opera whether you're a fan of a cool swiss, the amiable belgium, the fiery scot there's somebody to suit anybody.
  
• Anything can happen. Who would have thought Roger Federer would have begun the year in tears after being throughly thrashed at the Australian Open by Nadal. His dream of breaking records seeming further away that ever. But ended the year not only regaining his Wimbledon title (poor Roddick) but also winning Roland Garros, and completing a career slam, one of the few titles that eluded him.
  

So I was really excited when I heard the climax of the tour: the ATP World Tennis finals showcasing the best eight players was coming to the O2 arena. My parents and I booked tickets and earlier this week got to see this match Nadal vs Davydenko in one of the night sessions.

The tournament
I drove up straight after work and parked straight outside. I haven't been inside the O2 since it was the millenium dome. And everything from the large banners of the posters, flashing lights, to the plush practise courts seemed geared up to max up the pressure. The O2 arena is massive. Our seats were up in the nose bleeders, the players tiny figures below. Unlike the sedate genteel atmosphere of Wimbledon this was all flash and pizzazz. I loved the music played during the changeover, the video replays on the big screen, the darkness of the crowd during play, and the roar after every shot. Even the distracting flashing signs which signalled aces or break points were interesting.

However it was clear that the event had some logistical problems (even before Del Potro/Murray scoring fiasco). The first match (a doubles match) started at eight but when it finished at around 8.45 instead of bringing the earlier match forward there was a forty-five minute break until the players emerged on court. None of us were allowed to leave the interior of the arena. When the match finally started at 9.30pm, my parents were already nervously looking at their watches (they had to catch the last train home). During the second set tie break when it looked like it might go to a third set even I was wondering whether I would be able to stay instead of cheering the players on. Most people took the tube and would have faced the uncomfortable choice of leaving before the matched finished or staying and facing an expensive taxi ride home. I suggest next year they start the day matches at 1pm which will give them time to start the evening matches earlier. And everybody time to enjoy the evening.


The match
The tournament is round robin format. The two players in each group with the higher percentage of (games won-games lost) advance to the next stage. Nadal had lost his first match and had to beat Davydenko to have any chance of advancing.

Before the match I knew that Nadal's season had been blighted by injury and he was looking to end the season on a positive note. It was clear this was not the Nadal of old. He had shrunk in stature. He was easily frustrated and curiously passive. His shots lacked depth giving Davydenko time to create angles. It was Davydenko not Nadal who dominated from the back of the court. This has never been Nadal's service. It suits his game the least and at this time in the season after the rigours of the hard courts he rarely has much success.

None of this is to take away from Davydenko who played very well, rarely allowing Nadal a chance back into the match. I knew little about Davydenko before the match but it was clear he was in form and I wasn't surprised when he went on to win the tournament.

It wasn't a classic match by any means. But I enjoyed the second set a lot more than the first. And the chance to see Nadal play in person.

I disliked Nadal when he first appeared on the scene. I thought his personality must match his style: another brash boorish sportsman. But then I saw him play. And long before that sublime match at Wimbledon 2008: the best match of all time, I was a supporter.

I like Federer, but I never backed him. His tennis is almost inhuman in it's perfection but he makes it look easy. With Nadal each stroke reveals the effort, the years of training, the will to succeed. He fights for every point. I've always liked the underdog (as much as somebody who is number two in the world can be an underdog;)). And watching him the other day reminded me of why I loved him. Even when he was match down you can see the effort being exerted, he always tried to create opportunities, never giving up. Watching Nadal reminded me of importance of effort even when you lose. Especially when you lose. Because its our losses, it's the times we find it hard that teach us more than unrelenting victory ever does.

Evernight and point of view

I know, I know, yet another vampire book. But Evernight by Claudia Gray has a twist on the genre that I think is quite interesting. To explain why I'm going to have to go into details, so if you haven't read the book yet, be warned. Here be spoilers...

I am a big fan of the twist when used well in young adult fiction (Nick in the end of the Demon's Lexicon by Sarah Rees Brennan, Clary and Jace's relationship in City of Ashes by Cassandra Clare). One of the greatest pleasures is rereading a book and discovering the trail of breadcrumbs leading up to the twist. Going from 'oh my god I didn't see this.' to 'how could it be anything else.' Like a magic eye painting where you can only see the witch, after the twist how could it be anything else but a horse?

Evernight is not one of those books. The big reveal halfway through the book is that Bianca, our heroine, is not an innocent ingénue but a born vampire who has known about her nature 'as soon as I was old enough to keep a secret.' So why then for the first 150 pages of the book are we the reader ignorant of information? Instead of the feeling of things clicking into place my reaction was WTF?

I went back and reread the first half of the book, knowing the reveal. And instead of the careful foreshadowing there was no way you could have guessed the twist. With the result that instead of adding something to the book it read more as the twist for the sake of the twist. And as a reader I felt betrayed and deliberately kept in the dark. This was not an unreliable narrator (Micah in Justine Larbaleisteir's Liar), the narrator was unreliable on only one point to create false suspense.

The main problem I have with this book is the point of view. I think if Gray had choose the third person, it could have worked. In the third person we have more distance from a character and they are better placed to hide things from us. The narrow confines of the first person point of view means that we, the reader, know what Bianca's knows. And if information is kept from the reader that the narrator would think about we feel betrayed and lied to.

It would have felt less like two different books glued together if Gray had hinted about the secret Bianca was keeping. That she was ashamed of her true nature and wanted to distinguish herself from the others who were different. Like a watered down version of Jessica (one of the best TV creations) in True Blood. Puberty is horrifying enough teenage girls made monstrous by their hormones without adding fangs, blood tears, and a regenerating hymen to mix.Or if she was in denial? Or even ignorant of her true nature?

It was shame becausse the suspense in the opening scene really worked for me but I never felt it was followed through into the book. Bianca dreams of the flower but it is never mentioned again. I guessed the Lucas=vampire hunter from the opening scene.

Another issues I had with the book was the Bianca/Lucas relationship. Bianca goes straight from interesting guy I met in the woods to Mine, Mine Mine, Mine. Now I was a teenage girl, I understand obsession, but apart from her vampire nature there isn't a big explanation for her sudden obsession with Lucas. Whatever criticisms you may have about Twilight Meyer puts the time in to develop Bella and Edwards relationship (boy does she ever, that is pretty much the singular plot until the baseball game and cat and mouse). As the book is told entirely from Bianca's point of view I spent most of the Lucas love scenes bored and wondering exactly why she was so obsessed with him, particularly when the far superior, and (less boring and pious) Balthazar is lurking in the background. Also I really didn't get what Lucas saw in her. There didn't feel a real connection between the characters. If you are going to go the well trodden route of slayer/ vampire romance (awh buffy you were awesome) you had better knock it out of the park.

I found the supporting characters: Patrice, Vic, Raquel far more interesting than either Lucas or Bianca.

It was a shame because these factors spoiled my enjoyment of the genuinely different things Gray is doing within the genre. The girl vampire is notoriously underdeveloped apart from Jessica and Pam in True Blood. I loved the fact that in the love scenes Bianca is the pursuer, she wants Lucas and she is not ashamed to admit.

What disappointed me most about this book was that it had so much potential. The female vampire. The frank depiction of female sexuality. The well-drawn cast of supporting characters. The awesome cover. The clever gothic opening. All of it unrealised.

There are much better young adults book out there, don't waste your time on this.

Jennifers Body and the feminist horror movie

I wanted to love Jennifer's body, I really did. It had a lot of things worked for it: the title, the horror-comedy premise, written by Diablo Cody (who I know infuriates a lot of people but I adore), starring Amanda Seyfriend aka the gone but never forgotten Lily Kane. But why was it such a hot mess?

First the casting, I love Amanda Seyfried but she was frankly miscast as the dowdy inassert Needy. Come on she's beautiful. Megan Fox was not as bad as I thought she would be in this role.
However Jennifer and Needy as frenemies has very little chemistry let along enough to justify the tacked on faux lesbian stylings. Adam Brody as the devil worshipping hipster was knock-it-out of the park amazing

But the main issue I had was with the shallow, poor plot. The scene in which Jennifer is sacrificed to the demon is genuinely frightening and horrifying scene. The parallels to sexual assault make it almost too awful to watch.

But then Jennifer starts killing innocent boys. Why after this traumatising incident does she not go after the people who did this to her. The film could have easily explained this away by giving her no memory of what had happened to her or some prohibition against taking down the boys. But there was no explanation as to why this hugely powerful creature would take her vengeance. This film tried to examine the nature of female friendship, teenage girl as demon, small town woes and as a result didn't really look in depth at anything.

I couldn't help but feel that inside this movie there was a far more interesting subversive film fighting to get out. The closing scene over the titles is admittedly awesome. I literally cheered as the blood splattered over the screen. Yes finally I thought, but by then it was far too late.