Connect with us

Culture

Honestly, Ruben, maybe you should try not saying what’s on your mind for a change

Published

on

Honestly, Ruben, maybe you should try not saying what’s on your mind for a change

A few years ago, I got into a lift with a former colleague I knew a little but wouldn’t exactly describe as a close friend. In the way that we all have done hundreds of times, I asked how he was, expecting a variant of the standard response: “Yeah, not bad thanks, mate. How are you?”

Instead, this colleague said flatly: “My wife wants a divorce.”

I can’t really remember how the rest of the conversation went in the short but excruciating journey to our floor, so paralysed by awkwardness was I. Did I offer sympathy, constructive advice, compassion? I hope so, but I can’t guarantee it. My colleague was merely saying what was on his mind, speaking his truth, but the lack of social filter, the brutal honesty of the interaction was too much and threw me entirely off-kilter.

Honesty is good. You shouldn’t lie. In most circumstances, it would be better if we all told the truth. In most circumstances. Not always.

There’s a lot to be said for the harmless lie, the artfully concealed truth, the slight diversion from your true feelings when it would be much better for all concerned just to hold back a little bit. Which brings us to Ruben Amorim.

Advertisement

The Manchester United head coach is a very honest man. Incredibly honest. In fact, he’s far too honest, seemingly a man incapable of hiding his true feelings when faced with questions from the media.

Here are a few examples of the extremely honest things he has said in public, since arriving at Old Trafford in November.

“I am not helping my players in the moment.”

“David Moyes is doing a better job than me, it’s simple.”

Advertisement

“I have to sell my idea, I don’t have another one.”


Ruben Amorim often bares his soul in press conferences (Carl Recine/Getty Images)

“Imagine what this is for a fan of Manchester United. Imagine what this is for me. We are getting a new coach who is losing more than the last coach.”

“We are the worst team maybe in the history of Manchester United.”

“This club needs a shock.”

“That is really clear (that United could get relegated), so we have to fight.”

Advertisement

Amorim has always been like this. Some of his former players told The Athletic in January that honesty and clear communication are among his strengths. “We prefer the truth,” one of them said.

But while the managerial straight shooter can be useful, constructive even, there must be a point where it becomes counterproductive. His public self-flagellation won’t necessarily tally with what he says in the dressing room, but you feel it’s unlikely that his players would have been fired up after he declared them the worst team in United’s history — even if he did clarify a few days later that he was referring to himself more than his squad.

It sometimes feels like we, the public, are participating in a mass therapy session, that Amorim is unburdening his soul at every possible opportunity. Maybe that’s good, maybe it feels cathartic, maybe it’s better than bottling it all up.

Imagine if you were his friend and he was constantly telling you stuff like this, though. You’d do your best to help him but there must be a point where you’d say: “Come on, mate… give it a bit of a rest.” He’d be the guy at a party bumming everyone out if he happened to have a bad day.


Amorim has overseen 10 wins from his 23 games in charge of United (Carl Recine/Getty Images)

And there have been a lot of bad days at United so far. It’s impossible not to have some sympathy for Amorim; a young coach who had already achieved plenty but who was coming to the end of a cycle at Sporting CP and was given an opportunity he didn’t feel he could say no to.

Advertisement

He wanted to wait until the summer, as was sensible, but United insisted that he take the job there and then, as was very not sensible. Perhaps he should have held his nerve, trusted that he could finish the season in Portugal and still get a bigger job, and avoid the swirling mess of Manchester United altogether.

But there he is, looking increasingly beleaguered on the touchline and then, once he’s facing the cameras and the microphones, shows the world his truth.

All of this would be very different if things were going better on the pitch. If United were winning, then this column might have been about how refreshing his honesty is, how it’s surely a virtue that has helped relate to his players. But like most other things in football, everything is viewed through the prism of results.

He doesn’t seem to be playing a character or presenting a persona, as managers sometimes do in order to create some distance between their actual self and their public-facing self.

Which, for those outside of United, particularly the media, is great. Having a manager bare his soul rather than stare blankly down the camera and offer a set of interchangeable platitudes is entertaining, an interesting diversion from the norm, grimly fascinating even.

Advertisement

Amorim is an engaging speaker… but not one for sugarcoating (Alex Livesey/Getty Images)

For his sake though, it can’t be a good thing. Apart from the debatable benefits of public self-abasement, many of his statements only serve to emphasise the negativity around United — which doesn’t need much emphasising — and create more debate and fevered coverage.

Would anyone seriously be talking about the prospect of United being relegated, given the state of the bottom three, if he hadn’t mentioned it? What is the benefit of comparing himself negatively to Erik ten Hag or Moyes? These are the sort of things that might be true but you don’t need to actually say them.

Apart from anything else, from a self-preservation point of view, there must come a point where his employers think that he’s far too honest, that he is attracting more negativity to United than they can stomach.

Perhaps there was some evidence that the United boss can play the game when he downplayed Alejandro Garnacho’s reaction to being substituted against Ipswich Town in his latest press conference on Friday, saying that the 20-year-old will pay for a team dinner after disappearing down the tunnel rather than taking a spot on the substitutes’ bench.

Still, the advice to Amorim is just to dial it back a little. Everyone will understand if you try a little positive spin on things occasionally. Nobody will blame you for a little fib every now and then.

Advertisement

And if you get into a lift and someone asks how things are going, just say: “Yeah, not bad thanks, mate. How are you?”

(Top photo: Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images)

Culture

Finding Wisdom in a Poem by Wendy Cope

Published

on

Finding Wisdom in a Poem by Wendy Cope

Advertisement

Where do you turn when you need advice? A chatbot? A life coach? A wise and trusted friend?

How about a poet? Poets may not be famous for making the best life choices, but because they subject the mess of human existence to the discipline of language, they can be as helpful as any therapist or mentor.

Good poets know the rules and when to break them, which is something they can teach the rest of us.

Advertisement

To wit:

Giving advice is a peculiar literary undertaking. It flourishes in certain popular genres — graduation speeches, newspaper columns, country and western songs and poems like this one — but what, in these contexts, is it really for?

Advertisement

I’m thinking of situations when you don’t urgently need help but nonetheless enjoy reading answers to questions you may not have thought to ask. What interests you isn’t the content of the advice — you could get all the life hacks you want from A.I. — so much as the voice of the person dispensing it.

Wendy Cope is an English poet, born in 1945, who has been a fixture of her country’s literary scene since the 1980s. More recently, her short, buoyant poem “The Orange” has been widely memed online, bringing her to the attention of new readers beyond Britain.

Advertisement

Cope favors rhyme, meter, brisk jokes and tart aperçus. She addresses romance, friendship and the petty absurdities of modern life with disarming good humor. The last line of “The Orange” is “I love you. I’m glad I exist.” Somehow she makes it the opposite of cringe.

This isn’t the kind of poetry you would describe as “confessional.” And yet …

Want to learn this poem by heart? We’ll help.

Advertisement

Fill in the missing words below. You can always refer to the reading by A.O. Scott and full
text above.

Question 1/7

Let’s start with the first stanza.

Advertisement

Stop, if the car is going clunk 

Or if the sun has made you blind. 

Dont answer emails when youre drunk. 

Advertisement

Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Culture

Can You Match the Places These Authors Lived With Settings in Their Books?

Published

on

Can You Match the Places These Authors Lived With Settings in Their Books?

A strong sense of place can deeply influence a story, and in some cases, the setting can even feel like a character itself. This week’s literary geography quiz highlights places where authors were born (or lived) that later became locations in their books. To play, just make your selection in the multiple-choice list and the correct answer will be revealed. At the end of the quiz, you’ll find links to the works if you’d like to do further reading.

Continue Reading

Culture

Book Review: ‘America, U.S.A.,’ by Eddie S. Glaude Jr.

Published

on

Book Review: ‘America, U.S.A.,’ by Eddie S. Glaude Jr.

AMERICA, U.S.A.: How Race Shadows the Nation’s Anniversaries, by Eddie S. Glaude Jr.


For those of us in the national memory-keeping business, anniversaries hold near-totemic power. Satisfyingly round units of time, ideally bearing fancy, Latin-derived names, serve as the overburdened pegs on which to hang think pieces and museum exhibits, revisionist documentaries and maudlin public ceremonies. The arbitrary nature of such occasions is precisely what gives them their charge, inviting us to set aside complacency and submit to a comprehensive check-in.

In his new book, “America, U.S.A.,” Eddie S. Glaude Jr. presents an intriguing variation on the genre, seeing the country’s 250th birthday as an anniversary of anniversaries: 50 years since the malaise-ridden, schlock-heavy Bicentennial. A century since the subdued Prohibition-era Sesquicentennial. A century and a half since telegraphed reports of George Armstrong Custer’s defeat by the Lakota and Cheyenne at Little Bighorn rudely interrupted the Gilded Age Republic’s 100th birthday party.

If an anniversary offers a snapshot of a moment, the core of Glaude’s book is an old-timey photo album, a collection of notable episodes from earlier national reckonings, long-ago glances in the mirror. An estimable scholar of Black history, politics and religion at Princeton — best known for “Begin Again,” his 2020 meditation on James Baldwin’s relevance for our times — Glaude focuses, as his subtitle puts it, on “how race shadows the nation’s anniversaries.”

Such celebrations, he contends, have never really been the moments for honest self-reflection they are often advertised to be. Instead, the nation usually shatters the mirror, refusing to accept what it prefers not to see. “American anniversaries are often moments to turn a blind eye to the evils of the past and the present,” Glaude writes, “to suppress the fact of America’s divided soul.”

Advertisement

It’s a clever concept, and, needless to say, perfectly timed. Last year, Glaude notes, the Trump administration executed a hostile takeover of the government’s studiously bipartisan 250th anniversary planning. It is now preparing a program that is certain to conceal more than it reveals about the country ostensibly being celebrated.

Glaude, in no mood for celebration, argues that such omissions and evasions also defined commemorations in the past. In 1875, Frederick Douglass predicted “one grand Centennial hosannah of peace and good will to all the white race of this country.” He was right: The nation reached 100 years old at a crucial moment in the post-Civil War fight over racial equality, with white Northerners ready to give up on Southern Reconstruction. The occasion would help the once-warring sections to reunite around a shared commitment to white supremacy. On May 10, 1876, at the opening of the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, the police tried to bar Douglass from the grandstand, until a white politician vouched for him.

The 150th anniversary came soon after a resurgent Ku Klux Klan successfully pushed for a restrictive immigration law aimed at keeping America a “Nordic” nation. At the lavishly funded, lightly attended celebrations in Philadelphia, Black veterans of World War I were excluded from marching in the opening parade. A writer with The Associated Negro Press wondered “what was in the breast of those black men who fought to make America safe for Democracy and on Monday stood on the sidelines, forgotten, as the Nordic strode by in all his vain pride.”

By 1976, when the nation marked its Bicentennial, the violence of the ’60s had destroyed any semblance of consensus. Vietnam and Watergate had eroded trust in the government. The commission initially tasked with organizing the anniversary was disbanded amid reports of corruption. Corporations filled the vacuum, Glaude explains, with “star-spangled whoopee cushions; patriotic toilet seats; Liberty hamburgers; red, white and blue beer cans.” The author, around 8 years old at the time, dimly remembers donning a pair of tricolor trousers.

A half-century later, Glaude is refreshingly honest about the depths of his despair. “I do not love America, and never have, especially now,” he writes in one of the more startling opening sentences I’ve read in some time. He dismisses this year’s Semiquincentennial as reaching back “to a storybook America that requires either the banishment of Black people from view or the reduction of our role in the country’s history, so as to affirm America’s ongoing quest to be a more perfect union.”

Advertisement

Undoubtedly true. But Trump doesn’t own the country, at least not yet, nor the 250th anniversary of one of the most radically liberatory and confusingly contradictory events in world history — an inspiration, as Glaude shows, even to critical observers of the American experiment, like Douglass. Far from the revanchist MAGA-palooza in Washington, I suspect this summer’s unasked-for invitation to national soul-searching may surprise us yet.

Despite his despair, Glaude concludes that “the past still offers resources for us to freedom-dream.” So, too, does this book.


AMERICA, U.S.A.: How Race Shadows the Nation’s Anniversaries | By Eddie S. Glaude Jr. | Crown | 270 pp. | $31

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending