Julian writes: the Tennis Player Quartet Podcast. Episode 4: The Fantastic Confabulations of an Ageing Tennis Player

Right. Yes. The Fantastic Confabulations of an Ageing Tennis Player. The fourth volume. The “finale”. The “capstone”. The one where — and I think we can all agree on this — everything finally becomes… considerably more conceptual.

Now, I’ll be honest: I’ve always felt the quartet operates less as four books and more as an ongoing atmospheric event. A sort of… tennis-adjacent weather system. There’s narrative, of course, but it’s mainly pressuremovementsudden fog, and occasionally a goat.

Anyway. Hear the podcast. Here it is. See what I did there?

(Produced by the one-and-only Julian PS with the trusty support of Mork and Mindy down in the Podcast basement. Thanks guys! You’ve been… what can I say? Immense.)

Anyway. Just in case you can’t be dealing with a podcast, here’s the story as I see it.

The early books: a man, a racket, and… an energy

So in ConfessionsCourting Lives, and The Norman Conquests, Andy is, broadly speaking, a tennis player (except he isn’t – except he is – except he’s “Lord Andrew Murray” – except he’s in trouble – except none of this is confirmed.) But what is clear is that Andy narrates everything with the swagger of a man giving a victory speech while physically losing.

He tells you he’s in command. He tells you he’s adored. He tells you it’s all going brilliantly. And the reader is expected to do the decent thing and nod politely while the walls fall in. There’s also a coach (possibly a bird), a woman who is (or isn’t) Serena Williams, and a general atmosphere of “I won that match spiritually.”

Book Four: screenplay, drones, and what I can only describe as “admin”

Then we arrive at Volume Four, which makes a bold artistic choice: it switches into screenplay format, which I assume is because Andy has finally gone professional and Netflix are now involved. That’s certainly the vibe. Suddenly there are cameras. Drones. “Monitoring.” People talking as though Andy is both a person and a piece of equipment. It’s all very modern and, frankly, quite unsettling, but in a premium way. And the important thing is: Andy is no longer narrating. Now, I’m told this is because the book is exploring “external surveillance” and “dispossession” and “care regimes” and so on. Possibly. Or possibly Andy has simply delegated the narration, as champions often do.

The “twelve years” thing (apparently significant)

There’s also an absolutely classic moment where Andy believes he’s been in a hospice for a weekend, after a minor knee injury — which sounds reasonable enough, we’ve all iced a joint and lost a fortnight – except it turns out it’s been twelve years. Twelve. Now, do I think the book is being literal here? Hard to say. This could be:

  1. a comment on memory,
  2. a comment on time,
  3. Brexit,
  4. metaphor,
  5. a typo that nobody caught in proofing,
  6. all of the above.

But the key takeaway is that Andy has missed major global events, which is either tragic or enviable, depending on your views on morning news.

Sedation: narrative editing, but with syringes

Andy’s “confabulations” (a word the book uses a lot, presumably because “lies” felt too on-the-nose) are repeatedly interrupted by Mrs Carter, who administers sedation. Now, one might interpret this as the system silencing him – his story being chemically curtailed – a bleak commentary on control and autonomy. Or, equally, one might interpret it as: Andy is simply too powerful as a narrator, and the staff have to keep him under a certain decibel level for the other residents. It’s difficult to be sure.

The ending: Raducanu, waived bar bills, and… closure? maybe?

Finally, Andy is greeted by young tennis stars (including Emma Raducanu), and he’s told his subs and bar bills are waived. Now this is clearly either:

  • a triumphant return,
  • a final hallucination,
  • a metaphorical absolution,
  • a fantasy sequence,
  • a customer service gesture,
  • or simply the author being kind at the end.

Personally, I read it as the universe finally recognising his greatness. Because that’s what literature does: it rewards belief.

In conclusion (and I do mean that, because I have a meeting)

So yes — the final volume “doesn’t abandon him” but “no longer belongs to him”, which I interpret to mean the narrative has matured beyond Andy and is now operating at a higher organisational level. A bit like NOP, frankly. Andy begins as the author of his own myth. He ends as a man being documented. And the quartet as a whole is a powerful reminder that tennis is rarely about tennis. It’s about identity. And paperwork. And occasionally drones.

(Can I go home now? Please? Pretty please?)

Julian writes: the Tennis Player Quartet Podcast. Episode 3: Les Conquêtes Normandes d’un Tennisman Vieillissant

Welcome, ladies, gentlemen, ball-kids and baffled bystanders, to another Julian Writes instalment — the podcast series that bravely asks: what if Roland Garros is less a tennis tournament and more a literary ambush? Alors… bienvenue, mes amis. (Nailed it.)

Today we’re going neck-deep into Les Conquêtes Normandes d’un Tennisman Vieillissant, where our “hero” — the ever-modest, entirely reliable, definitely-not-spiralling Lord Andrew Murray of Kirkintilloch — takes a polite tumble down a rabbit hole of grandeur. And who’s holding the ladder? Lewis Carroll, of course. The Red Queen practically runs the warm-up: speak in French and remember who you are — advice which Lord Andrew interprets as: become a legend immediately, preferably on clay, and preferably while hallucinating. Très chic. Très officiel. Très… oui.

Ready, steady…? Allons-Y!

(Podcast generated by Julian Pilkington-Sterne with a little help from Mork and Mindy down in the Podcast Basement)

We unpack the rhythmic pop-ups of the ball boys Dum and Dee (because nothing says “elite sport” like a nursery-rhyme metronome), and the moment his opponent Corentin Moutet commits the ultimate crime: he gets turned into a pig on court — a glorious little nod to Carroll’s Pig and Pepper logic, where reality is negotiable and dignity is optional. Mon Dieu. Quelle surprise. Ooh là là. (I’m fluent now, apparently.)

Then there’s the recurring “awoke with a start” motif — the book’s way of winking at us and whispering: this entire Grand Slam may be a dream-state. Letterboxes widen into walkways, tennis balls develop French accents, and the court itself starts behaving like a sentence that’s forgotten how to end. C’est n’importe quoi. Pas possible! Mais… voilà.

And just when you think it’s all pure nonsense, we drag in Jean Cocteau — that delicious phrase about being plunged back into the night — and suddenly the comedy has a bruise underneath it. Because these Carrollian fragments aren’t just playful flourishes: they’re masking something darker. A dazed, fractured consciousness. A man trying to narrate himself into glory… after a glider crash near CalaisQuel drame. C’est la vie. Je suis fatigué. (Emotionally. Spiritually. Grammatically.)

So yes — bon… on y va — come with us as we lovingly dismantle the “Greatest GOAT’s” fantasy layer by layer… until what’s left is not just satire, but a strangely poignant story of delusion, denial, and medical distress — served, naturally, with a side of French and a pig in the baseline. Bien joué, hein? D’accord, d’accord. And if any of that was wrong, look: on fait comme on peut. Voilà. À la fin!

Julian writes: the Tennis Player Quartet Podcast. Episode 2: The Courting Lives of an Ageing Tennis Player

Episode two of our quartet campaign, and (how shall I put this?) things take a slight turn from “creaky knees and committee politics” to “arson charges and incarceration.”

Welcome to The Courting Lives of an Ageing Tennis Player, where Nick Owen doubles down on the central proposition of the series: that the human mind, when cornered by mediocrity, will build itself a private Wimbledon and move in permanently.

Our man this time is Andrew Murray—a protagonist so devoted to the fantasy of sporting greatness that he upgrades himself into “Lord Andrew Murray”, an unreliable narrator with impeccable self-belief and absolutely catastrophic life management. In his telling, he’s collecting imaginary scalps at the majors, gliding through tournaments as if destiny has a wildcard with his name on it. In reality, he’s navigating a much less glamorous circuit: legal consequence, mental unravelling, relational wreckage… and prison.

(Podcast generated by Julian Pilkington-Sterne with a little help from Mork and Mindy down in the basement).

The book plays this brilliantly in a picaresque, comic-surreal mode: big, swaggering inner monologues colliding with the hard surfaces of courts, cells, and consequences. And crucially, Andrew isn’t only witnessed through his own delusions. He is tracked. Documented. Observed.

Enter Phoebe, an amateur ornithologist who records “sightings” of Andrew like he’s some endangered and baffling species – rare, volatile, and liable to appear suddenly in the wrong habitat. And alongside her: Evelyn Williams, writing letters that try (and sometimes fail) to make emotional sense of a man who is both magnetic and impossible.

What you get, in short, is a sequel that turns the dial from midlife sporting fantasy into something darker and stranger: a pataphysical journey where imagined glory keeps trying to outrun the literal bars of reality—and keeps, inevitably, running straight into them.

So: laugh, wince, and keep your belongings close. Because in Courting Lives, the line between creative imagination and psychological collapse isn’t merely thin. It’s… being called in by the authorities.

Julian writes: welcome to my Confessions of an Ageing Tennis Player podcast universe!

In this first episode of our four-part podcast run, we plunge headfirst into Confessions of an Ageing Tennis Player – a satirical memoir that does something both noble and dangerous: it tells the truth about what happens when an adult with a stiff back and a fragile ego joins a tennis club and decides they are, fundamentally, one good warm-up away from Wimbledon.

Check out our podcast here:

(Audio file generated by Julian Pilkington-Sterne with assistance from Mork and Mindy down in the locker room)

Our protagonist is a middle-aged amateur, heroically over-invested in the game, attempting to navigate the twin horrors of club tennis:

  • being casually dismantled by teenagers who barely break a sweat, and
  • committee politics so petty they should come with their own line judges.

And yet — and this is the point — inside his head, the story is very different. There, he’s building a magnificent ascent: a private, cinematic campaign of destiny that ends, inevitably, with Wimbledon glory. The genius of the book is how it holds these two realities together: the creaky joints, unpaid subs and damp courts versus the fever-dream triumph of the imagined centre stage.

So yes: it’s funny. But it’s also oddly tender — a sharp little critique of the English sporting psyche and that classic Walter Mitty reflex, where fantasy becomes less a lie and more a life-raft. Because sometimes the only thing standing between you and total irrelevance is the voice in your head insisting, with absolute conviction, “Next season… I’m going on a run.”

Audiobook now available on Audible!

Subject: Re: Literary Observances (Further Thoughts)

From: Julian Pilkington-Sterne
To: Maja Jović

My dear Miss Jović,

I have reflected carefully upon your last message, and while I accept, readily and without reservation, your superior command of literary classification, I find myself compelled to make a modest defence. You suggest Persuasion as the ideal expression of feeling restrained, postponed, and dignified by patience. I admire this greatly. Truly.

Yet I cannot help but wonder whether such restraint, however elegant, risks becoming a kind of emotional abdication. The Brontës, Emily in particular, understood something rather different: that passion, once felt, does not always submit to civility; that it may rage, misunderstand, and wound before it ever redeems. It is untidy. It is excessive. But it is honest.

I hope you will forgive me if I confess that I find such honesty… compelling.

Yours,
Julian Pilkington-Sterne


Re: Literary Observances (Further Thoughts)

From: Maja Jović
To: Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Mr Pilkington-Sterne,

I appreciate your candour, though I must gently resist the implication that emotional restraint is a failure of courage. Austen does not deny feeling; she disciplines it. She recognises that unchecked passion may be sincere, yes—but sincerity alone does not render it wise, nor kind. Emily Brontë’s characters burn brightly, but they also leave devastation in their wake. One might admire the flame while still declining to place one’s hand in it. You speak of honesty as though it were synonymous with intensity. I would argue that true honesty often lies in knowing when not to speak.

Respectfully,
M. Jović


Re: Literary Observances (A Clarification)

From: Julian Pilkington-Sterne
To: Maja Jović

Miss Jović,

I fear we are no longer speaking solely of books. You are right: the Brontës scorch the earth. But Austen’s world, however refined, depends upon silence so carefully maintained that one wonders how many truths perish quietly in its keeping. Is it always virtuous to wait? Or does waiting sometimes become a means of self-protection masquerading as principle? I ask this not as a provocateur, but as someone who has often erred on the side of saying too much, too soon—yet who wonders whether that failing is preferable to never speaking at all.

Forgive my frankness.
I assure you it is not lightly offered.

J.P-S


Re: Literary Observances (And Their Limits)

From: Maja Jović
To: Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Mr Pilkington-Sterne,

You are correct. We are no longer speaking solely of books. You admire the Brontës because their characters announce themselves without apology. I admire Austen because her characters understand the cost of doing so. It is easy to mistake urgency for truth, and volume for depth. What you describe as silence, I would call discernment. Not every feeling demands an audience. Not every impulse improves by being aired. And yet (you see how easily one concedes ground when conversation strays from novels) there are moments when restraint becomes its own kind of fear. I suspect we differ not in what we feel, but in how safe we believe it is to reveal it.

Yours,
Maja


Re: Literary Observances (One Last Thought)

From: Julian Pilkington-Sterne
To: Maja Jović

Maja,

If that is so, if our difference lies not in feeling, but in courage, then I find myself wondering whether the question is not Austen or Brontë, but rather:

Who is brave enough to speak first, and who must decide whether they wish to listen?

I will say no more on the matter, lest I prove your point by excess.

But I hope you will not think less of me for preferring a storm to a calm whose price is silence.

With sincerity,
Julian


(Maja begins to type a reply. She stops. Deletes it. Starts again.)

(She does not send anything that night.)