Skip to main content

Farewell to the Village People

After 13 years of living in a village, with all that implies, we are about to move to somewhere more urban in feel.

It's a move with mixed emotions. I'm going to miss the friendly conversations in the Post Office and the near-impossibility of walking down the street without saying 'hello' to at least one person you know - I'll miss the community. I'm going to miss a house that has become like a comfortable piece of old clothing. And I'll miss the instant country walks.

On the other hand we'll have shops and cafes in walking distance (which would have included Borders until the swines closed it down), a very different atmosphere, new places to walk - and we will be constantly popping back, as we're only 15 minutes drive away.

Because of the move, this blog will be rather intermittent for the next two to three weeks. Bear with me. Normal service will resume again. But for the moment, who's for a rousing chorus of YMCA?

Comments

  1. Moving gives me hives, so I wish you smooth sailing amongst packing boxes, lost underwear [or am I the only who has problems with this?], and kitchen utensils that always seem to migrate to Japan. Living in an urban setting, the village life sounds intoxicating.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Two questions -

    Might one ask why you are leaving the rural idyll for Babylon?

    Please may I be the biker?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I saw you more as the Indian chief.

    We're leaving for multiple reasons including teenage children, cheaper accommodation and the ability to get everyday essentials (such as pizza) without driving.

    We see at as a sort of transitional house between 'bringing up the family' and 'now what do we do?'

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wish you good luck with the move Brian though why you'd want to trade in the British countryside for High Street Britain absolutely defeats me.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...