Skip to main content

I don't want to be scared anymore

There are some things about life that definitely change as we get older - and I've just discovered one that's really rather taken me by surprise.

One of my daughters had watched the movie Paranormal Activity. We had the DVD for an extra day, and she said 'Oh, you must watch it! It's really scary.'

Now there was a time when this would have been just up my street. I've never liked gory films, but horror films like this, that scare but don't involve people being ripped to pieces, I've always loved. So I was all set for a pleasureably scary evening.

But then I thought, 'Hang on, do I really want this?' And when it comes down to it, if it is genuinely scary, what would I be getting out of it? The thought of being left a terrified wreck by this movie, or wanting to keep the lights on all night (as I admit I did after the Exorcist many years ago) wasn't appealing.

So there we have it. I don't want to be scared any more. Dr Who seems to be about my limit. That's plenty, thank you. Second childhood, here we come.

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney11 April 2010 at 13:20

    I'm with you. real life is scary enough, thank you very much....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peet13 April 2010 at 10:54

    Oh, I fancy watching that now!

    I agree that we change – if anything, I now find it hard to find a movie that scares me; I think the last one that did that was the Blair Witch Project. I think only 'creepy' movies like that one work for me now, as I find most others entirely predictable: you just *know* someone's about to place a hand on the shoulder of that lone female, who's about to open that wardrobe door - at just the moment designed to make you jump – so you don't (except if you're Harriet: she'll go "Oh Oh Oh, and press your head into my shoulder" – bonus! It's not all bad news then)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4 September 2012 at 00:07

    I'm rather like SueG - real life is scary enough. Horror movies or sic-fi flicks haven't frightened me since I was five or six years old. What does frighten me is trying to have a meaningful conversation about politics, social or economic issues with my parents. That gave me a distaste for confrontation and conflict so strong that the aversion has held me back in my career and life as an adult.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg4 September 2012 at 07:37

    Interesting point, Anonymous.

    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 recent 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 ex
114 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
24 comments
Read more

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope
22 comments
Read more