Skip to main content

It's my birthday (not today) and I'll cry if I want to

It's my birthday this week, and I'm not happy about it.

In the first place, I don't particularly want to celebrate it (which is one reason I'm posting this today, which isn't my birthday). I really don't. People assume this means 'I'm being modest, and I want you to make a fuss, but I think it's a bit common to ask for celebrations.' No. Really. I can see the point of celebrating your 18th, but after that, forget it.

But there's something worse about this birthday. I'm going to be 55. (Pauses to give readers a chance to say 'But you don't look that old!') And for anyone who fills in forms online, this is a horrible moment.

Many forms where you select your age from a drop-down box have a range that's 45-54 (broadly middle aged), which isn't too bad. But next you either get 55-64, or even worse 55 and over. The first of these says you've moved into the category of' on the slippery slope to retirement. The second says Forget it, you're past it. On the scrap heap. Might as well give up now. I'm sorry, but neither of these applies.

So you can stuff being 55. I'm going back to 25 and starting again.

Before I leave this subject I ought to respond to a comment from Sara about an earlier post: 'Brian. I feel an urge to challenge you to write a blog entry expressing unbridled enthusiasm for something of your choice :)' I suspect the suggestion here is that I moan about things a lot. And here I am, doing it again.

I'd like to say two things in my defence. First, I do quite frequently write positive things (yesterday's post, for example). I think it's just that the moans often reverberate more. Despite the attempts of that newsreader in the 90s (who was it? Oh yes, Martin Lewis) to get more positive news on the TV, it's often easier to get people's attention with a negative. And secondly, why not? I love the Grumpy Old Women/Grumpy Old Men shows on TV, with quite a few stars who appear younger than me. What's wrong with a good grump? As they prove, it can be highly entertaining.

So I will be positive, I will show enthusiasm (have you forgotten my chocolate buttons post, my delight in Gene Wolfe or my enjoyment of Fascinating Aida?), but I reserve the right to moan and rant as much as I want. So there.

Cake picture from www.cakepicturegallery.com
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox9 May 2010 at 10:16

    You don't look that old, Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg10 May 2010 at 10:05

    Thanks Henry. But I think your vote was somewhat overwhelmed by the lack of response otherwise...

    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...
118 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...
25 comments
Read more

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...
6 comments
Read more