Skip to main content

Dear God, about bananas...

Bananas, caught in the act
Dear God,

I wouldn't trouble you as a rule, but I wanted a word about something I don't understand. It's bananas. I don't mean 'it's bananas' in the sense of 'it is lunacy', I am referring to bananas in the sense of fruit. You know, the bendy yellow things.

I like bananas very much, but they have to be just right. Too green and they are like eating medicated soap. Too ripe and they become disgustingly gooey, with the texture of sick. (I'm sorry, but this is true, and presumably sick is one of yours too.)

So, fair enough, you have to catch them when they are just right, with a tinge of green but before those black spots arrive. But here's the thing. They only seem to spend approximately 37 minutes in this state. For ages and ages they sit in the bowl looking hard and green, then you turn your back to make a cup of coffee and when you turn round they've gone black. It's not good enough. I'm not asking for miracles (though presumably these could be provided on request), just bananas that stay edible for a few days at a time. Is it too much to ask? I can keep apples in the fruit bowl for weeks, and at worst they get a little wrinkly, but they are still edible. Bananas, by contrast, are downright sneaky. So just tell me... why?

Yours sincerely,
Brian Clegg

P.S. If this one proves too easy, please explain the offside rule.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous18 January 2011 at 16:00

    I have exactly that same problem with bananas! In the end my boyfriend usually ends up eating them once they've gone brown, because I wait until they're less green, forget about them, and miss the window - every time we buy them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. laurasdad18 January 2011 at 16:12

    It's the ethylene wot done it, gov.

    As in any good whodunnit you need to go back and see who your bananas were sitting next to in the fruit bowl; you may find yours overdosed on the ethylene given off by a neighbourly apple or worse a passing tomato.

    Bananas don't like the cold either so could they have got very cold one night after dark?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sarah Kolb21 January 2011 at 21:19

    At last -- a solution!

    http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/banana-bread-recipe/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown24 March 2011 at 23:03

    Looks like the man from Del Monte, he come up with a plan: http://www.lovefood.com/journal/opinions/11437/del-monte-starts-selling-bananas-in-condom-wrappers--

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian Clegg25 March 2011 at 08:22

    Boggle.

    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
117 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