Skip to main content

In praise of Jeremy Clarkson

The book what I got for Christmas
(sic)
A couple of years ago at Christmas I commented that I was in danger of turning into Jeremy Clarkson. Now, having received another of his books in my Christmas stocking, I want to reflect on why he really doesn't deserve the opprobrium that is heaped on him. (Can you do anything else with opprobrium but heap it?)

People who whinge about how terrible Clarkson is miss the point. The same people probably say how clever the Alan Partridge character is. And yet Alan Partridge is not Mister Likeable. He is thoroughly detestable. The same goes for Keith Lemon if you like him, which I gather some do. (I can't stand either of them, but that's a different story.) The point is that these are grotesque characters invented for TV. And, I would suggest to you, so is Jeremy Clarkson. Okay, he may not use a fictional character name as the other two do, but what he does is still an entertaining act.

You may, by now, be frothing at the mouth, determined to point out that Clarkson really means it where Partridge and Lemon are pure fiction. And some of the time I'm sure Clarkson does. But really this is beside the point. If you treat him as a character, he is very amusing. His writing style is light and entertaining. He sometimes even makes quite sensible observations when political correctness has forced us all in a different direction. What's not to love? No one gets nasty about the highly amusing rants that David Mitchell writes - they accept that they are amusing journalism. And I argue Clarkson should get the same treatment. So give the man a rest.

If you're an author you only hate him because he sells more books that you do. And otherwise, you're only jealous because he has a nicer car than yours...
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox16 January 2013 at 09:41

    I think that anyone who doesn't like Jeremy Clarkson should be taken out and shot in front of their famiiles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg16 January 2013 at 09:45

    While eating a beefburger containing horsemeat.

    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