With this lovely weather and with it being school holidays, the kids and I having been partaking in al fresco activities as much as we can.
We are very lucky to live close to the Abingdon open air pool, which we recently visited. This is a lovely swimming pool on the banks of the Thames, which is open during the summer months. It boasts a large L-shaped pool, a baby pool, free sun loungers, and an ice cream and drinks concession -- all set in grassy grounds, surrounded by trees.
We were fortunate enough to visit during a very quiet session -- there were only five other families and us. This is pretty unusual -- usually, as soon as the sun comes out, the pool is mobbed, even more so during the holidays. I overheard the lifeguards chatting and they reckoned that the low numbers that day were due to the prolonged sunny weather. They thought that people were bored of so much sun and had 'done' the open air pool. Lucky us!
The open air pool is a great Abingdon asset. It has a long and interesting history too, which you can find out about here.
09 August, 2014
02 August, 2014
Mobile phones versus land lines
I'm not a fan of mobile phones. Never have been. Never will be. In fact, the only reason I have a mobile at all is (a) so that the kids and their schools can get hold of me if needs be, and (b) in case I find myself stranded in a broken down car and need to call for help.
There are two things that I particularly hate about mobiles. First, the fact that you are continually 'available'. People can ring you any time, anywhere--and what's more, they appear surprised if you don't answer or don't immediately return a missed call. Second, the reception is generally dreadful on a mobile. I spend my whole time saying 'Sorry, I can't hear you...' I mean, what on earth's the point?
I remember the good old days of landlines-only with fondness. For a start, you could have a proper conversation because you could actually hear what was being said. It wasn't a case of making an educated guess about what someone was trying to communicate to you. And, more importantly, you had choices. If you were out, you were out. People either had to leave a message or call you back. And there was no expectation that you would call them back within the next few minutes.
I wonder if anyone else feels the same way?
There are two things that I particularly hate about mobiles. First, the fact that you are continually 'available'. People can ring you any time, anywhere--and what's more, they appear surprised if you don't answer or don't immediately return a missed call. Second, the reception is generally dreadful on a mobile. I spend my whole time saying 'Sorry, I can't hear you...' I mean, what on earth's the point?
I remember the good old days of landlines-only with fondness. For a start, you could have a proper conversation because you could actually hear what was being said. It wasn't a case of making an educated guess about what someone was trying to communicate to you. And, more importantly, you had choices. If you were out, you were out. People either had to leave a message or call you back. And there was no expectation that you would call them back within the next few minutes.
I wonder if anyone else feels the same way?
26 July, 2014
Le Weekend
My husband and I watched an interesting film, 'Le Weekend', this weekend (excuse the repetition!), starring the phlegmatic Jim Broadbent and the lovely Lindsay Duncan. This film is gentle and relatively slow-moving, but gives the viewer quite a lot to chew on.
Nick and Meg have been married for thirty years. They return to Paris, where they honeymooned, for their wedding anniversary in an attempt to reinvigorate their fading relationship. Things get off to a bad start when they find that the hotel they have booked (the one where they spent their honeymoon, of course), is not quite what they had hoped for -- shabby and run down, the bedrooms without a single view of any of the beautiful Paris landmarks. (I do wonder whether it is memory rather than the hotel which is letting them down -- and, of course, the fact that as you go up in years, your standards seem to rise at a similar rate!)
As the film unwinds and events play out, we see why their relationship is strained -- they are no longer physically intimate; Nick wonders whether Meg might be having an affair; Meg wants to enjoy herself and reinvent her life, whereas Nick is much more settled, only really wanting to be reassured that his wife still loves him. Despite their annoyances with one another, there is still something strong between them -- we see that they are capable of laughing and having fun together (successfully escaping from an expensive restaurant without paying the bill sees them running along the street together in stitches, every bit like a young, carefree couple).
Towards the end of the film, Meg makes a significant point. She explains how, one day when she was out with a friend, her mobile rang. When she hung up her friend asked her who was on the phone. 'Was it your lover?' she asked. 'You were laughing so much, having so much fun, that I thought it must be.' 'No,' Meg replied. 'It was my husband.'
And this, I think, is one of the fundamentals of a strong relationship. No matter what life throws at you, if you and your partner can laugh together and have fun, then you're still on track. It wasn't clear from the film whether Meg and Nick's relationship would survive in the long term, but it seemed to me that they were certainly still moving in the right direction.
Nick and Meg have been married for thirty years. They return to Paris, where they honeymooned, for their wedding anniversary in an attempt to reinvigorate their fading relationship. Things get off to a bad start when they find that the hotel they have booked (the one where they spent their honeymoon, of course), is not quite what they had hoped for -- shabby and run down, the bedrooms without a single view of any of the beautiful Paris landmarks. (I do wonder whether it is memory rather than the hotel which is letting them down -- and, of course, the fact that as you go up in years, your standards seem to rise at a similar rate!)
As the film unwinds and events play out, we see why their relationship is strained -- they are no longer physically intimate; Nick wonders whether Meg might be having an affair; Meg wants to enjoy herself and reinvent her life, whereas Nick is much more settled, only really wanting to be reassured that his wife still loves him. Despite their annoyances with one another, there is still something strong between them -- we see that they are capable of laughing and having fun together (successfully escaping from an expensive restaurant without paying the bill sees them running along the street together in stitches, every bit like a young, carefree couple).
Towards the end of the film, Meg makes a significant point. She explains how, one day when she was out with a friend, her mobile rang. When she hung up her friend asked her who was on the phone. 'Was it your lover?' she asked. 'You were laughing so much, having so much fun, that I thought it must be.' 'No,' Meg replied. 'It was my husband.'
And this, I think, is one of the fundamentals of a strong relationship. No matter what life throws at you, if you and your partner can laugh together and have fun, then you're still on track. It wasn't clear from the film whether Meg and Nick's relationship would survive in the long term, but it seemed to me that they were certainly still moving in the right direction.
19 July, 2014
A movie, and a concert in the abbey
We had an entertaining weekend last week.
Our youngest child was away at a sleepover and so we asked our oldest whether there was anything that she would like to do that her sister might not have enjoyed. She opted to go and see the film 'The Fault in Our Stars'. I had no idea in advance what I was going to see and assumed that it would be a kids' movie that I wouldn't much enjoy. I was wrong. It was a really interesting and moving story about two teenagers who have cancer and fall in love. It didn't end on a happy note. In fact, the whole film was pretty downbeat, really. But all three of us very much enjoyed it and were reduced to tears by the end. It's nice when your kids get to the age that they can show you really interesting stuff...
Then, on the Sunday (after the sleepover), all four of us went to see a classical concert at Abingdon Abbey. The abbey is fantastic--large parts of the original Medieval buildings remain standing and are used as a venue for events throughout the year. We are very lucky to have it on our doorstep.
A cultural couple of days all round!
Our youngest child was away at a sleepover and so we asked our oldest whether there was anything that she would like to do that her sister might not have enjoyed. She opted to go and see the film 'The Fault in Our Stars'. I had no idea in advance what I was going to see and assumed that it would be a kids' movie that I wouldn't much enjoy. I was wrong. It was a really interesting and moving story about two teenagers who have cancer and fall in love. It didn't end on a happy note. In fact, the whole film was pretty downbeat, really. But all three of us very much enjoyed it and were reduced to tears by the end. It's nice when your kids get to the age that they can show you really interesting stuff...
Then, on the Sunday (after the sleepover), all four of us went to see a classical concert at Abingdon Abbey. The abbey is fantastic--large parts of the original Medieval buildings remain standing and are used as a venue for events throughout the year. We are very lucky to have it on our doorstep.
A cultural couple of days all round!
12 July, 2014
Wonder Woman and Feminism
Last week I heard an entertaining piece on the Today programme which debated whether or not Wonder Woman is a feminist. This whole issue arose because David Finch, the artist who is taking over Wonder Woman for DC Comics, has said that he wants her to be "strong" but not "feminist". The two women interviewed on the Today programme were in no doubt that Wonder Woman is feminist. She is an Amazon, hence was raised by women in an all-female society, she runs her own business, she slit Superman's throat with her tiara. How could she not be feminist, they quipped?
My overriding memory of Wonder Woman, never having been a comic reader, is the 1970s TV series starring Lynda Carter, which I grew up watching. Now that was cool. But given the era, I don't think there was much emphasis on Wonder Woman's feminist side. Certainly, there was a lot of emphasis on her sexiness and there were an awful lot of dads (as well as sons) who fancied Lynda Carter rotten. But given the boob tube, shorts and knee-high boots worn by the gorgeous Lynda, rather than just drawn in a comic strip, who could blame them?
I don't think much has changed these days, either. You only need think of the utterly self sufficient but surprisingly scantily clad Lara Croft, or even the groan-worthy but addictive Xena: Warrior Princess TV series, to realise that, in the world of media at least, female strength is often painted hand-in-hand with sexiness.
And the same goes for (some) men too. The sister series to Xena: Warrior Princess, Hercules, starred the lovely Kevin Sorbo. Not only was he super strong, but his sexual image was all-important too. The long hair, the blistering smile, the muscles, the tight leather trousers, the sexy wristbands--all of this aimed to seduce the watcher.
So perhaps strength and sex simply are natural partners. Maybe we just do find someone--man or woman--who is in control, masterful, and their own person inherently attractive. And maybe the issue of feminism is irrelevant here, or a side issue at best.
05 July, 2014
Giffords Circus
We had a lovely, and rather unusual, birthday party for my ten year old last weekend. We took her, her older sister and three of her friends to see Giffords Circus.
Giffords is a small circus which tours Gloucestershire and the south west of England, setting up on local village greens. It was started ten years ago by Nell and Toti Gifford and is a little bit different from the other circuses that you can see in Britain. It is, I suppose, what you'd call traditional -- more like a travelling troupe than a Chinese State-style extravaganza-- and that's exactly what the Giffords were aiming for.
There are acrobats, fire jugglers, strong men, dancers, horse riders, a super-flexible gymnast... There's an absolutely brilliant clown -- the best I've seen -- not just hackneyed slapstick, but 'proper' funny. And there are various animals -- horses, dogs, doves, and even a turkey and a goose! The dogs, by the way, are dalmatians, which delighted my daughter, who is absolutely mad about dalmatians -- indeed anything spotty!
The show has an intimate, family feel. This is partly a facet of the small top, but it's also the fact that the performers clearly love what they do (we bumped into one of them in the loos, who remarked with a big smile on her face, 'It's not really work!'). You can also get a sense of just how hard it is to do the kinds of things that circus performers do -- one of the acrobats, who was trying to to do a backwards double somersault onto the shoulders of a tower of three of his fellows, missed first time. But they simply did it again, and it worked!
The show was beautifully produced -- very theatrical, excellent acting, gorgeous costumes. And the troupe is supported by a group of musicians who are extremely talented, including a singer with a fantastic operatic voice.
This was our first visit to Giffords Circus (I only found out about them because I happened to be flicking through a local magazine while I was waiting for my kids to have their hair cut), but I certainly don't think it will be our last. I'm already planning next year's outing!
Giffords is a small circus which tours Gloucestershire and the south west of England, setting up on local village greens. It was started ten years ago by Nell and Toti Gifford and is a little bit different from the other circuses that you can see in Britain. It is, I suppose, what you'd call traditional -- more like a travelling troupe than a Chinese State-style extravaganza-- and that's exactly what the Giffords were aiming for.
There are acrobats, fire jugglers, strong men, dancers, horse riders, a super-flexible gymnast... There's an absolutely brilliant clown -- the best I've seen -- not just hackneyed slapstick, but 'proper' funny. And there are various animals -- horses, dogs, doves, and even a turkey and a goose! The dogs, by the way, are dalmatians, which delighted my daughter, who is absolutely mad about dalmatians -- indeed anything spotty!
The show has an intimate, family feel. This is partly a facet of the small top, but it's also the fact that the performers clearly love what they do (we bumped into one of them in the loos, who remarked with a big smile on her face, 'It's not really work!'). You can also get a sense of just how hard it is to do the kinds of things that circus performers do -- one of the acrobats, who was trying to to do a backwards double somersault onto the shoulders of a tower of three of his fellows, missed first time. But they simply did it again, and it worked!
The show was beautifully produced -- very theatrical, excellent acting, gorgeous costumes. And the troupe is supported by a group of musicians who are extremely talented, including a singer with a fantastic operatic voice.
This was our first visit to Giffords Circus (I only found out about them because I happened to be flicking through a local magazine while I was waiting for my kids to have their hair cut), but I certainly don't think it will be our last. I'm already planning next year's outing!
28 June, 2014
What it means to be British -- a philosophical question
The British Social Attitudes survey has been in the news recently. Not surprisingly, in view of the growth of the hard right in the UK, it appears that our social attitudes are hardening as well as our political ones. This is particularly so in relation to 'Britishness'. Thus, 95 per cent of respondents believed that someone had to speak English to be British; 77 per cent thought that it was important to have lived for most of one's life in Britain in order to be British; and 74 per cent agreed that it was important to have been born in Britain to be British.
This whole debate is, of course, an example of the philosophical puzzle of essentialism -- what is it that makes something the thing that it is; or what is its essence. This is a notoriously difficult problem in philosophical circles. Is something's essence just one quality (being born in Britain), or is it a combination of qualities (being born in Britain, speaking English, having lived most of one's life in Britain). And, if the latter, is it possible to remove some of those qualities, but for the thing still to retain its essence (can someone who speaks English, was born in Britain, but who has not lived here for most of their life qualify as British?). And, if you go on removing qualities, at what point does the thing lose its essence? The classic philosophical example is that of a ship which gradually, over time, has its planks replaced until, eventually, none of the original planks remain (the ship is only made up of replacement planks). Is this still the same ship, or has it lost its essence? (One might ask the same question of human beings, whose cells are continually replaced throughout their lives. Is an individual still the same person at the end of their life as they were at the start?)
My husband and I were discussing the British Social Attitudes survey at home. After some thought, my husband suggested that what made someone truly British was the fact that they considered themselves British. But I'm not convinced by this. Take someone who was born outside Britain, visited on holiday, and decided to stay because they loved the country so much and felt so much at home here. For these reasons, that person might consider themselves to be British. But I don't really think we'd want to say that that person actually was British just because they felt they were British -- at least, not until they had lived here for a numbers of years, could speak the language well, etc., etc.
This whole debate is, of course, an example of the philosophical puzzle of essentialism -- what is it that makes something the thing that it is; or what is its essence. This is a notoriously difficult problem in philosophical circles. Is something's essence just one quality (being born in Britain), or is it a combination of qualities (being born in Britain, speaking English, having lived most of one's life in Britain). And, if the latter, is it possible to remove some of those qualities, but for the thing still to retain its essence (can someone who speaks English, was born in Britain, but who has not lived here for most of their life qualify as British?). And, if you go on removing qualities, at what point does the thing lose its essence? The classic philosophical example is that of a ship which gradually, over time, has its planks replaced until, eventually, none of the original planks remain (the ship is only made up of replacement planks). Is this still the same ship, or has it lost its essence? (One might ask the same question of human beings, whose cells are continually replaced throughout their lives. Is an individual still the same person at the end of their life as they were at the start?)
My husband and I were discussing the British Social Attitudes survey at home. After some thought, my husband suggested that what made someone truly British was the fact that they considered themselves British. But I'm not convinced by this. Take someone who was born outside Britain, visited on holiday, and decided to stay because they loved the country so much and felt so much at home here. For these reasons, that person might consider themselves to be British. But I don't really think we'd want to say that that person actually was British just because they felt they were British -- at least, not until they had lived here for a numbers of years, could speak the language well, etc., etc.
Our Tesco shopping delivery interrupted our social attitudes
discussion. While I was waiting for my husband to bring the last empty crate to
the door, I struck up a conversation with the driver. What was our conversation
about? The weather, of course. 'That's what it is to be truly British,' my
husband quipped, after the driver had pulled away. 'Being able to talk to
anyone at length about the weather!'
How true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)