That old devil called love

Smoochy-smooch!

It’s Valentine’s Day. Did you remember to get a cutesy teddy holding a heart with the word ‘Love’ on it for that special person?

I expect there are a fair proportion of readers who are having a damn fine grumpy old time today, complaining about how the Americans spoiled a perfectly good Pagan ritual by brainwashing us all into thinking that true love can only be accurately communicated by us purchasing a very big card, writing in it, and then giving it to the bemused object of our affections.

I was amongst your kind, until a frightfully unusual sensation came over me. After I realised that half a packet of Chocolate Chip HobNobs had probably given me a sugar spike so large I was in immediate danger of Diabetes, I did a little research into Valentine’s Day and discovered, to my horror, that for once we can’t blame our chums across the pond.

Valentine of Rome had the extreme misfortune of getting himself martyred somewhere around AD 496, which is particularly bad luck for someone with such a nice name. So unpleasant was it that it took until the 14th Century before anyone thought of linking Valentine in any way with what Barry White would later refer to as ‘Luuuurve’.

Once Chaucer had planted that notion firmly into our collective consciousness (assumingly utilising a cherub with a bow and arrow) we bumbled happily on for another five centuries or so until the ability to print stuff had got it’s inky fingers well and truly around our hearts, and finally started sending each other sugary-sweet cards to proclaim our undying love.

Shockingly, it was actually us Brits that came up with that particular idea, and also the whole chocolates/flowers/cutesy tat thing that has proliferated ever since, filling the card and gift emporiums of our land with red hearts, whilst simultaneously emptying our pockets as soon as the Christmas stuff has hit the bargain bin. Hang your heads in shame. It was your ancestors that did this.

So now the only true winners in all this aren’t those genuinely in love – they already know that, without the insecure need to spend a bundle of cash on something tacky to prove it.

No, the ones with a warm glow are the card and gift companies, who do their market-researched best to make us feel bad if we don’t put our hands in our pockets to prove our love is real.

Fancy a romantic meal for two? Great – you can go to a very busy restaurant, and spend even more than usual on a menu that’s basically the same as any other but has pink hearts on it, whilst a tired looking rose withers next to the romantic candle.

Or go for a really nice meal on another day when it’s quieter, and let that genuinely special person know that you love them, by opening your mouth and actually saying it.

Like you should be the rest of the year anyway.

This post first appeared as my "Thank grumpy it's Friday" column in the North West Evening Mail, on the 14th of February 2014. You can view the version published by the paper here, where the title had "It's" bunged on the front, and "again" at the end.

The only bit that went missing en route to the NWEMs printing presses was the line in brackets about a cherub. Poor cherub.

Without really realising it, my gentle rant about the crassness of Valentine's Day turned into something different; a grumble about people who seem to think one particular day should be special. I happen to think they should all be special if you genuinely love someone.

And yes, I did get my wife a card - even I'm not THAT stupid...

(A forgotten splendid compilation CD from March 04 on the go tonight, featuring a series of rather brilliant mash-ups from the likes of GoHome Productions and Soundhog.)

"It's all gone quiet..." said Roobarb

If, like me, you grew up (and I’m aware of the irony in that) in the ‘70s, February was a tough month, with the sad news that Richard Briers and Bob Godfrey had died. Briers had a distinguished acting career and is, quite rightly, fondly remembered most for his character in ‘The Good Life’. Amongst his many roles, both serious and comedic, he also lent his voice to a startling bit of animation that burst it’s wobbly way on to our wooden-box-surrounded screens in 1974. The 1970s seemed to be largely hued in varying shades of beige, with hints of mustard yellow and burnt orange, and colour TV was a relatively new experience still, so the animated adventures of a daft dog and caustic cat who were the shades of dayglo green and pink normally reserved for highlighter pens, must have been a bit of a shock to the eyes at the time. It caused mine to open very wide indeed. Roobarb was written by Grange Calveley, and brought vividly into life by Godfrey, whose strange, shaky-looking sty...

Suffering from natural obsolescence

You know you’re getting old when it dawns on you that you’re outliving technological breakthroughs. You know the sort of thing – something revolutionary, that heralds a seismic shift it the way the modern world operates. Clever, time-saving, breathtaking and life-changing (and featuring a circuit board). It’s the future, baby! Until it isn’t any more. I got to pondering this when we laughed heartily in the office about someone asking if our camcorder used “tape”. Tape? Get with the times, Daddy-o! If it ain’t digital then for-get-it! I then attempted to explain to an impossibly young colleague that video tape in a camcorder was indeed once a “thing”, requiring the carrying of something the size of a briefcase around on your shoulder, containing batteries normally reserved for a bus, and a start-up time from pressing ‘Record’ so lengthy, couples were already getting divorced by the time it was ready to record them saying “I do”. After explaining what tape was, I realised I’d ...

Shouting in the social media mirror

It was always tricky to fit everything you wanted into the intentionally short character count of Twitter, especially when, like me, you tend to write ridiculously long sentences that keep going on and on, with no discernible end in sight, until you start wondering what the point was in the first place. The maximum length of a text message originally limited a tweet to 140 characters, due to it being a common way to post your ramblings in Twitter’s early days. Ten years later, we’ve largely consigned texting to the tech dustbin, and after a lot of angst, the social media platform’s bigwigs have finally opted to double your ranting capacity to 280. Responses ranged from “You’ve ruined it! Closing my account!” to the far more common “Meh” of modern disinterest. As someone rightly pointed out, just because you have twice as much capacity doesn’t mean you actually have to use it. It is, of course, and excellent opportunity to use the English language correctly and include punctuat...

grumpyf1

Search This Blog