Thursday, September 17, 2009

Keith Floyd - he lived


The passing of Keith Floyd at quite a young age is sad in that he showed food, wine and life the way it should be - fun.

One can say he lived, with businesses that succeeded, and some that failed. He saw bankruptcy, and drank a lot of wine, leading to some trouble (a drink driving conviction with a traffic accident). A man who entertained millions.

He went through four marriages, though of his latest partner he said:

Is it possible to be a teenager in love when you are 65? I reckon it is. But why am I so sure that this will work when my other relationships have failed?

For many reasons. We already have a friendship that has lasted for 40 years — we know each other well. We know each other’s irritating foibles — I can be grumpy and Celia talks to herself and is quite clumsy. She cannot cook, but she can sew and she can make the flowers grow . . . and somehow she manages brilliantly.

To sit in the garden, under a Provencal sunset, chatting and laughing and loving each other, is my idea of heaven. I will not mess up this one.

Who can deny that this is the statement of a man who embraced what life is about. Shamelessly being alive. Shamelessly living for a sense of life.

It is sad he died after a great lunch following be informed he was clear of bowel cancer. Petroc Trelawny has links to some great clips of Floyd, but reminds us of the time we are now in when:

"Can you imagine a TV performer now being allowed to admit to a hangover, let alone drink several bottles in the course of a programme ?

On screen Floyd was never anyone but himself."

In an age when lemon faced doom merchants peddle warnings about what to do and what not to do, tell us about the harm of alcohol more than the pleasure of good wine, and warn of the need to moderate, of armageddon, when Islam pushes sacrifice and restraint, and the Vatican sells a similar motto of suffering and denial, and politicians tell of sacrifice.

Floyd reminded us all of what the point is of life.

To live it. To take risks, accept the consequences and responsibility, but to enjoy yourself doing it.

Perchance there ever be a politician who could even begin to understand this?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes I remember Keith, drunken bugger that he was. He never taught me a thing about fish but I enjoyed it because he seemed to enjoy what he was doing. Like I enjoyed the two fat ladies. Ladies who could whip up a decent feed on something that was much less than the latest space age kitchen. Ladies who enjoyed a drink and a smoke (one of them anyway, and who when, eventually succumbing to lung cancer, never sniveled that she was a victim of the tobacco industry) and who didn't give a shit that they were a little on the tubby side.... I'm starting to sound like Lindsay Perigo, better end here but you know what I mean.

Anonymous said...

*yawn*

yet another self-obsessed narcissist .. so typical of the type that the haute-bourgeoisie hedonists of the Right [aka libertarians] prostrate themselves to.

libertyscott said...

The man's dead. I'm sure you confronted him with your opinion at the time.

Did he harm you? No, instead of enjoying food, wine and people, you'd rather spread your onanistic emissions of cynicism on other people's blogs.

Anonymous said...

Fuck you. I'll say what I like. You try so hard to kiss the asses of the ruling class, it's laughable.

"onanistic emissions" - I already know about your right-wing obsession with sexual imagery.

libertyscott said...

Yes little one, say what you like you do have rights of free speech, but I don't have an obligation to give the forum to do so. You wont use this forum to say it if I don't want you to. It's called property rights. You could set up your own blog, but that would require effort, far better to piss on others than create something yourself.

The ruling class, yes some of us don't want to be ruled. I suspect your inferiority complex about being unable to rule (or indeed rule yourself) is what's at stake here.

Well it was more polite than calling you a wanker. However, I'm amused, is the left full of ascetics? Like that well known self-denier George Galloway? Or have you been surrounding yourself with the Dworkin/Mackinnon sex is like an act of war philosophy?

Easier to name call and label than to state anything substantive isn't it? Destroy something and create nothing.

Anonymous said...

"It's called property rights"

Do you pay for this blog? Why then have an open border policy on who can enter it? Hypocritical.

"The ruling class, yes some of us don't want to be ruled"

This tired old mantra is libertarian sophistry for "everybody ought to be able to live as if they are the only human in the universe, if only they believe in the power of libertarianism." It's a utopian ideal like those born-agains that would essentially require some sort of human perfection to work. Tiresome indeed, but opposite sides of the same coin nonetheless.

PS: I ask once again. Please desist from your obsession with sexual references.

libertyscott said...

I entered into an agreement that gave me rights to control content on this blog within certain terms and conditions, in exchange for the provider to use it for advertising purposes. Nothing hypocritical about it. I have more rights than you over this blog. There is an open door, but I reserve the right to close it. If you don't like it, then you can make other choices. When you set up a blog or indeed a blog site, you can set the rules.

Actually no, it isn't the "mantra". The philosophy is that adults should interact only on a voluntary basis, that nobody should be prohibited from such relationships or coerced, unless they are initiating force or fraud against others.

It hardly requires human perfection to work, it simply requires using PERSUASION not force. I'm sure most of the time you manage this already. Why do you need to use the state as your agent to initiate force against others?

You used your share of sexual expletives. Explain why it makes you feel uncomfortable, what's your philosophy about it?

Explain why when you say "fuck you" I should be polite in return? I'd rather you had spoke ill of this dead man somewhere else. It wouldn't take long for you set up a Keith Floyd was a self-obsessed narcissist blog, but I guess you don't want to draw attention to what a positive view you have of human nature and the joy you presumably bring to millions.

Anonymous said...

"Nothing hypocritical about it. I have more rights than you over this blog. There is an open door, but I reserve the right to close it. If you don't like it, then you can make other choices. When you set up a blog or indeed a blog site, you can set the rules."


This is where the schizophrenic nature of the libertarians comes into play. Against censorship? Great. Pro free speech? Better still. The right to property? Hold the presses!

There can be NO property rights maintained without the state...so, we see libertarians talking a good game about opposing the intervention of the state nor any one else in the public domain (like blogs) in their affairs, yet I predictably see you recognizing a "right" to property; moreover, libertarians speak of the prohibition of robbery and trespass among other misdeeds. These are property offenses, and would require a reasonably powerful state to provide a police force to ensure that said property remains inviolate!

Explain why when you say "fuck you" I should be polite in return?

I don't care if I've trampled upon your precious sensibilities.


Gotta go. But, I'll be back. Count on it.

libertyscott said...

Schizophrenic? Hardly. Any alternative is anarchy. If free speech is without property rights, then I can write on the wall of your house and you can't stop me, I can demand every printer publish my books, I can demand every broadcaster play my songs or movies. In fact, I can put loudspeakers everywhere I wish and play whatever I like, because I have "free speech".

It's a nonsense. Free speech is the right to use your resources to produce whatever you like, not to make a claim on those of others to do so.

Indeed, no property rights can be maintained without the state. Libertarians believe the state exists for the positive role of being the impartial arbiter to protect individual rights from the aggression of others (within or outside the state). Those not wanting the state are anarchists, believing that individuals can do this themselves, which risks "might is right". The state wouldn't exist to "ensure" property is inviolate but to respond when it has been violated. Property owners can take steps to protect their property short of initiating force.

Oh please, you're a precious little flower when there are references to sex, but you can say "fuck you", and you call me a hypocrite?

You have a philosophy muddled vulgarian, but it is all over the place. However like I said, it is easier for you to destroy than to create, which reflects your nihilistic view of Keith Floyd.

He enjoyed life - how dare he, so you'll piss on him now he's dead. Brave hero you are.

Anonymous said...

I do agree with good old 'anonymous' in many ways, being very left-wing myself, but I have to admit to enjoying Keith Floyd's work. I grew up with it, and he didn't use his programs as a vehicle for political views, so it is easy to ignore them. He was entertaining and his vulnerability struck a chord with me. I am a big proponent of political correctness, but am also a devotee of epicureanism!