6 December 2020

Thick

In Britain, the term "thick" is widely applied to people  who lack intelligence. Similarly, we have a well-known saying  that is also applied to those who are lacking in mental ability - "as thick as two short planks".

I confess that in the early years of my secondary education I struggled terribly with both Chemistry and Physics. In short, I was thick - as thick as two short planks. Neither subject interested me in the slightest and to be frank I just switched off. In fact, it got so bad with Physics that my father contacted the school and it was finally agreed that I should drop Physics entirely. I would sit at the back of  my timetabled Physics lessons and undertake private study - completing homework tasks and suchlike. It was such a relief.

And so I would attend Physics lessons - sitting at the back like a leper and frequently passing the lesson-time writing poems or drawing cartoons. Sometimes I even did homework - but not often.

Anyway, one tedious school afternoon in the spring of 1970 with sunbeams piercing the Victorian windows of the Physics lecture room, I was sitting behind my classmates as usual. The teacher entered in his black academic gown and waited for the boys to settle down. There was something on the bench in front of the bespectacled scientist. It was covered with a white sheet.

He removed it to reveal a shiny steel ball on a stick with a wheel contraption connecting it to a smaller steel object. It looked like something from "The Eagle" comic or the world of science fiction.

"Can anybody tell me what this is?"

He looked around the flummoxed Physics scholars. There was silence.

I looked up from my doodling and poetry and immediately stuck my hand up. At first the Physics teacher ignored the thicko at the back but as nobody else was offering a suggestion, he gave me permission to respond.

"It's a Van der Graaf generator sir!"

My classmates were looking round open-mouthed. How on earth did I know this?

"Yes it is!" he said in surprise. "And what's it for?"

"It's for creating static electricity sir," I replied with authority. 

I returned to my jottings and drawings, never disclosing how I knew the answer. It was one of the finest moments in my eighteen years of education. The reason I knew the answer is that the previous weekend while lingering in a record store, I had handled a new album by a progressive Manchester band called Van der Graaf Generator. And what was on the album cover? Yes. You guessed it. A Van der Graaf Generator!

73 comments:

  1. That's a memory to be cherished, Neil! I, too x struggled with high school chemistry to the pont of tears and never did enjoy any maths.

    Some of us are just better suited to literature and poetry!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My other speciality was Geography. I was always top of the class in Geography. It was knowledge that I wanted to devour but Physics and Chemistry? Well, it was like chewing on week old roadkill.

      Delete
  2. Who knows if you have found the Ender Graaf generator before you started physics you may have achieved greatness in physics. Nice story.

    ReplyDelete
  3. *When a filament of platinum is introduced into a chamber containing oxygen and sulphur dioxide, they form sulphurous acid. This combination takes place only if the platinum is present; nevertheless the newly formed acid contains no trace of platinum, and the platinum itself is apparently unaffected; has remained inert, neutral, and unchanged. The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum.*

    T.S. Eliot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eliot's analogy had me in a familiar panic half way through.

      Delete
    2. I'd be a liar if I said I understood Eliot's words. How can anyone's mind be a shred of platinum? I get that there is an alchemical process in the writer's imagination, chemical reactions that create a work of literature.

      Baudelaire said something like, *I sometimes see things other people only think they see.* Look up Keats's theory about the *negative capability* of the poet and it begins to make sense.

      The Eliot quotation came to mind because of Jennifer's love of poetry, and your own struggles with physics and chemistry.
      All the lassies in my class were good at everything - physics, differential calculus, geometry, history, French, English.
      There's a book by the great American literary critic Lionel Trilling, *The Moral Duty to be Intelligent*. As long as we are trying to stretch our minds, even a wee bit.

      Delete
    3. Correction. It was Rimbaud who spoke of seeing connections which only the poet can see. We are not talking science here. This is the interplay between language, consciousness, and the world.
      The quotation, or something like it, was in a published screenplay by Christopher Hampton: A film about the friendship between Rimbaud and Verlaine. A long way from your enjoyable physics post.

      Delete
  4. I too hated Chemistry and Physics at school and gave them up as soon as I could at the age of 14 when we had to choose O Level courses. I did languages instead. How I produced a daughter who became a doctor I shall never know as her father was a linguist too. Loved your story. I bet you were the star of your class after that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is very strange how Kay was and is so talented in matters of science.

      Delete
  5. Unexpected brilliance is often more impressive than that from a known star.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a great quote. Did you make it up yourself Jenny? It fits the reported event perfectly.

      Delete
    2. Original. For once in my life.

      Delete
  6. Happenstance in that long ago physics class.
    Alphie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Happenstance" is such a lovely word but I do not think that I have ever used it.

      Delete
  7. I had so much to say in reply I deleted the lot.

    U

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a ruthless woman Ursula!

      Delete
    2. I am sure that either she or Hamel will have something more to pontificate on during the day.

      I have followed Mr Pudding’s blog for a few months now and their total monopolisation has exhausted me.

      SS.

      Delete
    3. I know, YP. Never more ruthless than on myself.

      U

      Delete
    4. Correction: Hamel(d) does not pontificate. He is learned. And generously shares his, what I have come to believe, amazing memory. His reading recommendations, and piling up, will outlive me.

      Myself? I am like Marmite, SS. You either like me or you don't. You either get me or you don't. You either recognize a pinch of humour, a whisper of thought put into a subject raised by a blogger (say, YP's) or you'll weep into your soup. Your choice. I'll cook you something else.

      Disclosure: I take note of other commentators' names. Whilst my memory prowess nowhere near either Hamel(d)'s or YP's I can't recall you having commented here before. So glad I helped you into the saddle. Keep it coming. Some time soon you might even contribute something of interest.

      Hot tip of the day: Don't nurture the snake of resentment at your bosom. Relax. Go with the flow.

      My next pontification in the oven, SS. Enjoy, try not to take a bite too hastily, you might burn your tongue.

      U

      Delete
    5. Dear Soupsoone,
      I am so pleased that you found my humble Yorkshire blog and have visited it a good number of times. Please keep coming and remember you do not have to read all the comments. Just pick and choose.
      King regards,
      Neil (Yorkshire Pudding)

      Delete
    6. It’s Soupspoone Neil.
      Not soupsoone,
      But please call me Ms Spoone, I like the monika.
      I am a semi professional cook and collector of recipes who used to blog very regularly. Nowadays I follow mostly food based blogs for pleasure.
      I follow your blog primarily for your descriptions of the British countryside which are often sublime.

      The sociologist Charles Derber in his work The Pursuit Of Attention discusses Conversational Narcissist behaviours at some length .
      I believe Hamel and Ursula shows this type of behaviour, behaviour which I do find exhausting, and in blogging etiquette circles,potentially rude.
      I hope, for what it is worth that this personal comment is a contribution of some interest to some
      But I suspect they will not.
      Constructively Yours,

      Mz Spoone








      Delete
    7. I agree with everyone you say, Soupspoone.
      This is where I bow out.
      *The rest is silence.*

      Delete
    8. "In pursuit of attention"? You've certainly got mine. Which amounts to a mixed blessing.

      It's moniker, SS. Unless Monika is your actual name. Your attempts at English cute in as much as the mistakes you make not convincing.

      You mention H and U being "rude". Being wordy is not rude. Rude is going round analysing people as being "conversational narcissists". Dare I suggest that you don't know the actual meaning of the term? Don't worry about it. Most people don't. Some of the biggest conversational narcissists I have encountered in BLOGLAND are those who can barely bring themselves to either bother at all or limit themselves to very little.

      Try not to label people, SS. It's most unbecoming. But then, as you point out, you are a "semi-professional cook". Stick to your coq-au-vin. Forget the psychiatrist's couch. Takes a medical degree and years of additional training. Why not deconstruct your comment and do a Heston Blumenthal? That'll divide the Torte from its Kirsch. Alongside my platter, next to my starched napkin, I'd appreciate a copy of your signed "Blogiquette".

      U

      Delete
    9. Come, come Hamel(d). I didn't have you down as Muhammed Ali, neither as the sulking type.

      Considering that SS's first thought is for herself, or rather the "p" in spoon YP so carelessly missed out, you've got to laugh. Laugh, not snigger.

      As an aside: Why do I think of SS as female? For all I know she is Trump trying to divert attention from a failed Georgia.

      Talking about putting the sock in. The truly funny part that I did indeed put the sock into my mouth by deleting my initial comment to our host only to now find myself flooding in response to the SS.

      Chin up, Hamel(d), you can't take all your knowledge to the grave; might as well spread it.

      U

      Delete
    10. Ah the smokescreen of cleverness coupled with the presumptions of someone who feels that they know everything.
      As Patricia Hodge would say “What fun”.
      I suspect you are neither as interesting or as bright as you love to show the world that you are. But then I can say that given the weeks I have read your words, words that fill someone else’s web forum.
      You neither know me, or understand my knowledge base and experiences,
      So you use cheap 1970s references to cookery and jibes about my psychological knowledge base in an effort to control me and the situation.
      Incidentally both are incorrect.
      Usually, I would enjoy sparing with a character such as you.
      But already you are beginning to bore me.
      My original comment was to Neil regarding Hamel and your monopoly of this site.
      He said, quite correctly, that I should read whatever comment I choose.

      This I will do from now on.
      But my original comment stands.
      Replying to one or two comments in someone else’s domain can be seen as high spirits
      More than that......
      is all rather rude and in dreadfully bad taste.
      Chin chin

      Soupspoone


      Delete
    11. To paraphrase the immortal words of Michael Winner: Calm down, dear, it's only a comment or five.

      No one can accuse you of putting up "a smokescreen of cleverness". It'd be more a case of not so much hide as seek.

      One aspect of your comment is of interest to me, not least since YP mentioned physics: How can someone be "neither as interesting or as bright as you love to show the world that your are"? SS, we can fake many things. Brightness most certainly not one of them. As to "interesting": Sweetheart, that is in the eye of the beholder. Some people's horizons wide, others being lost in their myopic haze.

      What's "cheap" about referencing Coq auf Vin? Try Robert Carrier's recipe.

      If there is one thing I don't it's "control" others. Lay off popular psychology, SS. Leave it to the professionals. Makes for better relations.

      By the way, it's "sparring". If you had "spared" me then our exchange here wouldn't jam pack YP's comment boxes. Still, as I already "bore" you, you won't succumb further to being "rude and in dreadfully bad taste" as yours truly appears to.

      If only you knew how much you have added to my amusement today . . . Another hot tip of the day: Don't try to break down doors that are already open. You'll only fly.

      On a general note: How do you conduct your dinner/cocktail parties? Are guests in your abode free to mingle among themselves or do they have to channel their every utterance through your Public Relations skivvy to get approval on word count?

      Take it on the chin, SS, graciously,
      U

      Delete
    12. I see, I am on a hiding to nothing here.
      My adversity is a woman who enjoys to fight each desperate point with the total objective in winning it; she also seems to be a woman without one shred of self awareness, and that is a very sad fact in my book.
      I have seen many such women in my time, but strangely not one without her own current blog or website.
      I wonder why that is?

      So I will bow out and leave Ursula to her audience and I shall delight in watching Neil’s photographs of his beloved North Yorkshire walks from afar

      Soupspoone

      Delete
    13. "Bowing out"? You have barely bowed in. Nothing stopping you making the effort to comment on "Neil's photographs" and, indeed, his walks.

      I see that my suggestion to stop the psychobabble has fallen on stony ground. So in your latest offering, and thank you, I learn from the horse's mouth that I am "a woman without one shred of self awareness". And "that is very sad indeed". Here, have a tissue to mop your nose.

      You "have seen many such women in my time". When was your time, SS? And what men have you seen?

      As to "without her own current blog or website". So? Where is yours? The latter a rhetorical question; meaning you don't have to answer it.

      Remember my advice of not nurturing the snake of resentment at your bosom? You won't be bitten and happier for it.

      U

      Delete
    14. I, too, wonder why you don't have your own blog, Ursula. You certainly seem to have plenty of opinions to express. Wouldn't you be happier expressing them under your own titles than merely commenting on other's blogs with them? Or do you just enjoy attempting to steal the thunder of others by stirring up useless controversy?

      Delete
    15. There appears to be a misunderstanding about the purpose of blogging, Ms Moon.

      Why do people blog? Because they want to be heard. What does a blogger need? Readers. Preferably readers who give tuppence and a bit of thought to the blogger and their postings. Readers who take the time to leave a considered reply. Readers who, occasionally, stimulate debate, an exchange of ideas - both with the blogger and their other readers. Why would a blogger invite comments otherwise? And, yes, some bloggers are so conceited they do NOT allow comments. Insert snort. A good friend of mine doesn't. Still, he is happy to get my (and others') feedback via email.

      Maybe you prefer to shout into the valley and are content with your own echo. Fine. I am not. I like to engage with people.

      You ask whether I enjoy "stealing other people's thunder" and "stirring up useless controversy". Wow. Is that what I do? My intention has never been to steal anything from anyone. I hope to contribute, to add - not take away.

      "Stirring up useless controversy"? Let's leave aside that controversy is never "useless". It makes people think. Not least myself. As I am doing this very minute replying to you. However, I do object to your assessment as I do not stir anything, deliberately. If some of you are easily stirred, fine, make mine a Martini. If my views unsettle - so be it. Which reminds me: Who is making the rules? I get it in the neck because you deem me . . . What exactly?

      Let's cut to the chase. Your observations and the adorable Ms Soupcon's lame attempt at character assassination are not about volume, quantity and/or quality of my comments. What ARE they about? You tell me.

      U

      PS Rather ironic, don't you think, that the moment I actually don't say anything (see beginning of this thread) is the moment someone or two come out of the woodwork.

      Delete
    16. I see that you did have a blog. Why did you quit?

      Delete
  8. Way cool!
    At school, I was not interested in science. That came much later as a young adult, when I discovered space and astronomy as an endlessly fascinating field.
    My disinterests and interests were mirrored in my marks. I failed year 10 and had to repeat it not only because of my frequent skipping, but also because of the science subjects. I still had top marks in languages, history and a few others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some kids are all-rounders at school but you and I were definitely not in that category.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous9:46 am

    Brain loading before the days of internet searching.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Andrew - a Van der Graaf generator was not for loading one's brain.

      Delete
  10. A cool answer and a cool band YP.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I suppose I could be called thick when it comes to Maths. I have a block when it comes to numbers.
    I've always maintained though that everyone is good at something and they just have to find what it is. I was lucky and found needlework at an early age. I was top of the class in senior school every year with no effort on my part.
    I believe there are some schools that allow the pupils to concentrate more on what they love doing with just a smattering of general subjects. Maybe this would produce people with more natural skills.
    Briony
    x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was never an all-rounder. Like you I had my strengths and my weaknesses I wish that I had been allowed to concentrate exclusively on the things that interested me - English, Art, Geography, History, Biology, Rugby and Girls.

      Delete
  12. I, too, hated Physics, Biology and Chemistry, but was made to study them until the year before I took GCE - as it was called in those days. I'm not sure that any of those subjects has been of use in my life since. Biology maybe, but over the years I've learned enough human Biology by damaging various parts of my body (as one sometimes does) - though not on a regular basis of course!
    Like you, YP, I took Geography, English and Art as my main A Levels, with History as an addition. I also had to learn Latin for five years too, but on occasions it has proved useful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a coincidence CG. We studied the very same A level subjects! But when did the self-harming begin? I blame Physics!

      Delete
    2. No, it wasn't self harming YP - more a case of coming unexpectedly into contact with an object harder than I was!

      Delete
  13. Great scientists need creativity, imagination, a sense of awe, curiosity, a considerable memory and probably other things too. The maths and modelling are just the hammers, chisels and screwdrivers of the trade. You may have been the best in the room.
    When the film club made a film of the school, the physics teacher got out the VDG generator. "Where would you like me to stand?" he asked them. "Would you just put your head in between those two silver globes."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I look back upon my negative school experience of science and realise that to some extent I was a victim of uninspirational teaching. However, I would always have gone towards Art, English and Geography I believe. Love the comment about the film club. Funny! (Was it Goole Grammar School?)

      Delete
  14. Haha, that story made me chuckle. What a wonderful moment that must have been.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Timing is everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what Charlie Watts tells Keith Richards.

      Delete
    2. Haha! And here's another story about taking chemistry in high school- I was terrible at it. I struggled. And then, the year I was taking it I got very, very ill and missed two months of school. I made everything up but when I went to my chemistry teacher (Dale Zamsow- still remember his name) he said, "Look, Mary. If you promise never to take chemistry again, I'll give you a C and we'll call it done."
      I happily promised.
      Years later I found myself in nursing school where I had to take chemistry and so I broke my promise. I made an A in the class. The next semester I had to take ORGANIC chemistry and that was almost my breaking point but I managed a B. I am quite proud of that, truthfully. I worked hard for those grades. And I still love Dale Zamzow.

      Delete
    3. Without motivation, how can anybody learn?

      Delete
  16. Well, that just goes to show that we learn from all sorts of sources, don't we?!

    I am with you on chemistry and physics. In fact, I never even took physics (or calculus, for that matter). I managed to get through chemistry but it was not my favorite. Give me language and literature any day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I liked biology. I always found life sciences much more palatable than physical sciences.

      Have you ever listened to that album?

      Delete
    2. Same, Steve. Biology was the only high school science class I liked!

      Delete
    3. I listened to it long ago but never bought it. I also liked biology. It seemed to offer knowledge that was worth having.

      Delete
  17. Too funny. I bet the teacher was surprised. I loved chemistry until I took organic chemistry and gravimetric stoichiometry, those two killed it for me, although maybe if I had applied myself better I would have done better.

    Math was difficult for me. I was terrible at sports so I competed academically until I discovered boys and then everything went for shit. Should have left boys alone and studied more:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess your interest in boys was connected with your biological ambitions.

      Delete
  18. Well done. There is a huge version in Napier in the Hawkes Bay Museum of Technology. There should be one everywhere for every schoolchild to visit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hawkes Bay Museums of Technology all over the world? Even in Kilmarnock and Cleckheaton?

      Delete
  19. Yep, chemistry, physics and maths were not my strong points. Although I came top of the class in Biology. I studied languages at A Level but often became confused after a day of double French, double Spanish then Italian. I used to accidentally drop a Spanish word into my French essays. Just a thicko as the kids would say back then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you were not a thicko when it came to languages and biology JavCee! You were a friggin' genius!

      Delete
  20. My father built a van der Graaf machine for my brothers to experiment with. It was the terror of my teenage life; the two of them coming after me with static charges!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess that most men you knew in your youth gave off static electricity Joanne.

      Delete
  21. Oh my goodness, Joanne, that mental picture made me laugh! I was smart, read a lot, did well in the things that I liked, not so well in the things that I didn't like. I was not a distinguished student.

    When we took the SAT tests (our college entrance exams), I came to school one morning to find myself being congratulated. I had gotten the highest test scores in the school. I shocked everyone, including myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am so honoured to have a child genius visiting this blog Debby!

      Delete
  22. Almost more interesting to read the comments than the actual subject brought up! Hopeless at maths, that female teacher rapped me across the knuckles with a ruler, AND I have never forgotten it! But I liked the idea of science, experimenting with different things, tried to inspire my grandchildren, bicarbonate of soda and a boat in the bath??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder why Archaeology is not a school subject... and what about Home Maintenance and Nature?

      Delete
  23. I suspect that like history archaeology has a lot packed into the subject. Children nowadays just learn segments of everything nothing 'joined up'. The old fashioned nature walks that we had inspired us, and I think schools and other organisations try to give the children the same, but the word 'holistic' is still to be encompassed in our thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What a gorgeous story!

    ReplyDelete
  25. What a gorgeous story!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Jayview and it was terribly nice of you to say it twice!

      Delete

Mr Pudding welcomes all genuine comments - even those with which he disagrees. However, puerile or abusive comments from anonymous contributors will continue to be given the short shrift they deserve. Any spam comments that get through Google/Blogger defences will also be quickly deleted.

Most Visits