LETTERS Family ties
Sir: What unfounded nonsense was Adam Nicolson's essay on bow-tie wearers (`Clever Dickies', 28 August). He says that `they' — and I admit to owning over 130 bow ties and hence claim membership in this uncloseted group — are inherently sus- pect. With cocky sophomoric surety, he also insists that 'we' wear symbolically erect penises around our necks. He goes on to name names of well-known bow-tie wearers and his essay attempts to demonstrate what he calls 'the essential mistake of the dickie'.
Francis Bacon he is not; and the essential mistake is his: bow ties are not meant to be subject to such banal metaphysical, psycho- analytical, or sociological scrutiny.
They are meant to be practical. That is all. It is far easier to type or write without having to worry about some flaccid bit of material dangling on the keyboard or paper. Eating is also neater: no bow tie in recorded history has ever landed in the soup. Playing my cello is safer too as I don't have to worry when my fingers slide across the ebony that my rendition of Bach or Dvorak will suffer unduly by encountering impedimental cloth. Dare I also admit the same is true when I play my ukelele? I may be confident that Keep Young and Beautiful will resonate fetchingly and fully.
Bow ties are also usually cheaper to buy. I do not wear one to be controversial or fashionable. They are an integral part of who I am (as the bow-tied Thomas Carlyle would have approved); and some day I shall be buried in one, just as my grandfather was.
The Revd Jonathan Sinclair Carey
W1
Previous page
