These are some thoughts, suggestions, etc. that I have based on several years of having been a switchboard operator for an insurance company. Actually, this is really sort of "venting" about all the people who are not exactly pleasant to deal with on the phone! If even one of them reads this, sees themselves in this post, and tries to take my comments to heart, I'll feel I've done a service for switchboard operators everywhere!
First of all, if you call your insurance company, and you have a question about your policy, or about a claim, please please please have the foresight to have your claim number (if you know it) or your policy number (you surely have that somewhere) handy. Why? Because if I answer the phone, "XYZ Insurance Company," and you say, "Yeah, I have a question about my policy," the first thing I'm going to say back is, "Do you have your policy number?" because I need to look the policy up on our computer so I can either answer your question or direct you to someone who can. It is simply mind-boggling to me how many people say, "Uh, no."
And I have then had conversations that go like this:
"Ok, what is the name of the insured?"
"XYZ Insurance."
"No, that's us, that's the insurance company. What is the NAME of the INSURED?"
"Huh?"
"The policyholder. The name on the policy."
"Oh, that's me."
"No, I need your business name. We're a commercial insurer. We register policies by the business name. What is the business name?"
"Yeah, it's my business."
You get my point.
I've also had people call and say, "Yeah, I have a question about my policy," and I say, "Do you have your policy number so I can look that up for you?" and they reply, "No, I'm in my car. That information is back at my office/home/apartment/wherever." First of all, DON'T BE CALLING ME ON A CELLPHONE WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING. THAT'S DANGEROUS. HANG UP AND DRIVE OR PULL OVER TO MAKE YOUR CALL! Second, it's really stupid to call from your car with a question about your policy when you don't have your policy information with you so I can look it up for you. Get a clue!
Please, if you call and ask to speak to Mary Jones or John Smith, and I transfer you to Mary Jones or John Smith, and you get that person's voice mail, do NOT call me back at the main switchboard and get sarcastic with me and say, "I wanted Mary Jones, and YOU gave me her VOICE MAIL. I want to talk to a LIVE PERSON. Do NOT put me through to voice mail!" You see, I am not that stupid. I KNOW that you want to speak with a live person. I did NOT intentionally, on purpose, put you through to voice mail. I do not have two buttons on my switchboard console, one marked "Live Person" and the other marked "Voice Mail." If the person you requested is away from his or her desk, you will get voice mail. I have no way of knowing if that person is at their desk, because I sit in the front lobby, and I cannot see through walls and around corners. And I am not going to call ahead to make SURE the person is at their desk for every single call that comes to my switchboard. Simply not gonna happen.
People step away from their desks for a variety of reasons. They might have to use the restroom (hey, ever sit for 8 hours without going potty even once?) and you might have had the bad luck to call during the five minutes they're in the restroom. They might have gone to get a cup of coffee (hence the need to use the restroom later) or to get a snack from the vending machine. They might be using the fax machine or the copy machine. They might have gone into a meeting. (They don't always tell the switchboard operator when they go into a meeting, either. And yes, if you're told that so-and-so is in a meeting, odds are pretty good that so-and-so is in a meeting, because people DO go into meetings in offices ALL the TIME. It is NOT an excuse they came up with to avoid taking your call.)
Now, if you call me back, and in a NICE tone of voice say, "I'm sorry, I got Mary's voice mail. Do you know if she's available right now? I really need to speak with her," I'm MUCH more likely to bend over backwards to help you. But if you treat me like you think I'm a dumb jerk who just decided on purpose to dump you into voice mail, I might not be so inclined to help you. And please understand, sometimes, people just aren't available. Example: I had one woman call who needed to talk with someone in accounting. We are a small company. We have three people in the accounting department. I tried each person THREE TIMES and nobody answered the phone. Apparently, all three people were not at their desks, perhaps in a meeting or something. The woman did not want to leave a message on anyone's voice mail and insisted on talking to "a live person, right now." I finally, politely, had to tell her, "I'm sorry, but I've tried everyone three times and no one is answering the phone. You will have to leave a message on voice mail or call back. There's nothing else I can do for you." She grudgingly accepted that she had to leave a message, but it took me the better part of five or six minutes to get her to do so.
Please, please, please, remember there is such a thing as TIME ZONES. I have had people call at 8:00 in the morning, wanting to speak with someone who will not be in the office until 8:30. When I tell them that person hasn't arrived in the office yet, I get the almost inevitable sarcasm, "What do you mean they're not there? It's 10:00 in the morning!" Well, it might be 10:00 where YOU are, but it's 8:00 where WE are. Or I tell you that the person is at lunch, and you reply, "At 2:00 in the afternoon?" To which I say, "It's noon here," and I get, "Where ARE you?" Well, we're further west than you, and that means we're a couple hours behind you. Get a clue.
I am a switchboard operator. I am unable to answer in detail questions about claims, policies, premiums, etc. If I tell you, "I'm sorry, I just answer the phone. I need to direct your call to someone who can answer your question," do not come back with "Well, let me just ask you this." I just told you I can't answer your question! And do not jump down my throat because you've already tried reaching someone and nobody has returned your call yet. I understand your frustration, but it's not the switchboard operator's fault if a claims examiner or underwriter hasn't called you back yet, so don't take your anger out on me. All you do is raise my blood pressure and ruin my day. You don't get anywhere, because I'm powerless to make anybody call you back.
Please, if you have a question about your policy, and I try to find it by the business name, be patient. It takes longer to find it that way than if you actually miraculously have the policy number to give me. Example: One guy called about his policy, wanting to file a claim, and the name of his business was something like BJ's Sports Grill. (Not the actual name, but similar to that.) Ok, in our computer system, that could be input in a million ways, such as:
BJ's Sports Grill
B.J.'s Sports Grill
B J's Sports Grill
B. J.'s Sports Grill
As it turns out, it was in our computer as BJs Sports Grill. (No periods, no apostrophe.) The only way I found it was because the caller finally, after several minutes of rustling through paperwork on his desk, unearthed his policy number (which he should have had in front of him before placing his call to us) and I put in his policy number and up popped his information.
I'm sure I'll think of more later, but you can begin to see how frustrating dealing with the public is for a switchboard operator!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
More thoughts regarding traffic control cameras
In an earlier post, I expressed my wholehearted support for the use of traffic control cameras to catch speeders and red-light runners. My attitude was and continues to be - if you don't want your picture taken, don't speed or run a red light. Duh.
The newest argument that opponents of traffic control cameras are attempting to use is that the flash of a camera going off will startle the driver(s), and people will be slamming on their brakes because the flash scared them, and that this in and of itself is a danger, and therefore the cameras should be gotten rid of.
Oh puh-leeze. I've been on the freeway when one of these cameras flashed, and I didn't notice drivers slowing down or slamming on their brakes when the flash went off. Ditto with people running red lights. And while I'm not denying such a thing *could* happen, I think that the danger that speeders and red-light runners pose is MUCH greater than the danger of people "slamming on their brakes because the flash startled them." It's already an established fact that people who speed or run red lights are a threat and a danger, while the argument I've heard camera opponents use (are you listening, Austin Hill of KTAR radio?) is that "it's bound to happen" that accidents will be caused by drivers who are startled by the camera flash and slam on their brakes. If it's "bound to happen," that means it isn't happening NOW with any great frequency (notice the future tense of "bound to happen") and yet these cameras have been around for several years now. Why aren't we hearing about accidents happening all the time with these startled drivers? We hear about accidents from people who ran red lights and plowed into other drivers, or idiots speeding down the freeway who rammed into somebody, but I have yet to hear very many, if ANY, accounts of accidents from these drivers who are supposedly startled by cameras flashing and hit their brakes.
Keep the cameras! If you don't want your picture taken, obey the law! (Mr. Hill's argument on KTAR radio earlier this week was that in a perfect world, everyone would obey the law, but a lot of people aren't going to obey the law EVEN IF we have the cameras, so why not get rid of the cameras? Ok, Mr. Hill, then using your lack of logic, in a perfect world, people would obey the law so as not to get stopped by an officer patrolling a freeway or intersection, but unfortunately, a lot of people are going to break the law even if an officer is right there with a radar gun to catch them and give them a ticket - so why are we paying police officers to patrol traffic if some people are going to break the law anyway? That dog don't hunt, Mr. Hill! Try another argument, one that isn't so lame!)
The newest argument that opponents of traffic control cameras are attempting to use is that the flash of a camera going off will startle the driver(s), and people will be slamming on their brakes because the flash scared them, and that this in and of itself is a danger, and therefore the cameras should be gotten rid of.
Oh puh-leeze. I've been on the freeway when one of these cameras flashed, and I didn't notice drivers slowing down or slamming on their brakes when the flash went off. Ditto with people running red lights. And while I'm not denying such a thing *could* happen, I think that the danger that speeders and red-light runners pose is MUCH greater than the danger of people "slamming on their brakes because the flash startled them." It's already an established fact that people who speed or run red lights are a threat and a danger, while the argument I've heard camera opponents use (are you listening, Austin Hill of KTAR radio?) is that "it's bound to happen" that accidents will be caused by drivers who are startled by the camera flash and slam on their brakes. If it's "bound to happen," that means it isn't happening NOW with any great frequency (notice the future tense of "bound to happen") and yet these cameras have been around for several years now. Why aren't we hearing about accidents happening all the time with these startled drivers? We hear about accidents from people who ran red lights and plowed into other drivers, or idiots speeding down the freeway who rammed into somebody, but I have yet to hear very many, if ANY, accounts of accidents from these drivers who are supposedly startled by cameras flashing and hit their brakes.
Keep the cameras! If you don't want your picture taken, obey the law! (Mr. Hill's argument on KTAR radio earlier this week was that in a perfect world, everyone would obey the law, but a lot of people aren't going to obey the law EVEN IF we have the cameras, so why not get rid of the cameras? Ok, Mr. Hill, then using your lack of logic, in a perfect world, people would obey the law so as not to get stopped by an officer patrolling a freeway or intersection, but unfortunately, a lot of people are going to break the law even if an officer is right there with a radar gun to catch them and give them a ticket - so why are we paying police officers to patrol traffic if some people are going to break the law anyway? That dog don't hunt, Mr. Hill! Try another argument, one that isn't so lame!)
Sam Bottoms and "East of Eden"
Reading about the untimely passing of actor Sam Bottoms yesterday, I began remembering the wonderful 1981 miniseries he starred in, "East of Eden," with Jane Seymour. Since "Centennial" was released on DVD earlier this summer, I decided to check and see if "East of Eden" would be released anytime soon. I didn't expect much, but imagine my delight when I checked Amazon and saw it will indeed come out on DVD in the spring! This is an absolutely fabulous miniseries (not IMHO as good as "Centennial," but close!) and I can't wait to own it! Why does TV not do quality programming like this anymore? I'd much rather watch a wonderful miniseries like this, with a great cast, great script, great music, than watch people voting each other off an island, or stars dancing with each other, or talent contests. Well, at least we will have these classics on DVD to enjoy, even if the networks don't bother to make any new miniseries anymore!
Children's programming on TV
My discovery last week of clips from "The Friendly Giant" on You Tube made me nostalgic for the TV shows I grew up with, and sad that today's children, such as my own 8-year-old grandnephew Patrick, will never see these shows. The TV networks no longer seem to care about programming for children the way they did 40 years ago. How well I remember getting up every morning to watch "Captain Kangaroo," and waiting to see what animals Mr. Green Jeans would have on! Or "Romper Room," and hoping Miss Whoever would see me in her magic mirror and say my name (she never did, but I always hoped!) And our local PBS station (or perhaps it's PBS in general, I don't know for sure) has stopped airing reruns of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood," which had aired for a couple of years following the passing of Fred Rogers. And there are no longer cartoons on Saturday mornings on the major three networks like there used to be. Of course there is cable TV, with kids programming, but somehow it's not the same as knowing that one morning a week, Saturday, had cartoons on from 6:00 through noon, and some great classic cartoons like "Scooby Doo" got their start on Saturday mornings back in the 60's and 70's.
Speaking of "Romper Room," I'm reminded of an incident a few years ago when I was eating lunch with some co-workers. Most of us were in our 40's, and one gentleman was in his 30's. We were complaining about the management of the company where we worked, and one woman said, "They treat us like we're in Romper Room." The 30ish man said, "Romper Room? What's that?" There was a startled moment while all of us in our 40s looked at each other, and then the woman who had been doing the complaining said, "That was a kid's show on TV."
That made us feel old! This man was too young to have seen "Romper Room!" But then, on the other hand, how can you NOT have at least a passing, surface familiarity with "Romper Room" even if you were not born when it was on? I never saw "Howdy Doody" but I know it was a kid's show in the 50's.
Then there's my erstwhile friend, Lisa in Gardena, who was not familiar with the Tasmanian Devil from the Looney Tunes cartoons. Say WHAT? You never watched Bugs Bunny growing up? That's just - that's just - that's UNAMERICAN! (LOL!) Not to mention just plain weird!
Speaking of "Romper Room," I'm reminded of an incident a few years ago when I was eating lunch with some co-workers. Most of us were in our 40's, and one gentleman was in his 30's. We were complaining about the management of the company where we worked, and one woman said, "They treat us like we're in Romper Room." The 30ish man said, "Romper Room? What's that?" There was a startled moment while all of us in our 40s looked at each other, and then the woman who had been doing the complaining said, "That was a kid's show on TV."
That made us feel old! This man was too young to have seen "Romper Room!" But then, on the other hand, how can you NOT have at least a passing, surface familiarity with "Romper Room" even if you were not born when it was on? I never saw "Howdy Doody" but I know it was a kid's show in the 50's.
Then there's my erstwhile friend, Lisa in Gardena, who was not familiar with the Tasmanian Devil from the Looney Tunes cartoons. Say WHAT? You never watched Bugs Bunny growing up? That's just - that's just - that's UNAMERICAN! (LOL!) Not to mention just plain weird!
"Almanzo Wilder: Life Before Laura"
I want to give a plug to a new DVD that has recently become available, focusing on the boyhood of Almanzo Wilder, husband of Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was of course the author of the famous "Little House" books. The "Little House" books have been among my favorite books since I was 9 years old. (The TV series was a big disappointment in that it did not stay faithful to the Ingalls family unit. I didn't care that they deviated from the books, but I *DID* care that they didn't stay true to the basic Ingalls family unit and began inventing relatives who never existed, such as Albert, James, Cassandra, Adam, and Adam Charles. Puh-leeze. But that's another story for another post.)
This new DVD, produced and narrated by Dean Butler, who portrayed Almanzo on the TV series, is a wonderful mixture of live-action recreations of scenes from Almanzo's boyhood (with a little boy who looks very much like photos of the real Almanzo as a boy), and the famous Garth Williams illustrations from the book "Farmer Boy." Mr. Butler's wife Katherine Cannon (you'll remember her from the early 80's series "Father Murphy" with Merlin Olsen) reads excerpts from "Farmer Boy" as well.
This DVD is delightfully done and very enjoyable. While it's too late to get it for Christmas, you can order it for yourself or a Wilder fan anytime through the website www.almanzowilderfarm.com.
Incidentally, I'm very pleased that they pronounce Almanzo's name correctly on this DVD. The TV series mangled the pronunciation of his name. It was never "Al-MON-zo" but rather "Al-MAN-zo." The middle syllable of his name was pronounced "man," which is where his boyhood nickname of "Mannie" came from. This is verified by a tape of Laura Ingalls Wilder herself that is available through the various Wilder memorial societies throughout the Midwest, on which she says her husband's name several times, each time saying "Al-MAN-zo." Since she was married to him for 64 years, I would trust her pronunciation of his name!
This new DVD, produced and narrated by Dean Butler, who portrayed Almanzo on the TV series, is a wonderful mixture of live-action recreations of scenes from Almanzo's boyhood (with a little boy who looks very much like photos of the real Almanzo as a boy), and the famous Garth Williams illustrations from the book "Farmer Boy." Mr. Butler's wife Katherine Cannon (you'll remember her from the early 80's series "Father Murphy" with Merlin Olsen) reads excerpts from "Farmer Boy" as well.
This DVD is delightfully done and very enjoyable. While it's too late to get it for Christmas, you can order it for yourself or a Wilder fan anytime through the website www.almanzowilderfarm.com.
Incidentally, I'm very pleased that they pronounce Almanzo's name correctly on this DVD. The TV series mangled the pronunciation of his name. It was never "Al-MON-zo" but rather "Al-MAN-zo." The middle syllable of his name was pronounced "man," which is where his boyhood nickname of "Mannie" came from. This is verified by a tape of Laura Ingalls Wilder herself that is available through the various Wilder memorial societies throughout the Midwest, on which she says her husband's name several times, each time saying "Al-MAN-zo." Since she was married to him for 64 years, I would trust her pronunciation of his name!
Saturday, December 13, 2008
"Centennial" and "Into the West"
If anyone in your family loves wonderful historical drama set against the backdrop of the American West in the 19th and 20th centuries, you need to rush out and get the DVD of the 1978 miniseries "Centennial" which was released this past summer.
I saw "Centennial" for the first time when I was in high school, and it is one of my favorite series that has ever been on TV. What a magnificent job they did, telling the story of the fictional town of Centennial, Colorado over 150 years or so of history! Truly this was the finest acting job Robert Conrad ever did as feisty French fur trapper Pasquinel, and the rest of the cast, especially Gregory Harrison as Levi Zendt, were equally as wonderful.
A few years back, a miniseries produced by Steven Spielberg aired, called "Into the West." I watched that one as well, but while it was okay, it was not nearly in the same league as "Centennial." Perhaps it's unfair to compare the two since "Into the West" was only 12 hours long compared to 25 hours or so for "Centennial," and thus didn't have the same length of time to tell a detailed story. Still, there were many annoyances with "Into the West," the two primary ones being characters and storylines that just petered out with no resolution, and the jarring use of different actors to play the same roles. It seems like they didn't feel one actor could portray the same character from age 20-something to age 70-something, so they changed actors in mid-stream for almost all the major roles in the miniseries.
Contrast that with "Centennial" where Gregory Harrison portrayed Levi Zendt from about age 25 to age 70 or so, and all the other actors in the great cast (William Atherton, Barbara Carrera, Timothy Dalton, Lynn Redgrave, Richard Chamberlain) aged over the decades with their characters. Old-age makeup along with the actors actually *acting* by pretending to be middle-aged and elderly did the trick. For the most part, the old-age makeup used in 1978 in "Centennial" was fantastic, especially on Redgrave and Carrera. (They could have done a better job on a few of the others, but you could overlook it.) Couldn't actors and actresses in 2005 in "Into the West" have been made up to look older, and used their acting skills to portray age convincingly? I can't imagine someone taking over the role of Levi from Gregory Harrison halfway through "Centennial," or another actress portraying Charlotte Seccombe Lloyd after she got older the way Lynn Redgrave portrayed her.
So "Into the West" was a disappointment in several aspects, but you can't go wrong with "Centennial!" Truly a classic!
I saw "Centennial" for the first time when I was in high school, and it is one of my favorite series that has ever been on TV. What a magnificent job they did, telling the story of the fictional town of Centennial, Colorado over 150 years or so of history! Truly this was the finest acting job Robert Conrad ever did as feisty French fur trapper Pasquinel, and the rest of the cast, especially Gregory Harrison as Levi Zendt, were equally as wonderful.
A few years back, a miniseries produced by Steven Spielberg aired, called "Into the West." I watched that one as well, but while it was okay, it was not nearly in the same league as "Centennial." Perhaps it's unfair to compare the two since "Into the West" was only 12 hours long compared to 25 hours or so for "Centennial," and thus didn't have the same length of time to tell a detailed story. Still, there were many annoyances with "Into the West," the two primary ones being characters and storylines that just petered out with no resolution, and the jarring use of different actors to play the same roles. It seems like they didn't feel one actor could portray the same character from age 20-something to age 70-something, so they changed actors in mid-stream for almost all the major roles in the miniseries.
Contrast that with "Centennial" where Gregory Harrison portrayed Levi Zendt from about age 25 to age 70 or so, and all the other actors in the great cast (William Atherton, Barbara Carrera, Timothy Dalton, Lynn Redgrave, Richard Chamberlain) aged over the decades with their characters. Old-age makeup along with the actors actually *acting* by pretending to be middle-aged and elderly did the trick. For the most part, the old-age makeup used in 1978 in "Centennial" was fantastic, especially on Redgrave and Carrera. (They could have done a better job on a few of the others, but you could overlook it.) Couldn't actors and actresses in 2005 in "Into the West" have been made up to look older, and used their acting skills to portray age convincingly? I can't imagine someone taking over the role of Levi from Gregory Harrison halfway through "Centennial," or another actress portraying Charlotte Seccombe Lloyd after she got older the way Lynn Redgrave portrayed her.
So "Into the West" was a disappointment in several aspects, but you can't go wrong with "Centennial!" Truly a classic!
More memories on You Tube - "In the News" with Christopher Glenn
If you were a child in the 70's, watching Saturday morning cartoons (and only weird kids didn't watch cartoons on Saturday mornings - it's what you DID as a normal child in the 60's and 70's on Saturday mornings!) - you saw these little two-minute summaries of events in the week's news, written and designed to be understood by children and narrated by the CBS reporter with the wonderful voice, Christopher Glenn. Everybody who remembers "In the News" remembers the weird sound effects heard at the beginning and end of each segment.
I've never forgotten these, and lo and behold, some "In the News" segments are on You Tube! (Where do people FIND this stuff to post??) What a trip, to go back to yesteryear and see some of these again and remember Saturday mornings in the 70's!
I've never forgotten these, and lo and behold, some "In the News" segments are on You Tube! (Where do people FIND this stuff to post??) What a trip, to go back to yesteryear and see some of these again and remember Saturday mornings in the 70's!
Robert Montgomery/"Bewitched"
One of my all-time favorite TV series is "Bewitched." I loved that show as a child and still love the reruns as an adult. It never gets old.
I read somewhere that consideration had been given to using Elizabeth Montgomery's dad, Robert Montgomery, to play her father on the show. Ultimately, of course, the role of her bombastic, blustering, domineering but loveable father went to Maurice Evans, who was just marvelous in the role (Maurice is one of my favorite characters on the series, along with Uncle Arthur and Dr. Bombay).
I have to wonder, though, what it would have been like to see Robert Montgomery acting with his daughter on this series. What a shame we never got to find out! I wish they could have cast him as another uncle. Since Arthur was Endora's brother, Mr. Montgomery could have perhaps played Maurice's brother. What fun that would have been!
Oh well - "Bewitched" was classic anyway! Still, it makes you think about what might have been.....
I read somewhere that consideration had been given to using Elizabeth Montgomery's dad, Robert Montgomery, to play her father on the show. Ultimately, of course, the role of her bombastic, blustering, domineering but loveable father went to Maurice Evans, who was just marvelous in the role (Maurice is one of my favorite characters on the series, along with Uncle Arthur and Dr. Bombay).
I have to wonder, though, what it would have been like to see Robert Montgomery acting with his daughter on this series. What a shame we never got to find out! I wish they could have cast him as another uncle. Since Arthur was Endora's brother, Mr. Montgomery could have perhaps played Maurice's brother. What fun that would have been!
Oh well - "Bewitched" was classic anyway! Still, it makes you think about what might have been.....
"The Friendly Giant"
The things you can find on the Internet - it's truly amazing!
Years ago, when I was very small, one of my favorite TV shows was "The Friendly Giant." The format was quite simple - a friendly giant would invite you into his castle, put out chairs (dollhouse furniture, but as a child you were supposed to believe it was real furniture and looked small because, well, he was a giant, of course) for his young visitors to sit in, and then he would visit with a chicken named Rusty and a giraffe named Jerome (hand puppets, but if you were a child, you imagined they were real). The series was so gentle, so sweet, so simple, and the Giant (Bob Homme) had such a soft, friendly, gentle, soothing voice. He played a recorder, and the theme music to the series was done with a recorder and a harp, adding to the overall sweet and gentle feel of the show.
I watched this series all the time as a young child, but never saw it again after we moved to Arizona when I was 6. I never ever forgot it over the years, though, and have always wished I could find some way to see it again.
So this evening when I found several lengthy clips from it on You Tube while searching for other things, I have to confess, I sat in front of my computer crying! There was everything I remembered - the recorder music, the Giant's castle with the drawbridge, the tiny furniture, his soft, melodious voice, everything. It was as if I had stepped into a time machine and gone back to my earliest childhood.
Could today's children enjoy something like this? My own 8-year-old grandnephew loves action-packed, loud and noisy video games. He never saw Mister Rogers, or Romper Room, or Captain Kangaroo, and would have no idea what those were. I can't help but think his generation is the poorer for having missed out on all of this.
Years ago, when I was very small, one of my favorite TV shows was "The Friendly Giant." The format was quite simple - a friendly giant would invite you into his castle, put out chairs (dollhouse furniture, but as a child you were supposed to believe it was real furniture and looked small because, well, he was a giant, of course) for his young visitors to sit in, and then he would visit with a chicken named Rusty and a giraffe named Jerome (hand puppets, but if you were a child, you imagined they were real). The series was so gentle, so sweet, so simple, and the Giant (Bob Homme) had such a soft, friendly, gentle, soothing voice. He played a recorder, and the theme music to the series was done with a recorder and a harp, adding to the overall sweet and gentle feel of the show.
I watched this series all the time as a young child, but never saw it again after we moved to Arizona when I was 6. I never ever forgot it over the years, though, and have always wished I could find some way to see it again.
So this evening when I found several lengthy clips from it on You Tube while searching for other things, I have to confess, I sat in front of my computer crying! There was everything I remembered - the recorder music, the Giant's castle with the drawbridge, the tiny furniture, his soft, melodious voice, everything. It was as if I had stepped into a time machine and gone back to my earliest childhood.
Could today's children enjoy something like this? My own 8-year-old grandnephew loves action-packed, loud and noisy video games. He never saw Mister Rogers, or Romper Room, or Captain Kangaroo, and would have no idea what those were. I can't help but think his generation is the poorer for having missed out on all of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)