The Blanding Down of the World (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:59 am

I just read this:

LONDON (AFP) - A British couple have shacked up in a budget roadside motel for more than 20 years because they love never having to do the laundry or cooking, they said Tuesday. David Davidson, 79, and his wife, Jean, 70, first tried out a Travelodge hotel while visiting a sick aunt in 1985 -- and were instantly hooked.

Their room -- near Grantham, east central England off the A1 trunk road from London to Edinburgh -- overlooks a car park, but is also within sight of a slip road that trucks rumble down day and night, jazzing up the view. "We get great rates because we book well in advance and we even have our own personal housekeeper. All our bed linen is laundered, too. It doesn't get much better than that, does it?" said former Royal Navy sailor David Davidson.

The couple have spent around 100,000 pounds (200,000 dollars, 150,000 euros) renting rooms which cost them as little as 15 pounds (30 dollars, 22 euros) a night. The motel is renaming their room The Davidsons' Suite and mounting a plaque in the reception to mark their 10-year anniversary.

The couple, who initially lived in a Travelodge in nearby Newark before moving in 1997, have kept their old flat in Sheffield, northern England, and return every fortnight to collect the post. The Davidsons exchange Christmas presents with the staff, dine out at a roadside eaterie across the car park and watch the traffic go by. "There is always something outside our window. Our room looks out to the car park and a busy slip road where lorries pass through the night," David Davidson said. "We do have to be a bit choosy about what we keep in our room as it can fill up easily."

His wife added: "We don't get hit with huge heating bills over the winter and its safer than a lot of places these days." The couple do go for trips abroad -- but stay in a Travelodge.

"Some will think David and Jean Davidson bonkers to have spent the last 22 years living in a hotel," said the Daily Express in its editorial. But their room rates are "not more than many people's mortgage payments, the housework is done for them and they do not pay utility bills. What's not to like?"

Oooooh, I dunno--maybe the plastic impersonality of it all? The horrific food? The paper-thin walls? The wonderful surroundings? But at least there's one good thing: it chips away at the myth that only USians are without style and depth. There are plenty of Davidson types everywhere, under many names. They just usually don't register on our personal radars. Now, one couple has. So what do you think of their lifestyle? Worth living, or about as appetizing as a broken hip?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:47 am

Sounds like a more proletarian version of the wealthy in places like New York City living in a swank ten star hotel...

OK, very few people actually like house cleaning, it's just something we do because it is necessary. But, honestly, even if it was a luxury hotel with the best meals on the planet, I just could not do that. I enjoy cooking too much (and to be truthful, I often prefer the food my SO and I cook over restaurant anyway), and just having my own space. I couldn't live in that kind of anonymity...

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:52 am

Those people have no soul, and for some reason that makes me feel uncomfortable.

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:59 am

The only blanding down I see is the way people try and live up to cultural and societal expectations, in which the only absolute bliss is in living in a 3000sqf brick home overlooking either mountains or meadows, to be married, with a wedding which was just like everybody else also always dreamed of, raising two or three kids, perparing your own food because roadside eateries serve bad food about 100% of the time, carefully monitoring the celebrities in the magazines and the latest fashion.

Could you please explain the point of this thread?

Was it appaling that these people are satisfied with so little? I think that's great. You should try blanding down then.

“It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where you are, or what you are doing that makes you happy or unhappy. It is what you think about.”
Dale Carnegie

“That man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest.”
Henry David Thoreau

P.S. And I'm not going to think about whether or not it is "worth" living like them. I'll live like me, thanks.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:12 am

lythium wrote:The only blanding down I see is the way people try and live up to cultural and societal expectations, in which the only absolute bliss is in living in a 3000sqf brick home overlooking either mountains or meadows, to be married, with a wedding which was just like everybody else also always dreamed of, raising two or three kids, perparing your own food because roadside eateries serve bad food about 100% of the time, carefully monitoring the celebrities in the magazines and the latest fashion.

Thinking about it rationally, this was my first thought too. I just can't shake the feeling of complete soullessness I'm getting from the idea of living in a hotel for twenty years - it's like they don't belong anywhere. You're probably right, though: they're just not meeting my ingrained definition of happiness, which is what's making me feel uncomfortable.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:08 pm

@ lythium,
for myself, I don't really think this is about doing with little or a lot...
It is more so the form this has taken. I firmly believe that true wealth resides within the soul, you do not need a 3000 square foot home with all the bells and whistles to find happiness or self-worth.
However.. to live like these people.. to me this is an utterly hollow existence. For a long time my SO and I rented a little apartment that was no bigger than about 500 square feet, if even that. We didn't have very much furniture, and in fact, we even slept on the floor on a (real) Japanese futon. We lived very simply, and we were completely happy doing so. But, the place we lived in was *ours*.
Now, everyone has different needs, but I, personally, could not exist in such a rootless, empty environment.

Also, let's remember that the above couple maintain an actual residence as well. So, in fact, they are paying for two dwellings. In my mind, this doesn't exactly define "living with little."

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:32 pm

Oooooh, I dunno--maybe the plastic impersonality of it all? The horrific food? The paper-thin walls? The wonderful surroundings?

Let's not forget what a single blacklight can do to a room, especially there room!

joebob · Post by **joebob** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:50 pm

i think its great! it says they travel abroad and still stay at the same kind of hotel. they truly are at home where ever they go. they are not poor, they still keep the flat, meaning they DO have a choice. they choose to stay there and have for a long time. how unhappy and soulless can they be? i think they are more free than most, they have the courage to do what makes them happy, reguardless of what ppl think about them.
i built water towers for some time, which meant a new town every 3 months, and tons of hotels and flophouses. one can certainly get spoiled by the lifestyle. ever heard of the army's KISS policy? Keep It Simple, Stupid

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:22 pm

i think they are more free than most, they have the courage to do what makes them happy, reguardless of what ppl think about them.

Well, yes, but--as someone once pointed out, somewhere, the best example of being satisfied with being different is the village fool standing with both feet in buckets of muck each day, grinning. Acheiving satisfaction and disregarding others at this level doesn't really require imagination, only the stellar lack oif it, IMO.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:50 pm

I think they should live how they choose.

Some of the great Buddhist boddhisatvas lived without any possessions whatsoever. If they acquired something they gave it away. Milarepa lived in a cave for years and because of him the dharma lineage was transmitted.

On the same vein you can own 10000 CDs and still not suffer from materialism. Things like a home and possessions teaches us that nothing material lasts so enjoy it while it is here.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:25 pm

Of course they should live however they choose... Their business and, as such, they aren't really hurting anyone.

But as I mentioned above, note this sentence:

The couple, who initially lived in a Travelodge in nearby Newark before moving in 1997, have kept their old flat in Sheffield, northern England, and return every fortnight to collect the post.

So..they are keeping a residence and living in a hotel. Come on folks.. this is hardly a life of simple frugality...

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:22 pm

I think lythium raises an excellent point. Why the disdain for these people? Having lived in suburbia myself from time to time, I challenge you to find any two housing developments, apartment areas, or condominiums that truly differ from one another. How is living in a motel any different from living in a rented apartment? The occupant(s) owns neither. And, unless you have repaid a bank or other lending entity for the luxury of living in a house, you don't really own such a dwelling either. If you don't think so, then I humbly draw your attention to the fact that if you default and fail to meet mortgage payments, foreclosure occurs and you will be ejected from the abode.

Why do some people believe that they are better than others over something so superficial?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:53 am

Chanak wrote:How is living in a motel any different from living in a rented apartment?

You can't really furnish a motel.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:21 am

Vicsun wrote:You can't really furnish a motel.

I see. So what if furnishing it doesn't matter to you? As in...having furniture already there tickles your fancy and suits you just fine?

However, for the sake of argument here, you can, in fact, furnish a motel room to your tastes as long as you are occupying it, and as long as what you do in there doesn't violate rules of the establishment. Ah...but part of the point of the motel room is the fact that the furniture is there already anyway, which certainly has an appeal.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:50 am

Chanak wrote:I see. So what if furnishing it doesn't matter to you? As in...having furniture already there tickles your fancy and suits you just fine?

What if top 40 music and Dan Brown novels tickle your fancy and suit you just fine? Nothing wrong with that either, but "bland" is an accurate descriptor.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:57 am

Vicsun wrote:What if top 40 music and Dan Brown novels tickle your fancy and suit you just fine? Nothing wrong with that either, but "bland" is an accurate descriptor.

That's a matter of your opinion, Vic. And we all know that opinions resemble a certain part of the anatomy. We all have one. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is happy, they are doing something right for themselves. A pity they don't excite you.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:46 am

Chanak wrote:That's a matter of your opinion, Vic. And we all know that opinions resemble a certain part of the anatomy. We all have one. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is happy, they are doing something right for themselves. A pity they don't excite you.

Of course it's a matter of my opinion - just like your insistence that living in a motel is in no way dull is a matter of your opinion.

Do the Davidsons excite you?

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:07 pm

Vicsun wrote:Of course it's a matter of my opinion - just like your insistence that living in a motel is in no way dull is a matter of your opinion. Do the Davidsons excite you?

You're putting words in his mouth for one.

And should the Davidsons live an exciting life? Why is the comparison important, at all? If it interests you to compare the dullness of your own life versus someone else's, there's plenty of websites for those on the web. Just look for "blog".

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:12 pm

lythium wrote:You're putting words in his mouth for one.

Say what now?

And should the Davidsons live an exciting life? Why is the comparison important, at all? If it interests you to compare the dullness of your own life versus someone else's, there's plenty of websites for those on the web. Just look for "blog".

They can lead their lives however they see fit. At the same time I reserve my God given right to pass judgment and ridicule their lifestyle choices (because I'm a thoroughly unpleasant person). This has nothing to do with a comparison of my life to theirs; if you had argued that their lifestyle choice was unworthy of ridicule, you might have had a point - I'm not completely sure it is either, but when in doubt I always prefer to err on the side of ridicule

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:22 pm

(Almost) in the words of Michael Corleone:
'If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can ridicule anyone.'

If we are making threads on random people, let's make one on Alan Eastwood, an Economic Advisor in the Chemical Industry of the UK.

It's not the point of being worthy of ridicule or not, it's the why would you part. Why would you proclaim the way they live their life is a "blanded down" version of how they "ought" to live?