In my spare moments between having a tooth filled and the car serviced, playing the piano for Chris, teaching seven of my friends some German, watching the film Whale Rider (recommended by George and borrowed from the library) and driving south of Manotick to take pictures of diplomats on snowshoes (after which everyone came indoors to learn about Rotary International and the IFUW), I have been studying a book this week—about financial planning.
Recently a financial advisor sent us a note about how we should be investing our money, "assuming an end date of 90" for both of us. What a euphemism! As I have no intention of coming to an end just then, it looks as though we're bound to become stony-broke centenarians, sponging off our children. Joking aside, Emma and George shouldn't worry too much; our lives so far have taken all kinds of unforeseen turns and why should the next forty years be any different? Therefore it goes against the grain to make very exact plans. If we do find we've enough money to spare we'll spend it. If not, we'll be careful to spend less. I know that's being reactive rather than proactive but it seems the simplest policy and I'm all in favour of simplicity.
However, to show willing, I have now read right through Gordon Pape's The Retirement Time Bomb, taking notes. There is plenty of information and common sense in this book, but I do wonder about the helpfulness of Mr Pape's suggestion on Page 59 where he writes:
To get you started, here is a Personal Lifestyle Planner. Set aside an evening with your spouse or partner to go through it. You may discover some hopes and desires you have in common that you never knew about before.
Maybe so, but when I came to that sentence that I couldn't help thinking what a confident view of human nature this man has; he can't have read Chapter 21 of Flaubert's Madame Bovary, where ...
Tandis qu'il s'assoupissait à ses côtés, elle se réveillait en d'autres rêves.
2 comments:
"...playing the piano for Chris..." is a strange way of expressing a duet. Surely "...playing the piano' with Chris..." would make it sound less of a chore and more of a joint pleasure.
Well, the sentence was getting rather too long for further precision. What I meant was: playing the accompaniments at Chris' singing lesson so that his teacher could hear him practise certain songs or parts of songs and then also accompanying him at home as he tried things out on his clarinet. Furthermore, had I written "playing the piano WITH Chris" it would have sounded as though we were doing piano duets, which we weren't.
Enough of this waffle. I never see any kind of music making as a chore; it's an daily pleasure. I also sing for / with Chris and for the last few days have been playing the violin, ditto. Whether or not it's a joint pleasure may depend on how many slips I make while playing, but I usually get the impression we're both enjoying ourselves.
I wonder who Mr Anonymous is! I have my suspicions.
Post a Comment