REMEMBER Randy Newman's wonderful song, Short People?
Short people, sang Newman, people who in weaselly argot are vertically challenged, have "no reason to live". Moreover, "they got little hands and little eyes" and walk around - in platform shoes - "tellin' great big lies". It was perhaps his most successful song, a bigger hit even than his similarly controversial "Davy the Fat Boy".
He, however, was not all that fond of it, because many of its listeners did not understand he was being ironic. Even in the era before the internet, Newman (6ft tall and then some) received threats to his wellbeing and, if ever he performed the song in concert, there was always at least one aggrieved and idiotic midget in the audience who took umbrage and shouted obscenities.
I thought immediately of Short People when I learned that researchers at the University of Edinburgh's institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine have published a study suggesting that men below 5ft 9in and women below 5ft 4in tall are inferior intellectually to those who tower above them. Can this possibly be true, I wondered, as I measured myself.
On a good day, in my stocking soles, I come in at around the cut-off height for women. But then I have always been petit. At primary school, I was the shortest boy in my class, which made me a target for any tall boy eager to develop a career as a bully.
What they did not know is that I am double jointed and before any fight developed into fisticuffs I would grab my opponent's hand and bend it backwards until it snapped. That usually did for them.
What we're talking about here is not physical but intellectual muscle. One tabloid, in relaying the story of the Edinburgh researchers, cited two tall people who are "blessed with both height and intelligence". There were 6ft 1in David Cameron and 6ft 5in Stephen Fry.
At this point I feel like saying, I rest my case. That both these chaps are tall is beyond dispute. But how intelligent are they? It depends on the standard by which we are judging them.
Neither of them, it seems to me, is what I'd call super bright. Neither of them, for instance, can paint like Picasso (5ft 4in) or compose like Mozart (ditto) or, like Napoleon (5ft 6in), forge an empire. What they can do is pose questions on quiz shows and shout across a dispatch box. Such, it seems, is the definition of an egghead in the 21st century.
Lest it appear otherwise, may I say I always felt a certain sympathy for those who are, in the words of Martin Amis (5ft 4in at a stretch), "tall beyond utility".
Like leylandii, they just kept on growing until they blocked out the sunlight. We had a couple of them at my school for runts. Instinctively, I felt pity for them rather than awe.
What had life in store for them, I used to wonder, as they soared higher and higher, outgrowing their clothes at a faster rate than their folks could replace them.
Being tall, they were the natural choice for goalkeeper or, at a pinch, centre half, even though they had trouble co-ordinating. This wee Jimmy Johnstone and Willie Henderson wannabes put down to the fact that it took so long for messages to get to their feet from their brains.
In later life, it was assumed they would join the police force, which at that time was institutionally sizeist. Hence the preponderance in Her Majesty's guest houses of people who looked as if they'd been deprived of fertiliser at an early age.
Height, clearly, came with certain advantages. Women, it was said, preferred their partners to be tall and dark, two bills which few of us fitted. But that was women for you, always trying to attain the impossible.
Two can play at that game. Once, when I had the capacity to hire and fire, I was encouraged by my then editor (5ft 3in, or so he insisted) only to select staff who were shorter than us. I have tried other methods since and none has worked so well.
Soon, we had the most vertically challenged reporters on any newspaper in the Western hemisphere. It was great. Like mice, they hardly took up any space and could crawl through keyholes in pursuit of a scoop. In short, small is beautiful.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article