And here we are. That odd stage in the calendar where discombobulation abounds. The second week in November always feels like a curious hinterland, straddling the final sighs of autumn and the first whispers of winter. Neither one nor the other.
The mild temperatures this year are further confusing matters. I stepped out the door into my back garden on Tuesday morning and as I listened to the chirping birdsong, I could have sworn I had been teleported to a spring day in March.
The good news is the fireworks hell of Bonfire Night is at last behind us. But now comes a perennial battleground so predictable you can almost set your watch by it. I’m talking about the thorny question: how early is too early to embrace the spirit of Christmas?
Granted, she has a vested interest in getting the show swiftly on the road. Regarded by many as the queen of Christmas – or should that be the queen of Christmas royalties? – Carey is reported to rake in £2.3million annually from her 1994 hit All I Want for Christmas Is You.
Another modern-day harbinger of the festive season is the Starbucks menu. When pumpkin spice lattes are ousted in favour of gingerbread and eggnog flavoured coffees, it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas.
This latter sentence has a knack for provoking strong reactions: folk either get a warm, fuzzy feeling – or they recoil in abject horror, shrieking, “It’s too early!!! Wait until December!!!” like the Wicked Witch of the West screeching, “I’m melting!!!” in The Wizard of Oz.
Social media is already brimming with sanctimonious posts about the “Christmas creep” and when it’s acceptable – or so-called “tradition” – to start listening to festive music, get the decorations down from the loft or peruse the shops for gifts.
Read more
I only RSVP if it’s OK to rock up in a dog hair-covered fleece
Is it now? December 1? 12 days before Christmas? December 21? Christmas Eve? As a self-proclaimed keen amateur anthropologist, I find it all endlessly fascinating.
There tends to be an inherent snobbery about those who put their decorations up early, the suggestion being that it’s gauche and lowbrow to do so.
Conversely, those placing a smug embargo on all things Christmas like to delude themselves that they are somehow superior to those who light a cinnamon-scented candle or string up a few twinkling fairy lights to lift the spirits when it’s pitch black by 4.30pm in November.
It’s a peculiar and baffling stance. The notion that anyone believes they get to self-righteously police how others are allowed to relax in their own home irks me no end.
I’ve noticed in recent times, though, that a growing number of people are throwing off the shackles of convention and decorating for Christmas whenever the heck they like.
Good on them, I reckon. I’m all for finding joy in life wherever we can. A study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology in 1989 suggested that those who decorate earlier for Christmas are happier than those who don't.
We arguably don’t need 35-year-old research to confirm that. Nor any of the countless studies in subsequent decades with similar findings.
Not everyone is a fan of Christmas. I completely understand that. Some detest the rampant commercialisation, others lament a loss of meaning within an increasingly secular society, or simply don’t enjoy this time of year for a plethora of personal reasons.
All of that is perfectly valid. Yet, equally, it doesn’t mean that those who do want to get a jump on those feel-good festive vibes should be made to feel bad or lesser for doing so. As I saw one person hilariously post on Facebook: “Can’t see the haters, my Christmas lights are too bright.”
Susan Swarbrick is a columnist and freelance writer who specialises in celebrity interviews, TV content and musings on popular culture. She also loves the outdoors and regularly covers sport. Follow her on X @SusanSwarbrick
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 here