There you are, weeding your way under the roses, around the daylilies, behind the lion's ear (in Southern California, that is). The Wayside Gardens fall catalogue is on the porch behind you, your arms are bleeding from rose thorn scratches, sweat and sunscreen are running into your eyes, your coffeecup is five plants back, and you can't find your clippers. You're thinking. You've run through the crimes of the Bush administration, your worries about the economy, and global warming. You've pondered the judgment of Rolling Stone magazine in preferring "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" to "Paint It Black." You're thinking about the baby rose you moved from its mother and transplanted that's doing well. You're wondering if and how you should fertilize the tomatoes in the back. And you're contemplating the neighbor's vinca and daring it to step one toe into your nasturtiums.
From the vinca massed on the border, it's a very short step to another list, the list of plants that are an Affront to Gardening. I don't mean weeds, of course. We all have to deal with weeds. And I don't mean vegetables -- they don't have to look nice. I mean plants that people DELIBERATELY plant and DELIBERATELY grow for their alleged beauty. The horticultural equivalent to nails on a chalkboard.
I have to acknowledge here that beauty is in the eye of the beholder blah blah blah. But eppur si muove, I really think I'm right. Here are my top three, in ascending order of disgustingness.
- AGAPANTHUS.
I try not to look at these, but they can't be avoided because of their popularity. Every landscaper pushes them because they're pretty much foolproof (in Southern California). When I do look, I'm overwhelmed by a sense of desperate tedium. Agapanthus are like a romantic comedy written by a committee. They're medium. They're medium green. Their foliage is medium interesting. Their medium-colored flowers are medium dramatic. Foliage and flowers look like the stars in the romcom who hate each other but are under contract. Agapanthus say: We've got it covered, so go off and play video games.
If you want a plant that is sturdy, has neat foliage and doesn't require much care, what the heck is wrong with a fortnight lily (African iris)? Their flowers are exquisite, orchid-like, usually white with purple, but there's also a pale yellow version. The foliage looks as though it LIKES the flowers. Here are some fortnight lilies:
- HYDRANGEAS.
If you want cheerleaders with baby blue pompoms, GET cheerleaders with baby blue pompoms. They can do a little dance, some gymnastics, chanting and whatnot. If you want flowers, get actual, you know, FLOWERS.
I admit that the "lacecap" variety isn't quite as nasty.
The hydrangea people say it's "more subtle." And they're right. It's like the cheerleaders doing their routine after imbibing vodka during halftime.
- IMPATIENS.
By that I don't mean the perfectly okay original type. That's pretty:
I mean the jujube-colored, stomach churning, must-have-color-even-in-shade, professional landscaper version. It's as though a circus clown vomited confetti:
And this picture isn't as bad as it could be -- because usually they're planted with their disgusting color variations (WHY salmon?) carefully intermingled, so you HAVE to look at their infinite variety. And these excrescences are planted in the shade, shade that should be lit with glowing white flowers (see white impatiens, above) or at most some pale yellow -- or even a dark color like purple. Shade is supposed to be restful, not popping around like a meth freak.
As I said (because I had to) it's all individual. What plants do you hate most?