Skip to main content

In the storytelling centre

Yesterday morning I set off from Swindon station at silly-o-clock to head up to Edinburgh to take part in the excellent science festival. My venue was to be the splendidly named Scottish Storytelling Centre, and my topic Build Your Own Time Machine.

I'll admit it was a long journey, but one I would much rather do by train than any other way - I got loads of work done on the journey, and everything ran smoothly (we even arrived early), though I was a little confused by the new Kings Cross.

After a spot of recuperation at the splendid Hotel du Vin (accommodation provided by the festival) - even if I was slightly unnerved to be put up in a former asylum - I headed off for the venue.

I think it's fair to say it was a brilliant talk. That sounds even more big headed than you might expect from me, but what I mean is it was a capacity crowd, they were a wonderful audience and the Q&A at the end was one of the best I've ever had, with great questions, some decidedly insightful ones coming from children.

We finished off with a book signing, where there were more great questions, but just one sad problem. The bookshop had ordered the wrong book. It was one of mine, but not Build Your Own Time Machine. This was really depressing as I think I would have sold a good number. As it was, I had taken one copy of the book with me to wave around on stage and I had three people fighting over who got it.

I ought to stress this wasn't down to the event manager, who was charming and very helpful. But it was just so sad and I felt embarrassed and kept apologising to people.

Despite that, it certainly wouldn't put me off coming back to Edinburgh Science Festival - I had a great time, and I hope they invite me again.


  1. I can't ever do photos on my iPad either....just to say. Which is annoying because that was my excuse for buying it in the first be able to blog while on the road without having to lug around my computer. That didn't work. I now have other excuses, but is annoying.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope