tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44557005143771437582024-03-28T07:24:27.735+00:00Now AppearingThe writing life from popular science author Brian Clegg.Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.comBlogger2213125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-41081303623078504862024-03-25T11:13:00.004+00:002024-03-25T11:14:51.677+00:00The joy of sigma<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq_aU0f4Ahf6QFeiFBCXgg0hRKnaxWO_RfXB6TYqSisuhY7xxyRuvXT6vbPRUrYINEoTZqiK1r4zz28cjkxgF5kME6KmI23O3Lzwc0ltjfH617-nwrITxCacalLvKkzxU52Ue3hDEXmsRP70kZlM5WzJaZsRvCz0S-Qtn_ZOaB1ehKhJZCExIAYT6us856/s6016/naser-tamimi-yG9pCqSOrAg-unsplash.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4016" data-original-width="6016" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq_aU0f4Ahf6QFeiFBCXgg0hRKnaxWO_RfXB6TYqSisuhY7xxyRuvXT6vbPRUrYINEoTZqiK1r4zz28cjkxgF5kME6KmI23O3Lzwc0ltjfH617-nwrITxCacalLvKkzxU52Ue3hDEXmsRP70kZlM5WzJaZsRvCz0S-Qtn_ZOaB1ehKhJZCExIAYT6us856/w400-h268/naser-tamimi-yG9pCqSOrAg-unsplash.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Anyone who looks in a bit of detail at scientific results may have come across p-values and sigmas being used to determine the significance of a outcome - but what are they, and why is there a huge disparity between practice in the social sciences and physics?<p></p><p>These are statistical measures that determine the probability of the results being obtained if the 'null hypothesis' is true - which is to say if the effect being reported doesn't exist. The social sciences, notably psychology, usually consider the marker for statistical significance to be a p-value of less than 0.05, while in physics the aim is often to have a 5 sigma result.</p><p>Both these measures depend on creating a probability distribution, showing the likelihood of different values occuring. The p-value is a direct measure of the probability of getting the reported results if the null-hypothesis applies. So, a p-value of 0.05 means there is one in twenty (1/20 = 0.05) chance of this happening. Sigmas effectively measure the same thing, but in terms of a statistical measure called standard deviation that shows how spread out the distribution is.</p><p>It might seem odd not to use the more straightforward p-value, but the reason that sigmas tend to be used is that the p-value equivalent becomes very small at the kind of levels physicists look for. CERN, for example, actually works with p-values, but converts them to sigmas for easier communication. Here's a look at equivalent values:</p><p><b>Sigma</b><span><b> P-value<span> <span> </span>Cliff measure</span></b></span></p><p><span>2<span> </span><span> </span><span> 0.05<span> </span><span> </span><span> <span> </span>Whiff</span><span> </span></span></span></p><p><span>3<span> </span><span> </span><span> 0.003<span> </span><span> <span> </span>Evidence</span></span></span></p><p><span>4<span> </span><span> </span><span> 0.0001<span> </span><span> <span> </span>Annoying*</span></span></span></p><p><span>5<span> </span><span> <span> 0.0000003<span> Discovery</span></span></span></span></p><p>The 'Cliff measure' used above is a humorous interpretation of sigmas given by particle physicist Harry Cliff in his book <i>Space Oddities</i>. Arguably this is a more effective description of the value of different levels than the way statistical significance is usually regarded in the social sciences. Choosing 2 sigma/p-value of 0.05 as being statistically significant was an arbitrary choice, plucked out of the air by mathematician Ronald Fisher in 1925. However, it should be seen as nothing more than a note that something is worthy of proper investigation - Cliff's whiff - rather than an indicator that the outcome is accepted science.</p><p>Such has the focus been on getting a p-value below 0.05, there has in the past been a significant amount of 'p-hacking' - manipulating the data with the intention to get the result below the critical level. But Fisher certainly never intended this to be any sort of indicator of a real discovery. Remember, a p-value of 0.05 means that there is a 1 in 20 chance of getting these results when the effect doesn't exist. It may be a better probability than Russian roulette (p-value equivalent 0.17), but it's still hardly something you would want to risk your life on.</p><p>Why, then, is there such a disparity between the social sciences and physics? Because it isn't practical to have sufficient experimental subjects or experimental runs to come close to a 5 sigma outcome. It's very rarely going to be possible. As a result, the social sciences can't hope for equivalent degrees of apparent certainty. However, there is a strong feeling that the social sciences could do better - perhaps aiming for 3 sigma before they get excited. And it does mean that the outcomes of social sciences studies should arguably always carry a health warning and be better reported in terms of the risk of their misattributing an outcome to a particular cause.</p><p>One final consideration - even 5 sigma results can be wrong. Scientists can make a mistake with the maths. And there could be confounding factors too - a great example is the BICEP2 study, which aimed to study polarisation in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation in the hope of finding direct evidence for the cosmological theory of inflation, which evidence as yet doesn't exist. BICEP2 did so at a 5.9 sigma level. Except it turned out that the results were being distorted by cosmic dust - it was not a discovery after all. There is always the possibility that scientists have not allowed for a factor they were not aware of that has distorted the results - something that sadly tends to disappear from popular science/news reporting where outcomes are often stated is if they were fact.</p><p>Probability and statistics can be hard to get our heads around - but when scientific results are reported, it is essential that this particular aspect should be carefully explained up front. To have confidence in scientific results, we need to know know what the limitations of a particular study are.</p><p><br /></p><p>* Cliff's 'annoying' for 4 sigma is not saying it is useless, but rather than it's annoying it's getting close to the 'gold standard' 5 sigma without quite making it.</p><p><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Image from Unsplash by Naser Tamimi</span></i></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div><br /></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-48449963255117587202024-03-21T10:08:00.008+00:002024-03-21T10:11:34.335+00:00The Gift of a Radio - Justin Webb ****<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzJhW08XO9kFkDXtEIBOKLENKW6AZd7iZWwiM3reVgoPiL2fY7stQMIvLBrg7zLZYOu8AHHnU3SH0agyDeuTyURi0ZBFWoraHa-XB0JFCTpggrBhHMS5n93W973oibCaFzWXM6H8IO_QTZ4XCOZJ37Zpgxb7iERrlYwxMGCRoSqcQB9yINzj_b2Y2xU9AL/s1500/81VeOvNVrkL._SL1500_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="958" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzJhW08XO9kFkDXtEIBOKLENKW6AZd7iZWwiM3reVgoPiL2fY7stQMIvLBrg7zLZYOu8AHHnU3SH0agyDeuTyURi0ZBFWoraHa-XB0JFCTpggrBhHMS5n93W973oibCaFzWXM6H8IO_QTZ4XCOZJ37Zpgxb7iERrlYwxMGCRoSqcQB9yINzj_b2Y2xU9AL/s320/81VeOvNVrkL._SL1500_.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>This isn't the kind of book I usually read, but it piqued my interest when someone told me about it - and it certainly was worth getting into. If you are a BBC Radio 4 listener (or subscribe to the Americast podcast) you will be familiar with Justin Webb's soothing tones - this memoir of his childhood through to going to university gives a vivid picture of his bizarre upbringing.<p></p><p>Webb never met his father (who would become a reasonably well-known BBC reporter), being brought up by his mother and stepfather, each of whom had quite serious problems. His stepfather had a form of mental illness that included paranoia, while his mother was intensely snobbish, insisting on every little social divider that would put a gap between her upper-middle-class-on-hard-times position and anyone she considered socially inferior. </p><p>Their home life seems to have consisted mostly of silence, though there was a strong bond between Webb and his mother, arguably an unhealthy one. He was then sent to a dire second-rate public school, run by Quakers who somehow ignored violence amongst the students, before finally escaping to the LSE and a job at the BBC (via one dramatic road trip disaster). It's one of those stories where it's almost impossible to prevent yourself from describing parts of his experience to anyone nearby in amazement.</p><p>One thing that comes across very strongly is how dire Webb considers the 1970s to have been I can't help but feel that his intense dislike for the decade reflects his personal circumstances. I'm just a little older than Webb, but I loved the seventies, where I was experiencing my last years at a school I liked, time at two universities which I loved and starting a great job. Of course there were political and economic problems in the 70s, but I think the experience of being a child or teenager then has far more to do with what you were going through as an individual than a dark nature of the decade as a whole.</p><p>If you aren't familiar with Webb's work, you can hear him here, interviewing me for Radio 4's Today Programme (somewhat ironically, given his admission to totally giving up on science at school):</p><p><br />
<audio controls="">
<source src="http://www.brianclegg.net/QEToday.mp3" type="audio/mpeg"></source>
Your browser does not support the audio element.
</audio>
</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>The Gift of a Radio </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3INg3gv">Amazon.co.uk</a> <a href="https://amzn.to/3TKoT4M">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9781804990896">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div><p></p>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-37396253861730456962024-03-19T11:10:00.001+00:002024-03-19T11:10:28.213+00:00Ghost singers<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwVBY9QYb5weCxxOP1Q9l-7FwhwtL4sevuuFuY7pyDEd-x5m73IcD3cinGeyrwYRd701tqb87BkVS2rgauwEhukyjMiraPkrnkmtAYEz87aBcBtWgCAkQkgSakqGSJ4PlPbIgJ79_finQIHnfqfHDObNDwHTXn7bebV5Bd_hHajE5EK6L9-iH4-_eAjKqO/s352/Scan%20copy.jpeg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="352" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwVBY9QYb5weCxxOP1Q9l-7FwhwtL4sevuuFuY7pyDEd-x5m73IcD3cinGeyrwYRd701tqb87BkVS2rgauwEhukyjMiraPkrnkmtAYEz87aBcBtWgCAkQkgSakqGSJ4PlPbIgJ79_finQIHnfqfHDObNDwHTXn7bebV5Bd_hHajE5EK6L9-iH4-_eAjKqO/s320/Scan%20copy.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>When I was 13, I sang in a performance of Mahler's third symphony with the Hallé Orchestra under Sir John Barbirolli. Our school's 'special choir' was a regular feature in Manchester performances of orchestral pieces with children's parts - amongst other outings, I sang in Stravinsky's <i>Persephone</i>, Verdi's <i>Otello</i>, Malcolm Williamson's <i>Our Man in Havana</i> and Mussorgsky's <i>Khovanschina</i>.<div><br /></div><div>We performed Mahler 3 a total of three times - concerts in at the Free Trade Hall and the Festival Hall, and a BBC recording for broadcast. But what I didn't realise until a few weeks ago was that the BBC had issued that recording as an album. I managed to get hold of a CD copy and had the eerie experience of hearing myself and fellow choir members from 55 years ago.</div><div><br /></div><div>The (extremely long) symphony was quite a trial of patience for us. We had movement after movement marked 'tacet' on our copies, before featuring in the 4 minutes or so of the movement marked 'Lustig Im Tempo Und Keck Im Ausdruck'. Our part almost entirely consisted of singing 'Bimm bamm' (supposedly the sound of bells) with just a brief burst of German words. One of the choir was not allowed to return after spending much of the first movements on stage in full view of the audience reading a newspaper.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even so, it was a remarkable experience for a young person, and hearing those youthful voices Bimm Bamming away, brought the memories flooding back.</div>
<div><br /></div><div>I've extracted a couple of parts of the movement here, which I hope can be played as fair usage to show us in action:</div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay" frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/1554574063&color=%23ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true" width="100%"></iframe><div style="color: #cccccc; font-family: Interstate, "Lucida Grande", "Lucida Sans Unicode", "Lucida Sans", Garuda, Verdana, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; font-weight: 100; line-break: anywhere; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap; word-break: normal;"><a href="https://soundcloud.com/brianclegg" style="color: #cccccc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="brianclegg">brianclegg</a> · <a href="https://soundcloud.com/brianclegg/condensed-mahler-3-movement-5" style="color: #cccccc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="Condensed Mahler 3 Movement 5">Condensed Mahler 3 Movement 5</a></div>
<p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-72204114392692733822024-03-11T11:19:00.001+00:002024-03-11T11:19:24.145+00:00A PR triumph<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfORm0zAQsvtnOCIlQrjoJPe9gAL2LCQimEJXiKgMBFp2VD3hI423AU5pURlEpmhpUwhI187wzs5xIFTUbDx0rjmJreC3K6ooYm_MU8o2n_CqfUSYKKMEZkMQUZ08w2qSwkU-5j26ADJiSXsDOFvrXiYm3QO9J0ZvXOVBmpr-lMYZf-3n3274touvHg-6u/s1000/51aTcOJhqhL._SL1000_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="651" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfORm0zAQsvtnOCIlQrjoJPe9gAL2LCQimEJXiKgMBFp2VD3hI423AU5pURlEpmhpUwhI187wzs5xIFTUbDx0rjmJreC3K6ooYm_MU8o2n_CqfUSYKKMEZkMQUZ08w2qSwkU-5j26ADJiSXsDOFvrXiYm3QO9J0ZvXOVBmpr-lMYZf-3n3274touvHg-6u/s320/51aTcOJhqhL._SL1000_.jpg" width="208" /></a></div>I get a lot of press releases, but I have enjoyed few more than one I recently got from a book review website called <a href="https://summary-guru.com/">Summary Guru</a>, which site carries the headline 'GET INSPIRATION FOR YOUR PAPER WITH AI POWERED BOOK SUMMARIES & ANALYSIS – PLAGIARISM FREE' (Does inspiration need to be plagiarism free? Or just stuff you copy and paste?)<p></p><p>To demonstrate the effectiveness of Summary Guru, the release tells us 'Before Watching Netflix's <i>One Day</i>, Know These Five Fascinating Details From The Book' - details produced by Summary Guru. Here they are, with a few of my comments:</p><p><b>1. It's about a single day... across twenty years</b></p><p>To be honest, if you don't know this before watching the series, you haven't being paying attention.</p><p><b>2. It deeply explores relationships</b></p><p>This is illustrated with 'To quote Emma (the novel’s main female character): “Dexter, I love you so much…and I probably always will. I just don't like you anymore. I'm sorry.”' Yep, deep.</p><p><b>3. The book is rich in philosophy</b></p><p>Take a sabbatical, philosophy lecturers. Apparently 'Nicholls sprinkles many philosophical ideas through the book, highlighted by quotes such as, ‘’I think reality is overrated’’ and ‘’There is always joy in witnessing the joy of others.”' Wow, why did I bother reading philosopher <a href="https://popsciencebooks.blogspot.com/2023/11/why-philip-goff.html">Philip Goff's book</a> on the purpose of the universe?</p><p><b>4. It's light and dark.</b></p><p>This a real step forward for a fiction title, I think. We should see more of it, novelists.</p><p><b>5. There are bursts of humour</b></p><p>We are told 'But it’s not all doom and gloom; here are two light-hearted quotes that illustrate how funny Nicholls's prose can be:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>“Oh, you know me. I have no emotions. I'm a robot. Or a nun. A robot nun.”</li><li>“Call me sentimental, but there's no one in the world that I'd like to see get dysentery more than you.”</li></ul>LOL.<p></p><p>I know press releases are easy targets, but this feels more like a parody than the real thing. Perhaps it was intended as irony, but I'm not sure it was.</p><p><i>In case the release inspires you to get a copy of One Day, it is available from <a href="https://amzn.to/3TndfwF">amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://amzn.to/3V1AduB">amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9780340896983">bookshop.org</a></i></p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div><br /></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-16614138857494855002024-03-05T10:39:00.003+00:002024-03-06T12:50:23.943+00:00Billiard balls and time<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj4ghERVHJIZVHE7tnzT9gmvTC9BhynmA6RnMBkcRCK5n1yHUzKDx8cix9ANxmOXGmMWcumvFgH_ND-nWW0yOa7brqzC3-QUoWCOIo9M4RmXC1tmE0SzDjH4AK_SC9xG0yHzYp3R5wt2kfgBChdayn1kNubqv9M2Hram_XKknjTgvg-5Ik7vCJ1Zth_MBO/s960/Billiards_table,_is_the_attraction.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj4ghERVHJIZVHE7tnzT9gmvTC9BhynmA6RnMBkcRCK5n1yHUzKDx8cix9ANxmOXGmMWcumvFgH_ND-nWW0yOa7brqzC3-QUoWCOIo9M4RmXC1tmE0SzDjH4AK_SC9xG0yHzYp3R5wt2kfgBChdayn1kNubqv9M2Hram_XKknjTgvg-5Ik7vCJ1Zth_MBO/w400-h266/Billiards_table,_is_the_attraction.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>I've recently been reading <i><a href="https://popsciencebooks.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-blind-spot-adam-frank-marcelo.html">The Blind Spot</a>,</i> which describes how science tends to confuse its idealised and simplified models with reality, and how scientists have traditionally relied too much on reductionism while putting anything that involves human experience into the 'unreliable and subjective' box, even though everything we do in the sciences (as opposed to mathematics) requires the input of human experience.<p></p><p>One of the subjects covered at length in the book is time. This is fascinating in the context, because time is the experiential phenomenon that is regarded most differently in physics than it is in reality. Some physicists go as far to say that time doesn't exist at all. Related to this, it is pointed out that many physical processes are reversible in time, where science does not care which way it goes. But in the <i>The Blind Spot</i> the authors emphasise that what we experience is not clock time - the only time that physics regards as real - but duration. Physics, for example, has something of a problem with the 'arrow of time' - the idea that time has a specific 'direction' - outside of some specific areas like the second law of thermodynamics. This is something that is obvious when you see time through the perspective of duration but is not, for instance, present in say the laws of motion.</p><p>I've always thought one of the best demonstrations of why traditional physics gets this wrong, proving what the authors of <i>The Blind Spot</i> put across rather clumsily, is the very simple classical physics example of two billiard balls heading towards each other, colliding and heading away from each other. This is often used an example of the time reversibility of such physics. If you had a video showing the balls heading for each other, colliding and heading away, you could run it forward or backwards and it would be impossible to distinguish the two. And this is echoed in the maths.</p><p>But what <i>The Blind Spot</i> points out (though without using such an easily considered example) is that what we are doing here is giving a mathematical model the status of reality, where it is in fact an abstraction that doesn't reflect reality. One reason for taking this view is that a real billiard table has friction and the balls will loose energy in the collision, so will be travelling slower after the collision that before. But that's relatively trivial. The big blind spot here is a trap that physicists love to tease psychologists about falling into: cherry picking. We are not using what is observed in the real world, just a part of it. In reality, something had to start those billiard balls moving... and before long they will stop. In the real world, taking a durational view of time, there is no doubt at all that time is not reversible. It is only by cherry picking the frames of the video in the middle that we can pretend that the mathematical abstraction of Newton's laws, using clock time, that enable us to be so dismissive of time.</p><p>In the end, some physicists may say time doesn't exist (in the sense of elapsing through duration), but I've never seen a physicist who doesn't know how long it is until dinner time.</p><p><i>Image by Rangakuvara from <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Billiards_table,_is_the_attraction.jpg">Wikimedia Commons </a>CC4.0 - I've no idea what the guy with the cue thinks he's doing.</i></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div><br /></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-74787381040067347502024-02-27T13:07:00.003+00:002024-02-27T13:16:54.965+00:00Why is an insect like a leased aircraft?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQaUvJPxLO6ulVlehoT7HXX5f0VkmAZbPeoIqJBh2T5P2-OpMTFhzQ-mdzEPITdEQ7zJyi_wXsyoDIktUWu09dkYTkMdmSmlwAQ6oyzYFYY8I0BrgEBIpciqkKLs8hf2Mn6nhb-FIdfF_GkkOzn11Cb5KOut30hMFw2jKg6I5Ey423o1-oyH5XWHFaHpo_/s5184/miguel-angel-sanz-QQBCc1vVbZY-unsplash.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3888" data-original-width="5184" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQaUvJPxLO6ulVlehoT7HXX5f0VkmAZbPeoIqJBh2T5P2-OpMTFhzQ-mdzEPITdEQ7zJyi_wXsyoDIktUWu09dkYTkMdmSmlwAQ6oyzYFYY8I0BrgEBIpciqkKLs8hf2Mn6nhb-FIdfF_GkkOzn11Cb5KOut30hMFw2jKg6I5Ey423o1-oyH5XWHFaHpo_/w400-h300/miguel-angel-sanz-QQBCc1vVbZY-unsplash.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Lewis Carroll famously came up with the nonsense riddle ‘Why is a raven like a writing desk?’ - which was never intended to have a meaningful answer. But for some reason a piece of science news I read in <i>Physics World</i> inspired the question in the title of this post: why is an insect like a leased aircraft?<p></p><p>The leased aircraft in question was one that British Airways borrowed from Aer Lingus. The plane was then repainted in BA colours for the duration. But part of the deal involved repainting the aircraft in the Irish airline’s livery and generally putting it back with the configuration Aer Lingus required before returning it. When the engineers finished, they fixed a little plaque to the instrument panel in the cockpit reading ‘FLY GREEN SIDE UP.’</p><p>The science story that made this come to mind was the answer to a long-term puzzle: why do insects seem to be so attracted to lights at night? I had heard the suggestion that they used the Moon to help with navigation - but the study shows that they don’t fly towards light. Instead they turn their backs to the light, apparently because with a natural light source this essential gives them the correct orientation for ‘fly this side up’. Light is treated as an indicator of upwards, which is why, for instance, they often fly around a light at an angle. You can <a href="https://physicsworld.com/a/researchers-solve-mystery-of-why-flying-insects-gather-at-artificial-light/?utm_campaign=14290-57302&utm_content=Title%3A%20Researchers%20solve%20mystery%20of%20why%20flying%20insects%20gather%20at%20artificial%20light%20-%20Editors_pick&utm_term=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=iop">read the details here</a>.</p><p>One last thing. Previous generations wondering why a raven is like a writing desk could not consult an AI. I asked ChatGPT and Gemini (the renamed Bard) for their thoughts. Of the two I preferred the answer from Gemini, which is below:</p><p data-sourcepos="1:1-1:181" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; white-space: pre-wrap; word-break: break-word;">This famous riddle from Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" has no definitive answer, and that's part of the point! Carroll himself offered several playful solutions:</p><ul data-sourcepos="3:1-4:11" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 4px 0px; padding-inline-start: 1.125rem;"><li data-sourcepos="3:1-3:205" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>Because it can produce a few notes, though they are very flat; and it is never put with the wrong end in front!</strong> (Early versions spelled "never" as "nevar," mirroring the reversed letters in "raven.")</li><li data-sourcepos="4:1-4:11" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>Because Poe wrote on both.</strong> (Referencing Edgar Allan Poe, known for his dark poems and stories.)</li><li data-sourcepos="5:1-5:21" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>Because they both come with inky quills.</strong></li></ul><p data-sourcepos="7:1-7:138" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 1rem 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-break: break-word;">However, the beauty of the riddle lies in its openness to interpretation. Here are some other creative solutions people have come up with:</p><ul data-sourcepos="9:1-12:0" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 4px 0px; padding-inline-start: 1.125rem;"><li data-sourcepos="9:1-9:68" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>Because one has flapping fits and the other has fitting flaps.</strong></li><li data-sourcepos="10:1-10:82" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>Because one is good for writing books and the other better for biting rooks.</strong></li><li data-sourcepos="11:1-12:0" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>Because a raven is nevaR backwards and a writing desk is for Words.</strong> (A play on words and spelling.)</li></ul><p><span face=""Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-size: 16px;"></span><span face=""Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-size: 16px;"></span><span face=""Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-size: 16px;"></span><span face=""Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-size: 16px;"></span></p><p data-sourcepos="13:1-13:62" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 1rem 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-break: break-word;">Ultimately, the answer depends on your perspective and playful creativity. What do you think makes a raven like a writing desk?</p><p data-sourcepos="13:1-13:62" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; margin: 1rem 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-break: break-word;"><span face="-webkit-standard" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-size: large;">As Gemini hadn't answered my question directly I asked what it thought:</span></p><p data-sourcepos="1:1-1:261" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; white-space: pre-wrap; word-break: break-word;">As a large language model, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. Therefore, I can't truly "think" there's one definitive answer to the riddle. My role is to present the various interpretations and let you, the user, decide which one resonates most with you or sparks your own creative response.</p><p data-sourcepos="3:1-3:85" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 1rem 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-break: break-word;">However, I can offer some observations based on the history and nature of the riddle:</p><ul data-sourcepos="5:1-5:155" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 4px 0px; padding-inline-start: 1.125rem;"><li data-sourcepos="5:1-5:155" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>Lewis Carroll intended it to be ambiguous and humorous.</strong> He enjoyed wordplay and logic puzzles, and this riddle serves as a playful challenge to think outside the box.</li><li data-sourcepos="6:1-6:225" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>There are multiple layers of meaning.</strong> The most obvious level involves their physical qualities (feathers/quills, flat surface), but deeper interpretations draw on wordplay, literary references, and abstract connections.</li><li data-sourcepos="7:1-8:0" style="margin-bottom: 0px;"><strong>The best answer is the one that delights you.</strong> Don't feel pressured to find a "correct" solution. Instead, have fun exploring the different possibilities and appreciating the open-ended nature of the riddle.</li></ul><p data-sourcepos="13:1-13:62" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 1rem 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-break: break-word;"><span style="white-space: normal;"></span><span style="white-space: normal;"></span><span style="white-space: normal;"></span></p><p data-sourcepos="9:1-9:133" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; caret-color: rgb(31, 31, 31); color: #1f1f1f; font-family: "Google Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 1rem 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-break: break-word;">So, while I can't point to a single "right" answer, I encourage you to continue exploring and enjoying the imaginative possibilities!</p><p><i>Image by Miguel Angel Sanz from Unsplash</i></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div><br /></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-54063839273906355322024-02-20T10:13:00.001+00:002024-02-20T10:13:02.029+00:00When is 99% less than 99%?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgSbF4oJYpkogYk3Mk0n8RSPjNRp9UDReaXgxYRew4m4MN9ARxTzU4PjpoyfEc55lp5XlbbBs3-uSsK0aA61EFULkO6invd5UGcZhVy48gwxL7amyM-77nFH5GCdJKi1KdtHsvctEXdej9IObTtYvHMkhsJRUpbQBFYlDYpaRuY1x-JhxGQ59mR-Kk3DTV/s5472/resume-genius-YyWzCbpNXvw-unsplash.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3648" data-original-width="5472" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgSbF4oJYpkogYk3Mk0n8RSPjNRp9UDReaXgxYRew4m4MN9ARxTzU4PjpoyfEc55lp5XlbbBs3-uSsK0aA61EFULkO6invd5UGcZhVy48gwxL7amyM-77nFH5GCdJKi1KdtHsvctEXdej9IObTtYvHMkhsJRUpbQBFYlDYpaRuY1x-JhxGQ59mR-Kk3DTV/w400-h266/resume-genius-YyWzCbpNXvw-unsplash.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Asking when 99% is less than 99% sounds like a riddle - but it's not. I recently heard a Sky Mobile radio advert in which they claimed 99% UK coverage. In the 'small print' words at the end, they said this meant they covered 99% of the population.<p></p><p>I don't know about you, but unless I'd heard that proviso, I would have assumed that 99% coverage meant you could connect to their service in 99% of UK locations - I expected the figure to be based on area of coverage, rather than population.</p><p>It might seem like this is splitting hairs, but it really isn't.</p><p>Let's just imagine an unlikely version of the UK where 99% of the population lived in London (this is, after all, what most advertising people think). Having 99% coverage by Sky's definition would mean that you could only use your mobile phone in 0.65% of the country. The whole point of a mobile is to be able to use in on the move, not just at your home location.</p><p>Of course, the real UK is not like my imagined version. Yet the country has far more open space than many assume. Only around 10% of the country is built up. This means you could make Sky's claim and still be inaccessible in much of the other 90% of the country. </p><p>In saying this, I'm not just getting at Sky - I'm sure other mobile providers make similar dodgy claims. From my own personal experience travelling around the country (using O2, not Sky), quite often I can't get 4G and there are plenty of places still with no signal. </p><p>If you want to use statistics in your advertising, it's a good idea to use numbers that mean what people will assume they mean. Otherwise, it's more than a touch deceptive.</p><p>I have contacted Sky to ask about how they came up with the 99% figure, but as yet have had no reply.</p><p><i>Image by Resume Genius from Unsplash</i></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div><br /></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-49915442413325462902024-02-14T11:46:00.002+00:002024-02-14T11:46:40.250+00:00The surprising views of Fred Hoyle<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq5mgfsqsr0dgj_YN94PVChbDtf1bAQTIylZZj2lzYHi7viEknPB-I6HwshKV_VkJP_rElZpV9SanxqbsOqWONBuSiDZrIcyD4-zCi4Vm-sDomi2vYKUgUHX_a_sF0zWecrnFr_fORZKwmi1C7Pfzh0PTQQTCfTn6YaMSqJ1QUMpDnRvP42S9xmwcwlI7P/s2048/Pursuit_mosaic,_National_Gallery.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq5mgfsqsr0dgj_YN94PVChbDtf1bAQTIylZZj2lzYHi7viEknPB-I6HwshKV_VkJP_rElZpV9SanxqbsOqWONBuSiDZrIcyD4-zCi4Vm-sDomi2vYKUgUHX_a_sF0zWecrnFr_fORZKwmi1C7Pfzh0PTQQTCfTn6YaMSqJ1QUMpDnRvP42S9xmwcwlI7P/w300-h400/Pursuit_mosaic,_National_Gallery.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>The late Fred Hoyle was one of my favourite scientists. He did impressive work on astrophysics, wrote imaginative science fiction and was an excellent science communicator, famously devising the term 'Big Bang' in a radio broadcast when he was throwing doubts on the theory.<p></p><p>In the late 1940s, Hoyle, along with colleagues Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold at Cambridge came up with the steady state theory as an alternative to the Big Bang. One of the driving reasons behind this was that they felt that the Big Bang theory was too uncomfortably close to alignment with theological creation, and Hoyle was a staunch atheist.</p><p>When I was growing up, with Hoyle as one of my heroes (a fellow northerner, if from the wrong side of the east/west border), I was sad that steady state was disproved. Hoyle never gave up on it, modifying it to match observation (just as, to be fair, Big Bang had to be modified to match observation), but it dropped out of fashion as Big Bang made an easier match to the view of the early universe (steady state had no concept of an early universe, because there was no beginning).</p><p>I mention all this as a precursor to discovering a sort-of quote from Hoyle in reviewing <i><a href="https://popsciencebooks.blogspot.com/2024/02/a-chorus-of-big-bangs-adam-susskind.html" target="_blank">A Chorus of Big Bangs</a></i>. It seemed so out of character for Hoyle, that I had to follow it up - I was sure that it must be a fake. Here's the text:</p><p><i>A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking of in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars.</i></p><p>A lot of the websites quoting the words above online were fringe, and none gave a clear reference for the source, but in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jan/08/religion-atheism-longley-advertising">blog post on the Guardian website</a>, the author of the post indirectly references a 1990 book called <i>The Mirror of Creation</i> by Edmund Ambrose. I ordered a copy of this (long out of print) book to see where Ambrose got his quote from. Ambrose did not include the final sentence, but referenced an essay from the early 1980s by Hoyle called <i><a href="https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3312/1/Hoyle.pdf" target="_blank">The Universe: Past and Present Reflections</a></i>. This is primarily about the development of his version of panspermia theory with Chandra Wickramasinghe (and is interesting in its own right, as it provides more detail than is usually given when dismissing the theory). Right at the end Hoyle says this:</p><p><i>A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.</i></p><p>Leaving aside the presumed autocorrect that turned superintellect into superintendent, as you can see, the final sentence is totally different. The second part of the original 'quote' was indeed by Hoyle, but comes from a totally different source: a slim volume entitled <i>Religion and the Scientists</i> dating back to 1959, which is a collection of a series of talks given by Cambridge scientists including Hoyle, Neil Mott (then Cavendish Professor) and G. P. Thomson, which were intended to help theologians get a better feel for the scientific view of 'some of the facts of existence'. </p><p>Many of these talks were, as the preface puts it, 'incompatible with orthodox Christianity, and sometimes opposed to it' - these were not apologists for religion. Yet in his talk Hoyle did include the 'I do not believe that any physicist' sentence. He was reflecting on the fine tuning required for the production of heavier atoms in stars, and later goes on to add the extra fine tuning required for life to exist. There is no doubt at all, from reading this talk, that Hoyle had, by 1959, a form of religious belief.</p><p>However, those who use this kind of quote to bolster a particular religion should also be aware that he was very clear in the same speech that there is an irreconcilable clash between the rigidity of (at least parts of) formal religions and science. He says 'There is a clear reason for this. All formal religions were devised at earlier times when man's understanding of the physical world was far less developed than our present understanding. It is natural therefore that modern science should find itself at odds with these earlier attempts at an expression of the religious impulse of man.'</p><p>It's quite possible that Hoyle would have agreed with the panpsychist view of philosopher <a href="https://popsciencebooks.blogspot.com/2023/11/philip-goff-five-way-interview.html">Philip Goff</a>. What Hoyle suggested is that if we take away the dogmatic trappings of traditional religion, science should have no problem with having a religious viewpoint. He draws a parallel between religion and mathematics, pointing out that mathematics has a validity 'independent of any observational test' and once we admit the validity of mathematics in this way, how can the validity of religion be excluded? I will leave you with Hoyle's expansion of this view:</p><p><i>It may surprise you when I say that I have yet to meet a person who was not imbued by a religious sense. The great difference between us lie in our varying attitude to formal religion. Religion in a non-formal sense I take to mean that a man will look up at the stars at night with a sense of awe, that he will feel that the majestic play of the universe has some deep laid purpose, and that his own small role in the play must make sense, if only he has the wit to find it. By contrast, by a formal religion I mean a belief in the miracles of Jesus and of the Virgin Birth, belief in those events that if they ever occurred must have contradicted the very fabric of the world as we know it.</i></p><p>(Note that though Hoyle's specific example here of formal religion is Christianity - the talks took place in a church - he elsewhere dismisses the other formal religions as well.) I don't agree with everything Hoyle said, but for me this shows the dangers of just labelling someone as 'an atheist' or a 'religious believer' - it is only the fundamentalists of either atheism or religion who feel they know for sure exactly what is behind our existence.</p><p>The image is from a series of mosaics by Boris Anrep in the entrance hall of the National Gallery in London. Somehow it's distinctly appropriate for this exploration of Hoyle's position that he is portrayed as 'a steeplejack, climbing up to the stars.'</p><p><i>Image by Anne-Lise Heinrichs from <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pursuit_mosaic,_National_Gallery.jpg">Wikipedia</a> under CC 2.0</i></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div><br /></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-45337978346220294942024-01-24T11:19:00.003+00:002024-01-25T17:33:54.028+00:00Book and talk news<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwMibUhKWxhg-Q6tsv9Yy_c7_daZkvcwdPgYQrCtBOtyLRPGDCRt-AP1QI-g3PjYL9euhs1OEd0AfRD9_D8Tg6kJ077u5IQWAX8KB-VlspP_91X2T74iyVMfk7lMV6e_uvmnEybqzjRgnc3qc1CIa_U4YQecjbHVWElvsZte_ZW1Ju4huRZzd_vTBlnzlB/s1600/Interstellar%20Tours%20TW2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwMibUhKWxhg-Q6tsv9Yy_c7_daZkvcwdPgYQrCtBOtyLRPGDCRt-AP1QI-g3PjYL9euhs1OEd0AfRD9_D8Tg6kJ077u5IQWAX8KB-VlspP_91X2T74iyVMfk7lMV6e_uvmnEybqzjRgnc3qc1CIa_U4YQecjbHVWElvsZte_ZW1Ju4huRZzd_vTBlnzlB/w640-h360/Interstellar%20Tours%20TW2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>A couple of upcoming talk dates, plus a sneak peak of books in the production process: I've talks coming up on 17 February and 16 March, while my next book is out in July.<p></p><p>Both talks are on <i>Interstellar Tours</i>: Saturday 17 February is at 10.45am at the Festival of Tomorrow in Swindon. It's part of the family day (free entrance) 10am to 5pm - my talk (£3) is on at 10.45 in the Egg Lecture theatre. <a href="https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/festival-of-tomorrow-finale-saturday-17-february-2024-tickets-799892549147" target="_blank">You can book tickets here</a> (click the 'Free' get tickets and then add on my talk), and find out <a href="https://www.festivaloftomorrow.com" target="_blank">more about the Festival here</a>.</p><p>Saturday 16 March is at the Royal Institution in London. You can <a href="https://www.rigb.org/whats-on/interstellar-tours" target="_blank">find out more and book tickets (£7/£10/£16) here</a>.</p><p>I've two books in the pipeline. Due to be published in July 2024 is a book in Icon's compact Hot Science series. Called <i>Weather Science</i> it looks at all aspects of the weather and how meteorology has moved from folklore to leading edge computing and satellite technology. More details closer to the release date. The other I'll be finishing off by the end of February, with publication likely to be in 2025. It's very different to many of my books and looks at the science (or lack of it) of something of huge importance to everyday life that arguably defines us as humans.</p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div><br /></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-5458590858376934892024-01-23T10:44:00.004+00:002024-01-23T10:44:53.419+00:00Death by Dandruff - Nicholas Sercombe (and Arthur Conan Doyle) ***<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUFCNPiwovG2MIAG7j_haYiN4DwB-4RRZgfO0eVYwvlzsfgXeUBZ4KZpFM2-LFs1X8zrT4K3WxUjUUoeaIjKyW9HhSbVasdts1nqzgt_pTCzR9gkipAjZ8hOntk3REOR1a1nVY5iuYjsfVhzm9OHywHZZj0H3N0g0ioNwHD1c6WzD5Ghsx0-pIQC-2sI9e/s1042/61o+V5V8AXL._SL1042_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1042" data-original-width="700" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUFCNPiwovG2MIAG7j_haYiN4DwB-4RRZgfO0eVYwvlzsfgXeUBZ4KZpFM2-LFs1X8zrT4K3WxUjUUoeaIjKyW9HhSbVasdts1nqzgt_pTCzR9gkipAjZ8hOntk3REOR1a1nVY5iuYjsfVhzm9OHywHZZj0H3N0g0ioNwHD1c6WzD5Ghsx0-pIQC-2sI9e/s320/61o+V5V8AXL._SL1042_.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>This is one of the weirdest books I have ever come across. Strictly speaking it's a short story, but packaged as a thin Ladybird-like hardback. It's number 16 in a series that began with <i>A Balls-up in Bohemia</i>. The weird and wonderful idea behind it is that we see Watson's original text, before it was heavily edited for publication - in this case becoming the story <i>The Adventure of the Stockbroker's Clerk</i>, which after publication in the Strand magazine was incorporated into <i>The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes</i>.<p></p><p>If you are a Holmes fan, as I am, it's inevitable that you open it alongside the original. After some minor deviations in the opening paragraph (such as changing the previous owner of Watson's new medical practice from Mr Farquhar in the original to the strangely spelled Dr. Farquar in the new version) it starts to bring in Nicholas Sercombe's novel ideas of what might have been edited out at the Strand, from the fact that Watson's wife Mary was actually Mark 'a female impersonator from Ruislip', to a scene which in the original featured Holmes arriving at Watson's house, but now is replaced by Moriarty and a third party, Miss Clytemnestra Fanning) who buys Watson's premises (after flashing her bottom).</p><p>So it goes on, with touches of the original mixed into a story that features a whole range of 'comic' situations, from Watson struggling to impersonate someone from Birmingham to his being able to punch the prime minister (Lord Salisbury) on the back (according to one of the 'pictures portraying lively action scenes' by Juliet Snape). Along the way we pick up background that was never mentioned in the original stories, whether it be Holmes' alleged middle names (Nugent Julius) or the strange origin story relationship between Holmes and Moriarty.</p><p>I'm afraid this kind of humour doesn't appeal to me. If you enjoyed, for instance, National Lampoon's <i>Bored of the Rings</i>, I think these books would be very much up your street - but for me it didn't work anywhere near as well as a story in its own right as did the original, and the 'funny' bits were consistently puerile. I'm sure, though (would they have got to number 16 otherwise?) that some will enjoy this series.</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>Death by Dandruff </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3S2xnCm">Amazon.co.uk</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9781915821034">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-13175062230362776192024-01-16T10:09:00.000+00:002024-01-16T10:09:05.286+00:00May contain nut (kernels)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5NqMOAJEv8pQtoQuCsHD9_CXD4mMlkxZ8EXfO3vR-8FjAEI67DLb8f37f-5j9Y6xbiCxrPT0nrrEcyF0M35uuIIuRHw3N0l2jAIOi6Nrt8VflaYiFIEBqkTihblrQoxtiV4jBxsmF6RfbjadNr8CfneLDbLo9EjPcWGgyQN00oaElPH_OAWM8Sy5NSYh8/s1121/IMG_1284.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="1121" height="124" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5NqMOAJEv8pQtoQuCsHD9_CXD4mMlkxZ8EXfO3vR-8FjAEI67DLb8f37f-5j9Y6xbiCxrPT0nrrEcyF0M35uuIIuRHw3N0l2jAIOi6Nrt8VflaYiFIEBqkTihblrQoxtiV4jBxsmF6RfbjadNr8CfneLDbLo9EjPcWGgyQN00oaElPH_OAWM8Sy5NSYh8/w400-h124/IMG_1284.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>I quite often find myself reading food labelling, particularly if it's handy over the breakfast table. It's partly because I'm interested in what's in what I eat - but also because I had fun on a BBC TV show pointing out that it's perfectly possible, because of the mad way it's calculated, for food labelling to say that a product contains over 100% of a substance. (See the bottom of the post for my food labelling video.)<p></p><p>The other day, I was perusing the back of a packet of little amaretti cakes (not the hard biscuits) we'd been given and noticed an ingredient that stirred some vague memory: these little Italian cakes were 34% apricot kernels. Somewhere in the depths of my mind I associated these with cyanide - something no one really wants to discover in their coffee-accompanying treat.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfUZa4Sb9EETlCMGVgPZThIxbsEytw1b1CedyDHwUpLKxTMNvuuN7Xi_p-PsBpHAbCpCSSykkCRSyikIqvHQX9ZBf4Ol4yp0sA1JLz5cCR9zukEJF_lNYw9JOrSy_URenADXnXyYE_kCc1BArMReGgpO4TR9R1uB2mSCbnojBn0IlNlS9icZqteM5NVvxg/s882/IMG_1283.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="882" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfUZa4Sb9EETlCMGVgPZThIxbsEytw1b1CedyDHwUpLKxTMNvuuN7Xi_p-PsBpHAbCpCSSykkCRSyikIqvHQX9ZBf4Ol4yp0sA1JLz5cCR9zukEJF_lNYw9JOrSy_URenADXnXyYE_kCc1BArMReGgpO4TR9R1uB2mSCbnojBn0IlNlS9icZqteM5NVvxg/w200-h156/IMG_1283.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />I <a href="https://www.fsai.ie/consumer-advice/food-safety-and-hygiene/food-poisoning/apricot-kernels-(bitter-and-sweet)">took a look online</a> and discovered that while apricot kernels do not contain cyanide, they do contain 'the plant toxin amygdalin, which converts to cyanide after eating'. I didn't find this hugely encouraging. Now the Irish food safety website (it happened to be the first respectable one I found) recommends not eating more than 0.37 grams of apricot kernels a day for adults and says that children shouldn't eat them at all. The box contained 140g of product according to the packaging, so that should be about 47.6g of apricot kernels. There were maybe a dozen amaretti in total - making each one over 10 times the recommended limit. And there was no warning they shouldn't be eaten by children.<p></p><p>Of course, it's entirely possible that the kernels have been treated in some way to remove the amygdalin - though my suspicion is that this is the substance responsible for the 'bittersweet flavour' the box is proud of. But at the very least it would have been nice to have had some labelling to clarify what safe levels are.</p><p><br /></p>
<div style="padding: 56.25% 0px 0px; position: relative;"><iframe allow="autoplay; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" frameborder="0" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/500520395?badge=0&autopause=0&player_id=0&app_id=58479" style="height: 100%; left: 0; position: absolute; top: 0; width: 100%;" title="Food Labelling"></iframe></div><script src="https://player.vimeo.com/api/player.js"></script>
<p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><p><br /></p>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-35640202031031006362024-01-04T13:09:00.006+00:002024-01-04T13:09:48.833+00:00Looking forward to 2024<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1iMNEIQETu__g5DS4U24sZQ-bKbuHqgx9p9EXq8on8oDpTyu8yY4pMOZsmFAdb523Krc23WpF8Kqw0g3drsjrw8Bn5bV4BQgKwwJW70sMuQTHN927ggBluis0L6i4sBSoHUHqzaJfLIubHniZ9xf95R73nIra51HYCrQx1KVSrRs2TDkv_7j2YnqBgG3i/s3302/andreas-rasmussen-OUSa9MU4zZc-unsplash.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3302" data-original-width="2642" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1iMNEIQETu__g5DS4U24sZQ-bKbuHqgx9p9EXq8on8oDpTyu8yY4pMOZsmFAdb523Krc23WpF8Kqw0g3drsjrw8Bn5bV4BQgKwwJW70sMuQTHN927ggBluis0L6i4sBSoHUHqzaJfLIubHniZ9xf95R73nIra51HYCrQx1KVSrRs2TDkv_7j2YnqBgG3i/w320-h400/andreas-rasmussen-OUSa9MU4zZc-unsplash.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Those of you who berate me when my reviews are mostly not science or science fiction books, the Christmas present reading pile is nearly done - expect more of a usual mix next week.<p></p><p>I don't believe in making New Year's resolutions - they just set you up for failure. But I hope, like me, you are, on the whole, looking forward to 2024. The world is going through a difficult period - of that there's no doubt. And politically, we've got elections in over half the democratic segment of the world - so there could be interesting times. But I do think a negative outlook can be self-fulfilling, and optimism is the best way to make the most of life.</p><p>I'm certainly looking forward to some excellent new popular science books in 2024. As it happens the first one I'll be reviewing next week is from 2022 (but the paperback, which I'm reviewing, is out in February). I know there are some excellent books on the way, including a far reaching title from last year's Royal Society Prize winner, Henry Gee. I am hoping we will have more popular science titles in areas of particular interest to me, such as physics, cosmology, IT and maths, and perhaps less emphasis on the human brain and medicine - but obviously I can see the appeal. We've certainly had some interesting scientific developments across the board in 2023, whether it's the rise of generative AI like ChatGPT or new vaccines, such as the promising Malaria vaccine.</p><p>As for me, I'm currently working on my next longer book, which is due in to the publisher in March - I can't give away anything at the moment, but I've enjoyed writing in more than anything else I've written in years*. It's unlikely to be out until 2025, but I've got big hopes for it.</p><p>Here's to the rest of 2024.</p><p><i>* Enjoyment in writing doesn't necessarily translate into big sales. The book I most enjoyed writing ever was <a href="https://www.brianclegg.net/conundrum.html" target="_blank">Conundrum</a>, my book of puzzles and ciphers to crack. It has some dedicated fans - and at the time of writing, 17 people worldwide have solved the book (you can see the hall of fame and find out more about the book at <a href="https://www.conundrumbook.com" target="_blank">its website</a>). But it hasn't been a big seller.</i></p><p><i>Image from Unsplash by Andreas Rasmussen</i></p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-53167692834468486952024-01-04T09:42:00.004+00:002024-01-04T09:42:27.470+00:00Death of a Bookseller - Alice Slater ****<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCP_AY-OmVPal2ZvU5z3ikkQwP4nS2ocXTOnHyequpWyGCo3lCTXyH5AoQx98F4Mq-_dJd6nei0wWOD1FNXgwKoTc-OIdwyHtJ862x9C-56xanNxDuw7G871A1fOmL10nSjNY6T6Pcg-y4qCWP4F3G9hmhvkteZAVvmVvBUzxLCBADF0gwBFmOkW3wqns4/s1500/71YC6qm-VQL._SL1500_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="985" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCP_AY-OmVPal2ZvU5z3ikkQwP4nS2ocXTOnHyequpWyGCo3lCTXyH5AoQx98F4Mq-_dJd6nei0wWOD1FNXgwKoTc-OIdwyHtJ862x9C-56xanNxDuw7G871A1fOmL10nSjNY6T6Pcg-y4qCWP4F3G9hmhvkteZAVvmVvBUzxLCBADF0gwBFmOkW3wqns4/s320/71YC6qm-VQL._SL1500_.jpg" width="210" /></a></div>This was not the book I expected it to be - and I'm rather glad of it. It looks like a Christmas murder mystery, particularly in the red and gold cover I got. But it really isn't. A murder is involved. The book climaxes at Christmas. But this nothing like a cosy murder investigation: it is an intense dip into the intersecting lives of two women, each with deep-seated problems.<p></p><p>Roach, obsessed with true crime is already a bookseller at the local Waterstones (sorry, Spines). Laura joins with a new management team. She's apparently the opposite of Roach - blonde, bubbly, tote-bag-carrying, chatty with the customers... but has something dark hidden in her past. Roach desperately wants to get closer to Laura, in part because of the nature of Laura's 'found poetry' - but instead finds herself pushed away (not entirely surprisingly).</p><p>The bookshop setting is one I was naturally drawn to, but I would never normally read a book that's primarily about obsession and the fragmenting relationships of two people. Both women seem to get hammered practically every evening and after a while neither is easy to relate to. However, I was kept reading: it is a very cleverly written book, alternating between Roach and Laura's viewpoints, in the first person. It's relentlessly dark (in fact, there are two 'cut scenes' included at the end of the edition I bought, and I suspect they were edited out because they provided too much light relief) - but I had to keep turning the page all along.</p><p>The ending was unexpected, but not (as I expected it to be) shocking. I'm sure Alice Slater knows her subjects' lifestyle better than I would and captures it well. The only real oddity that struck me is that perhaps Slater has never owned a pair of Doc Martens, as she makes a big thing of one of the characters wanting some DMs with yellow stitching. I've worn DMs for the last 40 years and hardly any <i>didn't</i> have yellow stitching - although not always there, it's very much a part of the trademark look, so it's an odd thing to emphasise.</p><p>I have limited space, so a first decision after reading a book is whether to shelf it or re-sell it. This is a shelfer.</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>Death of a Bookseller </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3RDSfjc">Amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://amzn.to/3GYMRlB">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9781529385328">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-79382440964141883002024-01-03T12:35:00.000+00:002024-01-03T12:35:10.600+00:00Planes, Trains and Toilet Doors - Matt Chorley ****<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg10Y-0oKExdtw1ubAbPCMtqnAzFeaoCPfwtu6kacBxqN1L_fZq65NLF6dgqC2wfwxhyh-rOU4mj4gN9R02uYpcEjJnVY_pohi44iBvVSnj96dOEP0qOjmee1G7ObkCas8mioHLyX-OwWhESbCGgM4I-ZUD6ag7cQctu54YTE7slfJYxXOc-kqw289XJ4KA/s1500/91Udc3u9PyL._SL1500_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="980" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg10Y-0oKExdtw1ubAbPCMtqnAzFeaoCPfwtu6kacBxqN1L_fZq65NLF6dgqC2wfwxhyh-rOU4mj4gN9R02uYpcEjJnVY_pohi44iBvVSnj96dOEP0qOjmee1G7ObkCas8mioHLyX-OwWhESbCGgM4I-ZUD6ag7cQctu54YTE7slfJYxXOc-kqw289XJ4KA/s320/91Udc3u9PyL._SL1500_.jpg" width="209" /></a></div>Matt Chorley is one of the best political radio presenters and podcasters around. His coverage of UK politics is sharp and insightful - but always with a sense of humour. He is also a newspaper columnist, though I confess I find his writing style there sometimes too farcical - but that doesn't apply to this book, which takes in '50 places that changed British Politics'. Although there is humour here (quite strong, for instance, on the infamous venture to Barnard Castle), this is primarily a serious look beyond Westminster at a series of key events in often unexpected locations around the country.<p></p><p>Some are small but significant, such as Gordon Brown getting locked in a toilet. Others involve an event that would change history more directly (or even personally, in the story of Spencer Perceval, the only UK prime minister to be assassinated). Although many of the events were familiar to me as someone with an interest in politics, there was a lot that I never knew - and the whole presents a fascinating insight into the quirks and oddities of our political history.</p><p>I was recommended this book by Peter Mandelson (not personally, I hasten to add, but on another excellent podcast hosted by Chorley), and I'm glad I took up his suggestion. It may be (dull sounding) political history, but it's never heavy and very enjoyable. The icing on the cake, which I am sure the author enjoyed, is that at the time of writing, Amazon had it listed as '#2 most gifted in toilet training.'</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>Planes, Trains and Toilet Doors </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3RVsH2h">Amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://amzn.to/3RZpj6A">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9780008622060">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-76932314641840029012023-12-30T09:49:00.001+00:002023-12-30T10:22:50.554+00:00The Christmas Jigsaw Murders - Alexandra Benedict ***<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFlOZX04131ed540irXieRoxi7MNmHr8ZCg2zOH9XFhbnGwWzP9umFJDWZf5TV29Sp5oTtxiA5IAqHGOOiFjbOlWb_25KpjiHZddDmEyqrqAJTz5QPwYoUxCTddtpHVDENTiuW1K0EdMEwkTGQpx8pjPLERsB4jQ_Mj139ojhkNBEpKyE5Ly6SWtmhqyen/s1500/810DEj9A-2L._SL1500_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="971" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFlOZX04131ed540irXieRoxi7MNmHr8ZCg2zOH9XFhbnGwWzP9umFJDWZf5TV29Sp5oTtxiA5IAqHGOOiFjbOlWb_25KpjiHZddDmEyqrqAJTz5QPwYoUxCTddtpHVDENTiuW1K0EdMEwkTGQpx8pjPLERsB4jQ_Mj139ojhkNBEpKyE5Ly6SWtmhqyen/s320/810DEj9A-2L._SL1500_.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>We seem to be overwhelmed with Christmas murder mysteries this year - in this case in a puzzler-friendly format as Alexandra Benedict throws in a number of optional challenges for the reader, from spotting references to Fleetwood Mac songs (always a Christmassy activity) to Dickens novel anagrams in the text and a Christmas song puzzle in the chapter headings.<p></p><p>If, like me, you just want to get on with the story, then there's a tangled web of relationships and past dark secrets to sort out in tracking down a series of murders that are accompanied by jigsaw puzzle pieces as clues. The murderer has devised these hints for the crossword-setting main character, Edie. The murder mystery itself is satisfying, and Benedict manages the build of clues and red herrings well. But I did have two problems.</p><p>The lesser one is that Benedict's writing style can be a little uneven. There are some over-baked similes (think 'tree branches reached for them like the bony hands of hair-ruffling aunts'), while things can get a little clunky - for example the opening page of chapter 10 where we get five paragraphs in a row that start with either 'Sean' or 'Liam' making it distinctly 'tell' rather than 'show'. The bigger one is Edie.</p><p>We've had something of a flood of late, thanks in part to the success of <a href="http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-thursday-murder-club-richard-osman.html">Richard Osman's books</a>, of murder mysteries where the detectives are infuriating but somehow loveable older characters. Stretching the imagination more than a little, these amateur sleuths manage to get to the solution before or with the police. Edie also sets out to find the culprit - but there is nothing loveable about this octogenarian - she is awful. What's more, at least the Thursday Murder Club work with the police, even if they sometimes hold things back a while. Here Edie's great nephew/stepson is a police inspector, yet she withholds vital evidence, resulting in dire outcomes that would have any real person locked away.</p><p>Edie seems based on the idea that if you are a 'character' you can get away with anything - but she was so unlikable it partially spoiled the book for me - I'm sure you can draw a parallel with Scrooge, but I don't like Christmas Carol much either. Plenty of good stuff going on here, but it's not a book I can wholeheartedly recommend.</p><p><i>One weird addendum - the Amazon.com page for this book describes totally different characters, which is, to say the least, odd.</i></p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>The Christmas Jigsaw Murders </i>from <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Christmas-Jigsaw-Murders-deliciously-bestselling/dp/1398525375?crid=KRUVGTHT6V6T&keywords=christmas+jigsaw+murders&qid=1703094121&sprefix=christmas+jigsaw%2Caps%2C182&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=491&linkId=131579fef8a03b02f6f3262d5cd9bafe&language=en_GB&ref_=as_li_ss_tl">Amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Jigsaw-Murders-Alexandra-Benedict/dp/1398525375?crid=QJK3OAFLP7B7&keywords=christmas+jigsaw+murders&qid=1703094174&sprefix=christmas+jigsaw+murder%2Caps%2C352&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=creativityunleas&linkId=010f4829118c1841a063d60bce6b5d5a&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9781398525375">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-78904340145415902992023-12-20T17:40:00.003+00:002023-12-20T17:40:57.157+00:00The Thursday Murder Club - Richard Osman ****<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYr_tAiX2VunUSZyKd0jbHOyEUC6H46Ry7IUQsgjruvdwZjTyPkhN1HGHURBt_A4HdVvzY-kQ82hy54DhoQxyVmrA2lmalmnzmasCrjXKfDxryy8YhXg-OnGxwDZ8t8Z1sE_WuMt3GC85QOFQ8IFHAPGMCzjaXQoq-jumLngpYksySx1QbT-nUqcVKUlRJ/s1500/71y7pAExT2L._SL1500_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="977" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYr_tAiX2VunUSZyKd0jbHOyEUC6H46Ry7IUQsgjruvdwZjTyPkhN1HGHURBt_A4HdVvzY-kQ82hy54DhoQxyVmrA2lmalmnzmasCrjXKfDxryy8YhXg-OnGxwDZ8t8Z1sE_WuMt3GC85QOFQ8IFHAPGMCzjaXQoq-jumLngpYksySx1QbT-nUqcVKUlRJ/s320/71y7pAExT2L._SL1500_.jpg" width="208" /></a></div>Until recently, I'd classified Richard Osman's cosy murder mysteries as 'not worth reading as it's only successful because he's on the TV'. But <a href="https://occamstypewriter.org/cromercrox/2023/09/30/what-i-read-in-september-2/">a friend's write up</a> persuaded me to give them a try - and I confess they are better than expected, if not <i>what </i>I expected. <p></p><p>I'm reviewing the first two books in the series together here because the first, <i>The Thursday Murder Club</i>, feels as if Osman hasn't quite decided what he's writing, while it becomes much clearer in the second book. After reading that, my impression of the first improved significantly.</p><p>The basics sound more than a little silly. A group of four OAPs in a retirement village attempt to crack old, unsolved murders as entertainment, but this activity draws them into sorting out a current case with the help of a pair of friendly police officers. (It also helps that one of the OAPs is ex-MI6.)</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPBxGbHRqQ75eY9Rl1GlhFQMjBn9FleIWgJdyeOCxc7M6vo5-gV-BLJo8CabNk4icecm2WgMpHx8k7Hd1NXZQnNpoJIyzIMrvGG3PvQakAsQn-afwbWK9bKjHHm_0XM0GGfsKHJPWOyugXPZ3gl11GJBDBr1AJA9TZzHXEZ0PZqSowd7l3srNQSf1b_m0b/s1500/71juXlhTfmL._SL1500_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="977" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPBxGbHRqQ75eY9Rl1GlhFQMjBn9FleIWgJdyeOCxc7M6vo5-gV-BLJo8CabNk4icecm2WgMpHx8k7Hd1NXZQnNpoJIyzIMrvGG3PvQakAsQn-afwbWK9bKjHHm_0XM0GGfsKHJPWOyugXPZ3gl11GJBDBr1AJA9TZzHXEZ0PZqSowd7l3srNQSf1b_m0b/s320/71juXlhTfmL._SL1500_.jpg" width="208" /></a></div>What we get in that first title is a perfectly reasonably cosy murder mystery (a genre I generally enjoy) with some well thought out commentary on the nature of aging, loss and dementia. Osman effectively deploys short chapters to encourage 'just one more'. However, I did also have some issues. It's written in a particularly irritating present tense. The plot is a touch confused. And though the cover quotes ooze about how funny it is, I didn't find that all. The humour is primarily either 'aren't old people funny stuff', like the 'What is this Instagram thing?' type diary entries from one character (which diary sections unfortunately continue through the entire series), or 'Isn't it funny when old people pull one over on someone younger by foiling expectations.' I found it more patronising than funny.<p></p><p>These negatives remained in the second title <i>The Man Who Died Twice</i>, but could be almost entirely dismissed because the caterpillar of volume 1 turned into a butterfly in volume 2. It now became far clearer that these aren't really cosy murder mysteries at all. They are Enid Blighton's <i>Famous Five</i> books, reimagined for grownups. A gang who the world discounts (substitute OAPs for children) take on spies, international criminals and the rest and overcome thanks to their wit, pluck and a degree of unexpected subversiveness. With this perspective, I have become a fan. </p><p>There's really no need to go into plots, or characters, any more than there's a need to do so with a <i>Famous Five</i> book. It's a fun, pure escapist read - with the added benefit of Osman's impressive grasp of the difficulties of growing old, combined with the release some older people feel from the pressures facing younger people. </p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>The Thursday Murder Club </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3PSKdSF">Amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://amzn.to/3S0TevK">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9780241988268">Bookshop.org</a> and <i>The Man Who Died Twice</i> from <a href="https://amzn.to/3PYiwaW">Amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://amzn.to/46vG4uV">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9780241988244">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-74059322225074514182023-12-18T12:25:00.005+00:002023-12-18T12:25:46.592+00:00There's wrong and there's disastrously wrong<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLUebNLiDUM2GIB7zbE2rw4mAd5K7TJF5pDiBUt8E5cimzNgVKBXdzdclbvr_rs_MH-k42Mu6vUgUuuaDiE9bOdbbXqn5gWIB7qUGcK6AijLMVuaxpjdMclV7iG1mXLnxbpyLfikImMwMTlAeSvWRODXcx40dUUwBniYKagyWT6p6vZ6t7YYIbQEU_LkbR/s1500/81FzGw-nNjL._SL1500_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="981" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLUebNLiDUM2GIB7zbE2rw4mAd5K7TJF5pDiBUt8E5cimzNgVKBXdzdclbvr_rs_MH-k42Mu6vUgUuuaDiE9bOdbbXqn5gWIB7qUGcK6AijLMVuaxpjdMclV7iG1mXLnxbpyLfikImMwMTlAeSvWRODXcx40dUUwBniYKagyWT6p6vZ6t7YYIbQEU_LkbR/s320/81FzGw-nNjL._SL1500_.jpg" width="209" /></a></div>The other day, I was reading the late Christopher Booker's ridiculously long <i>The Seven Basic Plots</i> and came on a spot of science writing that made me gasp in its comprehensive inaccuracy. He is looking at creation myths, giving us three versions, the final being the Big Bang theory, which he tells us 'is still "telling a story", and in this sense we can look at it just as we would look at any other type of story.<p></p><p>Now, I have no problem at all with that statement. A scientific theory of any kind is definitely a form of narrative - and since cosmology tends to be at the more speculative end of science, because you can hardly replicate the experiment, it is particularly apt to think of it in this way. But here's the story that Booker tells us:</p><p><i>'The "Big Bang" theory of the creation of the universe suggests that in the beginning there was an agglomeration of hydrogen atoms, so tightly compressed together that it was only millimetres across and of almost infinite mass. This constituted, as it were, a 'Universal Egg' which contained the potential for all that was to follow. At a certain point, somewhere around 15 billion years ago, this 'Egg' exploded, with such force that electrons jumped from one nucleus to another, creating the atoms of all the other elements. These were the atoms which still constitute the physical universe and everything in it, including ourselves.'</i></p><p>Umm. The book was published in 2004, when 13.7 billion years was perhaps more popular than the current 13.8 billion years for the age of the universe - but no one was thinking 15 billion (hey, what's over a billion years between friends?). However, the excruciatingly bad part is the idea that we started with hydrogen atoms, and all the other elements were created in the Big Bang when 'electrons jumped from one nucleus to another.'</p><p>If Booker had bothered to read any basic popular science title at the time, he would surely not have been able to write such tripe. It did occur to me briefly that this was a joke on his part - assuming his readers would be ignorant of science, given the old C. P. Snow 'two cultures' divide (<a href="https://www.rlf.org.uk/showcase/the-poor-cousins-defence/" target="_blank">see this</a>), he made up his Big Bang story to demonstrate how much it was just a myth. But I'm afraid it's almost certainly the case that he simply couldn't be bothered to check his facts, as this was science as opposed to his heavily researched literary text.</p><p>On the subject of story plots the book is interesting, if far too long. But, really? To use two of his basic plots, this bit of science writing veers between comedy and tragedy.</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>The Seven Basic Plots </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3RqwcML">Amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://amzn.to/3RN6weL">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9781472976185">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-91300504724156597322023-12-14T10:33:00.001+00:002023-12-14T10:33:23.963+00:00Apology to science book lovers<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4QRgSm-M0qFS_wtrBwibLs_IUAPtTWMX2dXedL4rsO6VdnKgbLKU9B9sJAgkg9cnoNIjLp4VLCcLcw2__qAbdUjJVB9j8WSic7hLsLNkx2PCs80KfHoqfxJ2e9cNcT0dqyipCRXamWzQ6MwBbnkaiXzox5_tfBHF-S-mS1UAhytp0Z09oAE2LNP5mqvWe/s7003/mike-blank-L23AkTe3y20-unsplash.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="7003" data-original-width="4671" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4QRgSm-M0qFS_wtrBwibLs_IUAPtTWMX2dXedL4rsO6VdnKgbLKU9B9sJAgkg9cnoNIjLp4VLCcLcw2__qAbdUjJVB9j8WSic7hLsLNkx2PCs80KfHoqfxJ2e9cNcT0dqyipCRXamWzQ6MwBbnkaiXzox5_tfBHF-S-mS1UAhytp0Z09oAE2LNP5mqvWe/s320/mike-blank-L23AkTe3y20-unsplash.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>This time of year I mostly abandon popular science books for lighter reading. As a result, crime will feature frequently in my reviews, which will also often be Christmas- themed. Normal service will be resumed as soon as I've got through my Christmas reading pile. <p></p><p><i>Image by Mike Blank from <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/stack-of-six-brown-hardbound-books-9T346Ij4kGk" target="_blank">Unsplash</a> </i></p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-24374919670801283702023-12-13T13:17:00.004+00:002023-12-13T13:17:41.391+00:00The Christmas Guest - Peter Swanson ****<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP-ZZF7yCQjwtxdCk1Px1OnMPoRlse_WyJ1XrdP_dvS1Req0fbmD8Ryc-Y9o-ay64RlGY1QwmAg8dvqmFf8PT_9WRrHC7zWs5fsGu2byv-fc2ORyd_Af-uE4sRfBc3XCLFJX-Xha4drpiD67731C8xWC-DhPbm33B44T40EYai587xEjN6aNRZQ-FHcUrj/s1500/81YXQKcsDtL._SL1500_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="978" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP-ZZF7yCQjwtxdCk1Px1OnMPoRlse_WyJ1XrdP_dvS1Req0fbmD8Ryc-Y9o-ay64RlGY1QwmAg8dvqmFf8PT_9WRrHC7zWs5fsGu2byv-fc2ORyd_Af-uE4sRfBc3XCLFJX-Xha4drpiD67731C8xWC-DhPbm33B44T40EYai587xEjN6aNRZQ-FHcUrj/s320/81YXQKcsDtL._SL1500_.jpg" width="209" /></a></div>This novella gives us a highly engaging Christmas-set (technically it's in Advent) mystery. We start in the New York apartment of the female narrator, who, at Christmas time, unearths an old diary from exactly 30 years before, covering the days leading up to a horrible event in a Cotswold manor house. <p></p><p>The majority of the book consists of these diary entries from student days, which are mostly appropriately fluffy and young adult in feel. But at the heart of it all is something much darker.</p><p>It's hard to say more without giving anything away, but it's all very neatly done, with two big twists in quick succession about three quarters of the way through. </p><p>The only criticism I have is that once you've hit those twists, the ending is a little bit of a let down, as it feels like there should be a final twist to really finish things off - but it remains a really good, intriguing seasonal read, if you like Christmas with a murderous side.</p><p>I don't honestly know why Christmas and darkness go together so well, whether it's in the form of ghost stories or murder mysteries - but they do make excellent book-fellows.</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>The Christmas Guest </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3NqSxZh">Amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://amzn.to/3TmsGFS">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9780571378777">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-4088168714916253612023-12-11T10:50:00.002+00:002023-12-11T10:50:13.847+00:00The Christmas Appeal - Janice Hallett ****<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-NiB3NyBWhqEuljHvV9DeNM2aEDiQtG6hTX5dcCIkolTqslgDR1xgq0U64MBekEfQJ1w06xc8hF2yDM157Ub-PIfmdgeBrGSp5ExQcgfWTUEFdpPosWaOy2OI2uD5QvQPsqmYFvSMKDllSEsGj47Dk29NkvJHgELOFm1U1MOrfWF7HBsVpoWF2fl9fhhr/s1500/813HEcAWB7L._SL1500_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="972" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-NiB3NyBWhqEuljHvV9DeNM2aEDiQtG6hTX5dcCIkolTqslgDR1xgq0U64MBekEfQJ1w06xc8hF2yDM157Ub-PIfmdgeBrGSp5ExQcgfWTUEFdpPosWaOy2OI2uD5QvQPsqmYFvSMKDllSEsGj47Dk29NkvJHgELOFm1U1MOrfWF7HBsVpoWF2fl9fhhr/s320/813HEcAWB7L._SL1500_.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>Janice Hallett has rapidly become the best active light crime writer, bettering her first two books with the outstanding <i><a href="http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-mysterious-case-of-alperton-angels.html">The Mysterious Case of the Alperton Angels</a></i>, so I rushed to purchase her latest, a Christmas sequel to her remarkable debut <i><a href="http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2023/01/review-appeal-janice-hallett.html">The Appeal</a></i>. Written in her distinctive modern epistolary style - in this case primarily featuring emails and WhatsApp messages, it is an entertaining piece of fluff, but not up to the usual standard.<p></p><p>Let's get the good part in first. The storyline features a pantomime, and there is a particularly strong thread of humour here - more so than usual in her books. Christmas always makes a great setting for a cosy mystery, and this comes across nicely here. There was one point (featuring a dog and a bone) when I laughed out loud and plenty more to smile at. As always, Hallett manages brilliantly at using the apparently distancing style of collecting written communications to really get us into the heads of the characters and to keep track of a tangled plot.</p><p>The downside, though, that does make this feel a little rushed as a book (it's also more novella than novel) is that the plot itself lacks the wow factor that the previous books have provided. When all is revealed, it's a bit 'Okay, fine. So that's what happened,' but it's hard to get engrossed in it. I'd also say that a sub-plot where an order for wrapped sweets to give out after the production goes horribly wrong was just too farcical, even for a pantomime, let alone a crime novel.</p><p>All in all, by far Hallett's weakest outing. Yet she is so good that it still beats a fair number of the Christmas mysteries that will be new on the shelves this year.</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>The Christmas Appeal </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3v1NPuD">Amazon.co.uk</a>, <a href="https://amzn.to/3GCk4mN">Amazon.com</a> and <a href="https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2506/9781800817357">Bookshop.org</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-87020838359623816042023-12-04T11:12:00.001+00:002023-12-04T11:12:06.469+00:00On reviewing old books<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjttCoWoFp6sD7JIQQJGh9fzdFe66GJosCZny_jZomAfa8CxVryFdeRzFJR9mxjIKElsthvDlgOCvpkrABvey0bO2NjTrjZXtmaAo7rpuKKr6MNdRL1DvqPqT8MxRiMJfw0oXg98YipTUIoMvAxt7A9Dx0tJs8Fc4HJiiPu6iTFAlQGS4iCdiC9tA5s2JFB/s6000/chris-lawton-9T346Ij4kGk-unsplash.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4000" data-original-width="6000" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjttCoWoFp6sD7JIQQJGh9fzdFe66GJosCZny_jZomAfa8CxVryFdeRzFJR9mxjIKElsthvDlgOCvpkrABvey0bO2NjTrjZXtmaAo7rpuKKr6MNdRL1DvqPqT8MxRiMJfw0oXg98YipTUIoMvAxt7A9Dx0tJs8Fc4HJiiPu6iTFAlQGS4iCdiC9tA5s2JFB/w400-h266/chris-lawton-9T346Ij4kGk-unsplash.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>This week I'm reviewing two books on the <a href="https://www.popularscience.co.uk" target="_blank">Popular Science website</a>, neither of which was published this year. Usually, book reviews are of the latest titles. This is partly because these are the titles publishers are enthusiastic to get seen, but also tend to be selected to ensure that the reviewer seems current. I think, though, that there are several reasons to consider a book that's been around a while.<p></p><p>Sometimes it's because there's a new edition. This may not make much difference to the content, but the book might have been out of print or otherwise hard to come by. Occasionally there may also be genuinely interesting new content (as opposed to yet another preface no one wants to read). I've got a lot in the past out of some annotated books, though my experience with <i><a href="http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2017/06/frankenstein-annotated-for-scientists.html">Frankenstein 'annotated for scientists, Engineers and Creators of all kinds'</a></i> was not great. One of my reviews this week will be a new edition.</p><p>The visibility created by a new edition (even if it's just a paperback following the hardback) can also mean that a book you overlooked the first time around comes to your attention (or, frankly, becomes more affordable). This is the case with my other review this week - a book that I initially missed and then, frankly, intentionally avoided because it got so much hype that I was put off. Not at all fair, but I find i easy to take this stance. Finally, though, when the dust was settling (and some of the comments were getting more critical) I gave in and bought a copy.</p><p>One other way an older book review might get published is a look back at an old review. This may be simply to bring a forgotten delight back to visibility, or it could be that, on a re-read, the book seems very different from the experience the first time around. </p><p>It's entirely possible that your reaction to a review of a book published in 1999, as is the case with one of my reviews is 'So what? It's old news.' But I don't think books necessarily become old, nor is a review news. I'm not generally a great enthusiast for 'the classics' - I confess, I struggle, for instance with the verbosity and silly names of Dickens. But I'm a sucker for Jane Austen. In non-fiction, and popular science in particular, there are fewer classics that hold up well, partly because science moves on, and also because non-fiction styles from, say, the 1930s or 1950s can seem very turgid now. However, I believe it would be a mistake to stick purely to the latest titles, and hope that I will continue digging up the occasional blast from the past.</p><p><i>Image by Chris Lawton from <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/stack-of-six-brown-hardbound-books-9T346Ij4kGk" target="_blank">Unsplash</a> - when I say 'old books' I don't mean ones likes these</i></p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-90039206623443655572023-11-29T11:44:00.006+00:002023-11-29T11:44:46.853+00:00Revenge of the boffinophiles<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx9JzoZ28kGilSGsjBrlQccTNQr5vZAEe6JyyR9m50rlOwwjOqcPYj4jkDEerTReO9FYPgDp5VIKrOFu-F3r_4bv1k7YAT5L0TTwYodZFmjrl6sQyXRE-DdNtmcB0c0HJvlQCV787Sn-_lAScKQRcnXRDw_Q7ezHfrsQMiSf4JrtIDb09LR7OWlIOEKG0W/s10800/national-cancer-institute-gKT3ooTuS_w-unsplash.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="7200" data-original-width="10800" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx9JzoZ28kGilSGsjBrlQccTNQr5vZAEe6JyyR9m50rlOwwjOqcPYj4jkDEerTReO9FYPgDp5VIKrOFu-F3r_4bv1k7YAT5L0TTwYodZFmjrl6sQyXRE-DdNtmcB0c0HJvlQCV787Sn-_lAScKQRcnXRDw_Q7ezHfrsQMiSf4JrtIDb09LR7OWlIOEKG0W/w400-h266/national-cancer-institute-gKT3ooTuS_w-unsplash.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>I was going to call this post ‘lovin’ a good boffin’, but it felt too much like a double entendre. <p></p><p>The term 'boffin' is an outdated British term for a scientist, which now only crops up in tabloid newspapers. It's an affectionate term, but with an element of mad scientist about it. For some time now, the Institute of Physics has been running a campaign to 'bin the boffin'.</p><p>In a <a href="https://physicsworld.com/a/why-the-institute-of-physics-launched-a-campaign-to-get-the-media-to-bin-the-boffin/?Campaign+Owner=Laura+Gillham&utm_campaign=14290-56749&utm_content=Title%3A%20Why%20the%20Institute%20of%20Physics%20launched%20a%20campaign%20to%20get%20the%20media%20to%20‘Bin%20the%20boffin’%20-%20explore%20more&utm_term=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=iop"><i>Physics World </i>article</a>, Rachel Youngman puts the case for binning the boffin: 'We believe that boffin is a lousy way to talk about scientists. The term has negative impacts – it is poorly understood, strongly associated with the male gender and is confusing. When we surveyed our members last year, they told us that the term was unhelpful and inaccurate, with younger members stating it actively puts them off science.' You might wonder, if they were put off science what they're doing being members of the Institute of Physics, but that's a different story.</p><p>I love the Institute of Physics (and their magazine/website <a href="https://physicsworld.com"><i>Physics World</i></a>) dearly - but there is a real danger of coming across as humourless, perhaps even po-faced, in this campaign. You don't stop people using a nickname for you that you don't like by moaning about it - that just makes people double down. And there's even an argument that it's not a bad name for a certain kind of scientific announcement.</p><p>Part of the IoP's campaign involves publicising the week's 'best worst example of boffin in the media'. One week in October the headline they picked up on was ' Boffins use science to calculate the scariest scenes in horror movie history'. To be honest, when someone (usually a PR company who get the assistance of a gullible scientist) comes up with this kind of pseudoscientific guff, they deserve to be labelled boffins (or something far worse).</p><p>The IoP's PR effort is made for the best reasons - and Youngman describes it as a 'good-humoured call', noting that they aren't seeking to ban the word: 'If a pub quiz team, say, wants to be called “Brilliant boffins” that’s fine and if scientists don’t mind the word, then we would consider that a matter of personal taste.' If it is indeed true that 'boffin' conjures up an image of only one kind of scientist (white, male, lab coat...), then it's not ideal for general use. But to be fair, it isn't in general use and hasn't been since the 1950s. The word didn't originally mean a scientist at all - it was a term for an elderly naval officer in the early years of the Second World War, that expanded to mean someone in backroom science and technology, who was away from the military front line, particularly those developing radar. It was already dated by the 1970s.</p><p>For me, the campaign distracts from the message of science. When my Twitter/X list about science is full not of science stories but stories about whether people are using the right words, I don't think that science does itself justice.</p><p><i>Image from Unsplash/National Cancer Institute - n.b. boffin images should always be black and white</i></p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-37495640826117720502023-11-28T09:22:00.003+00:002023-11-28T09:32:27.216+00:00Obvious in Hindsight - Bradley Tusk ***(*)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3FDwaIrVDrXGAg7kmu-U8mjaKRCN4H3-cZkGtfXwCq96qgaO6Ai-MpPsSB3zTb6Osf0IuEex7MmWE4Q8STXQiZMCxIENJRfNGTTjLbi3KpxonctmJ8x7UgL5ah7yXULS7PSaqOS0KjfE4PK4B52Bvqs9tpeBA-yWHyKXgyKsUHOMw5HABm4Wh7qVjtYoO/s1500/61YZzj+ChgL._SL1500_.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1015" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3FDwaIrVDrXGAg7kmu-U8mjaKRCN4H3-cZkGtfXwCq96qgaO6Ai-MpPsSB3zTb6Osf0IuEex7MmWE4Q8STXQiZMCxIENJRfNGTTjLbi3KpxonctmJ8x7UgL5ah7yXULS7PSaqOS0KjfE4PK4B52Bvqs9tpeBA-yWHyKXgyKsUHOMw5HABm4Wh7qVjtYoO/s320/61YZzj+ChgL._SL1500_.jpg" width="217" /></a></div>The premise of this novel is excellent - it's a cross between <i>House of Cards</i> and <i>The Circle</i>. A tech company is attempting to get its flying cars off the ground (both literally and metaphorically). The company's erratic CEO has brought in a political lobbying company, because it's no easy job to get permission for flying cars in the skies of a city (their initial targets are New York, Los Angeles and Austin). Meanwhile it's also no easy job to get the car to fly safely at all.<p>Bradley Tusk - who has been both a political operator and a venture capitalist, so has an ideal background - brings to the fore the two people at the top of the lobbyists - the ruthless Nick and his number two, Lisa (arguably the main protagonist), Susan the CEO, and her chief engineer, Yevgeny. They join a large cast of characters from FBI agents to corrupt city mayors and union bosses. Tusk also gives a very cynical (but probably accurate) picture of the totally self-serving nature of US politics.</p><p>It's a great storyline, even if it does verge more into Tom Sharpe territory later on (more on that in a moment). And I enjoyed reading it. I'd definitely give it four stars for the ideas. But it could have been better. Tusk's writing style isn't particularly engaging. We get too many characters thrown at us, without the space to develop (or even, occasionally, to keep track of who is who). And the dramatic tension isn't particularly well handled. It's not really a page turner. </p><p>In case you aren't familiar with Tom Sharpe, he was a British satirical novelist who particularly took on academia (both new universities and Cambridge), using sledgehammer-unsubtle farcical situations. What I really wanted <i>Obvious in Hindsight </i>to be<i> </i>(what is that title about?) was a sizzling political thriller, like <i>House of Cards</i>, with the added fun of the dodgy goings on of the tech billionaires (hence my reference to <i>The Circle</i>). And there are bits where this happens. But, presumably in an attempt to add humour, we also get deeply farcical elements, such as FBI agents (one of whom is obsessed with disgusting sounding eating contests) operating from a kosher Mexican Korean food truck - and then there is the public test of the flying car where the passenger is a steer (a bullock in English English) that also happens to be the mascot of a college football team. What could possibly go wrong?</p><p>It was so close to being a really good book that I genuinely do recommend giving it a go - but it should have had more of an editorial steer (not a bullock). </p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg/subscribe" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre><div>You can buy <i>Obvious in Hindsight </i>from <a href="https://amzn.to/3N1B6yp">Amazon.co.uk</a> and <a href="https://amzn.to/3QEN5Ts">Amazon.com</a></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you</span></i></div><div><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-84683348934142799722023-11-27T11:57:00.000+00:002023-11-27T11:57:24.179+00:00Losing our culture<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUTZPMIR-D6cJzviuASdSiPjHYJchAECqmYMRvB_y1DLneDpnfEQu0hSS3bniyM7MaboknOibd_hrGnuSwQd5X69LRwfpB2KHzWYWpVRyRpoE-ajv1n_x5rI26KVDTQ3RSEzRa7harq-mZy9SESn-Bta7F_uWaqWbJlfhQVRVSrLxoOzjeLnx9HPY2gIHZ/s1832/IMG_1159.jpeg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1363" data-original-width="1832" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUTZPMIR-D6cJzviuASdSiPjHYJchAECqmYMRvB_y1DLneDpnfEQu0hSS3bniyM7MaboknOibd_hrGnuSwQd5X69LRwfpB2KHzWYWpVRyRpoE-ajv1n_x5rI26KVDTQ3RSEzRa7harq-mZy9SESn-Bta7F_uWaqWbJlfhQVRVSrLxoOzjeLnx9HPY2gIHZ/w400-h297/IMG_1159.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>My favourite comic strip of all time is <i>The Perishers</i>. Published in the Daily Mirror from the late 50s until 2006 it could be taken at first glance as something of a <i>Peanuts</i> rip-off. After all, it features only children and animals - and the central characters are a boy and his dog (whose thoughts are revealed to be very human-like). However, in reality the feel and the humour is totally different and entirely British. At its best, <i>The Perishers</i> is a total delight.<p></p><p>One of the strip's features is a series of running jokes, some of which carried on for decades. For example, on summer holiday excursions, the characters regularly take a look in a rock pool, where the crabs believe they are being visited by their equivalent of UFOs which they refer to as 'the eyes in the sky', often having failed protests or attempts to take on the invaders. Other continuing jokes are just small features that bring on a smile, one being the teddy belonging to Baby Grumpling, a cynical toddler who is generally out for what he can get (pictured above). The teddy is called Gladly.</p><p>And this is where the culture bit comes in - because my children's generation simply wouldn't get the joke behind that name. The key to it is that the teddy is cross-eyed. So, it is 'Gladly, my cross-eyed bear', a reference to a now obscure Victorian hymn called <i>Keep Thou My Way</i>, which includes the line 'Kept by thy tender care, gladly the cross I'll bear'. (Most people, me included until I looked for it, thought there was actually a hymn named 'Gladly my cross I'd bear'.) This was not by any means an original joke, but beautifully incorporated into the comic strip.</p><p>When my generation was growing up, hymns were familiar things. I didn't go to church as a child, but we sung them in school every day. Since then I've had a lot more exposure, because at university I joined <a href="https://www.sel.cam.ac.uk/about/chapel-and-choir" target="_blank">my college chapel choir</a>, got hooked on church music and have been singing in church choirs ever since. But that's just an underpinning. I've never sung that hymn - it's not commonly used in Anglican settings. (To be honest, I doubt if it's commonly used anywhere, as it's pretty awful Victoriana.) But the idea behind the joke was very much part of the culture 50 years ago.</p><p>We are now very enthusiastic that people celebrate their cultures. It feels rather sad that what was a rich vein of British culture is now being left behind.</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4455700514377143758.post-15666752957812156652023-11-21T10:15:00.005+00:002023-11-21T10:16:10.739+00:00Nowhere does it better<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixwzF49SbZR1cV2-m0HNksynjOELAS3O3Tz7a-yg4huu8P4-hzoEYhIm0l5RltLFLBrFPixsJZP3UYLxlQXHbWIRQJ8m1tWNHudJenZVnfF3ll8Y2KmY9uJXYSpEhuKNy9mHbWMPYGrTrn4dHy5ISfcspYytlTmOOnzHMweINy137Te3633cWpx_Zy_39Q/s4032/IMG_1687.JPG" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixwzF49SbZR1cV2-m0HNksynjOELAS3O3Tz7a-yg4huu8P4-hzoEYhIm0l5RltLFLBrFPixsJZP3UYLxlQXHbWIRQJ8m1tWNHudJenZVnfF3ll8Y2KmY9uJXYSpEhuKNy9mHbWMPYGrTrn4dHy5ISfcspYytlTmOOnzHMweINy137Te3633cWpx_Zy_39Q/w300-h400/IMG_1687.JPG" width="300" /></a></div>I'm delighted to say that I'll be giving my talk based on my new book <i><a href="https://brianclegg.net/interstellar.html">Interstellar Tours</a></i> at the Royal Institution in London on 16 March 2024 (see <a href="https://www.rigb.org/whats-on/interstellar-tours">the Ri website</a> for details/booking).<p></p><p>Speaking at the Royal Institution is always something of a thrill. When I first gave a talk there, they had a terrifying introduction. It went something like this. 'Welcome to the Royal Institution, where lectures to improve the public understanding of science have been given since 1800. Ten of the chemical elements were either discovered or first isolated here. Michael Faraday lectured many times from this very desk. Now Brian Clegg is going to talk to you...' For the pedants amongst you, it's now reasonably widely known that the desk was reconstructed - nonetheless it was certainly the same space with a very similar desk. It was a distinct challenge to follow that.</p><p>Now they're a little less scary to their speakers, but even so there's a certain necessity to perform well that goes with speaking there that I suspect makes most of us a little nervous. Certainly you get a discerning audience and can expect some challenging questions - but it's all part of the fun. </p><p>When I gave my first talk there (based on <i><a href="https://brianclegg.net/infinity.html">A Brief History of Infinity</a></i>) someone came up to me afterwards and said that he'd never been to a lecture before, but saw it in <i>Time Out</i> and thought it looked interesting. Now he was hooked, and he'd be coming regularly. That was a wonderful moment.</p><p>If you're in London (or able to get there) on the day and fancy coming, it would be great to see you. There's nowhere quite like it.</p><p>P.S. No, that's not my car - I travelled by train.</p><p><i style="color: #373737; font-size: 15px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></i></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><pre style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border: 0px; font-family: "courier 10 pitch", courier, monospace; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 1.625em; outline: 0px; overflow: auto; padding: 0.75em 1.625em; vertical-align: baseline;"><i style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 15px;"><a href="https://authory.com/BrianClegg" target="_blank">See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here</a></i></pre>Brian Clegghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12723555872580740773noreply@blogger.com0