Image from Wikipedia I would like to defend Victoria . This is not the railway station, nor the monarch, but the ITV drama of that name. There have been moans about the accuracy of the series. Now some of these are based on historical supposition, where a degree of drama has been added for the sake of being, well, interesting. So, for instance, Victoria certainly hung on Melbourne's every word... but probably didn't have a crush on him (he didn't look a lot like Rufus Sewell). You can take this kind of thing either way - I'm sure even Wolf Hall  took the occasional liberty with historical accuracy to make the drama work better. No, what really gets my goat are the two allegations: Victoria is too tall and she's too pretty. Or to be precise, former Dr Who sidekick Jenna Coleman is. I find these moans both irritating and frankly sexist. At 5 foot 2, she's all of three inches taller than Victoria. Big deal - she's still quite short, and that's enough....

Image by Zarek Tuszynski from Wikipedia I seem to have seen a lot of period dramas lately with photographers using flashbulbs like the one illustrated, most recently in last night's strangely low key Maigret . Many readers might be too old to remember these things, but when I first took photos as a boy we still used them. The bulb typically contains a magnesium filament, which burns out in a moment of glory. As it goes, it heats up the glass casing so much that it causes that familiar crunchy sound effect. So far, so good. But romantic though these old devices seem, they had one big problem - they were one shot (apart from the short-lived flashcubes etc., which were too small to be used by anyone but amateurs). So with a pro flashgun like the one in the image, the photographer had to get a handkerchief or something similar with which to remove the red-hot bulb, put the old bulb somewhere safe and insert a new bulb - a process that inevitably took several seconds. What I d...

When I talk to scientists who want to write a popular science book rather than a textbook, there are two connected differences I emphasize - narrative and drama. A textbook can be just a collection of facts, but that's anathema to the popular science audience. Narrative steals some of the tools of fiction, both on the small scale and in giving the book as a whole a narrative arc. And drama gives tension and excitement. Some scientists and historians of science have always complained about the use of drama. 'It wasn't really like that,' they moan. 'It wasn't one person against the world, coming up with a great idea, it was a team effort, building incrementally on other's work.' Well, yes, to a point. But as long as you don't trample on facts, I think an element of drama is essential, and it can usually be found, even if it has to be given slightly more prominence than it really had. When giving a talk about science, these two factors are equally...

I have to confess to a sneaking liking for Coronation Street . (I'm from near Manchester, I am obliged to. It's an old charter or something.) But I do think it is high time the Street was allocated a permanent family counsellor.  Because its children are suffering like no others in the UK. At the moment, Coronation Street features approximately 15 children under the age of 18. These are: Faye - adopted Craig - lives with mother, father unknown Simon - mother died, lives part time with father and part time with (separated) stepmother Amy - lives part time with mother and part time with (separated) father Hope - father died, lives with mother and boyfriend Joseph - lives with mother, separated from father Liam - father dead, lives with mother Ruby - lives with father, separated from mother Dev's children (2) - mother dead, live with father Cal's children (2) - mother dead, live with father Kylie's children (2) - one father unknown, the other lives wit...

The other day I was watching that ever popular soap opera Coronation Street (come on, I'm a Northerner. It's an old charter or something - I have to watch it or I will be expelled from the South). A couple of times in the episode, characters used a word that totally sets my teeth on edge. I hate it with a vengeance. That word is 'scran', meaning food, but in a 'shovel it in, don't care what it is,' sense. Now you might think that my delicate sensibilities are being offended by this being a relatively new word, and slang to boot. But no, I might not like every neologism, but I coexist quite happily with most of them. I can even cope with LOL being used verbally, as one of my daughters sometimes does. And anyway, scran isn't new. The OED has references for it being used for food going back to 1808, though interestingly then it was rubbishy food - to be precise 'broken victuals'. The oldest quote is worth repeating, as it is very fine: Fin...

Like a lot of people who studied physics I hold Richard Feynman in great regard and put him up with the likes of Newton and Einstein. If you haven't come across Feynman, he was one of the lead theoreticians developing the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project, went on to get a Nobel Prize for his work on Quantum Electrodynamics - the hugely successful theory of how light and matter interact - developed the approach and diagrams that were crucial to vast swathes of quantum theory and, towards the end of his life, became a bit of a celebrity because of his role in the enquiry into the Challenger shuttle disaster. This is of interest now because the BBC has recently shown a drama-documentary, Challenger , on Feynman's role in that enquiry. If you hurry (and are UK based) you can still catch it on BBC iPlayer . Feynman was, effectively, the only truly independent person on the commission, and where the rest seemed largely inclined to try to minimise any negative impact on NASA, ...

We see a steady stream of TV programmes from the UK crossing the Atlantic and being remade for a US audience. Often the result is to water down the original, or to lose the point of the show. I would be hard pressed to think of a remake done this way that was better than the original... until now. I was a great fan of the Michael Dobbs 1990 TV drama and books House of Cards with its scheming chief whip (and, eventually, Prime Minister) Francis Urquhart. Everything about it was superb. Ian Richardson made a brilliant Machiavellian villain, and the show was groundbreaking in its use of direct access to the camera, with Richardson making asides to the audience and giving us wonderful knowing looks. And, of course there was that catchphrase 'You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.' Now Netflix has remade the programme from the original shortish series to a 13 part epic starring Kevin Spacey. And it is excellent. Although the original was great, this ...

One of the delights of having acquired Netflix ( see previous post ) is being able to take a look at films and TV shows that caused a big buzz when they came out, but I never got round to seeing. Last night I watched the first two hours of the first season of 24 . As everyone said at the time, the real time format is very clever and engaging. What's more, how sweet all their antique 'modern' technology is. Jack Bauer is using my old phone ! But I desperately need a 24 fan to explain to me the logic of the bad guys in those first couple of episodes. [SPOILER ALERT] Okay, it's clever of the writer to make us all think the photographer is the killer to start with. But come on. WHY does the following happen? What the bad guys want to do is replace a top photographer with a ringer, who can then get close to a target and kill them. Fair enough. The photographer is flying in to LA. So they wait for him to get off the plane, kill him and replace him quietly and efficient...

I very much enjoy Jonathan Creek , David Renwick's comedy drama in which designer of magical illusions Jonathan comes up with solutions to seemingly impossible crimes. I mean, it's Alan Davies, how can you not like it? Just occasionally, though, it's irritating because the writer gets it horribly wrong - and that was the case in last night's special, The Judas Tree . One of the mysteries Creek solves is a Victorian puzzle where a man is seemingly murdered without a means. He is told he will die at a certain time. At the appointed hour he is sitting on a deserted lawn in plain sight. He checks his pocket watch - it's the time. And he dies. From the bushes far away, the Egyptian 'witch' who has cursed him screams - she says she saw death arrive. Nothing has touched him, nor has anything he consumed been poisoned. So far, so good. The solution that Creek comes up with is that the man's pocket watch had been pumped full of hydrogen cyanide and sealed. T...