Just Finished Reading: The Polish Officer by Alan Furst

In 1939, as the might of the German Army descends on Poland, Intelligence officer Alexander de Milja is given a new mission. He is to make his way to Paris to assist in the creation of a Polish Intelligence unit dedicated to expelling the Germans from his country. Within months France to is over run and de Milja is left behind in the confused evacuation. Left to his own devices he puts together a rag-bag collection of misfits to continue the struggle. Contacted by agents of the Polish government in exile – now based in London – de Milja is tasked to aid the fledgling French Resistance in any way he can and pass on any information to the British. When he discovers information that the Germans intend a cross-channel invasion of England he takes direct action to aid RAF attacks on the invasion staging posts. As a reward for his heroism he is sent into the belly of the beast to help the Russians fight off a German invasion of their territory. At this point he can not but wonder if he will ever see an end to the fighting or if he will live to see his country free again.

As some of you will know, Alan Furst is one of my top authors. I like to hold off reading his books so that I can savour them all the more. Unfortunately, I found to my surprise that I did not enjoy this book as much as I had been anticipating. It’s not that it’s a bad book – or at least not by any general standard. It’s just that I felt that it wasn’t up to Furst’s usually very high standards. It took me a while to get into which is unusual for his stories. Maybe it was me? I can, from time to time, almost give up on reading and sometimes need to almost force myself to turn the pages. This wasn’t one of those times but maybe I had a tinge of that feeling in the back of my mind. Whatever the issue was I just couldn’t loose myself in this particular novel. This wasn’t actually helped when I spotted what I think is an uncharacteristic mistake in historical accuracy. When describing a particularly dramatic attack on a French coastal harbour by elements of the RAF he described in gripping detail Blenheim bombers coming in at 50 feet causing havoc in the massed German invasion fleet. Now the Bristol Blenheim was one of my favourite early WW2 aircraft and I built several models of it in my childhood. I was, to say the least, ‘pumped’ by the scene he described and could see it clearly in my minds eye. Then, on page 198, he made his error. Describing the second attack on the port, this time from high level, he mentions that the craft are probably Lancaster bombers. Now most normal people would read that and move on blissfully unaware but I, as you may have noticed, am not most people. The section of the RAF attack was headed 7^th September (in 1940 that is). So the problem I had was that the first flight of a Lancaster bomber was on 9^th January 1941 and didn’t enter service with the RAF Bomber Command until early 1942. Although this certainly didn’t ruin the book for me, it did disappoint me and coloured my appreciation of the rest of the novel. Yes, I’m a pedant. I freely admit this. But this error was quite fundamental. You might even call it a schoolboy error. Either Mr Furst or his researcher did a pretty sloppy job on that one. It detracted from my enjoyment of the book and will probably affect my enjoyment of his future novels. This is a real shame as I am enjoyed his previous books immensely and still enjoyed this one too. I’m going to do my best not to read his next book looking for errors but that is now a real danger. Furst fans out there should not avoid this book. It has many, many fine attributes usually associated with his work. Just be aware that his historical accuracy halo has most definitely slipped here.  

Cartoon Time.

Yes, it's that exciting!

My Favourite Movies: Aliens Vs Predator 2: Requiem

Few of the Alien or Predator movies received any kind of critical praise – with the possible exception of the movie that started them all – the SF horror classic Alien. The AvP films have come in for particular criticism and I can, to some extent at least, see their point. Although I enjoyed both AvP films I am far from gushing in my praise for either. But neither am I dismissive of what I regard as two decent SF films and one’s that add rather than detract from the Alien and Predator ‘franchise’.

AvP2 starts, appropriately enough, where AvP finished – with the body of the dead Predator lying in the departing starship when out of its chest pops an alien/predator hybrid. This, in well known fashion by now, grows and attacks the Predators on the ship which subsequently crashes somewhere in small town America. This was the part of the film that jarred the most. After it was pointed out to me that the crashed ship was very much smaller than the departing ship in AvP I watched carefully to see how, or if, this was explained. It was – sort of. Just before the alien causes the crash a smaller craft (lifeboat?) detached from the much larger ship. It was this smaller craft which crash landed in the forest surrounding the small town we all knew at this point wasn’t going to have a good day (telegraphed by the trailer which showed the town’s population counter in freefall soon after the crash). The confusing storyline continued when a Predator leaves what we can presume is their Homeworld to travel to Earth to investigate the crash. I couldn’t help but wonder why no one was dispatched from the larger craft already departing Earth unless the new alien hybrid had killed them all which I felt was unlikely given that their were clearly a large number of hunters on board: Such as idea felt disrespectful to the Predators.

The rest of the film was largely formulaic in that we are introduced to a number of young people, some of which look like survivors and others clearly alien fodder (the town bad kids). The only adults of consequence are the town Sherriff and a returning female soldier (presumably from Iraq). The scene shifts to a series of attacks where local people are impregnated by face huggers and the new method of direct implantation which, according to an expert source, goes against the known cannon of alien/predator lore. The scene in the forest with the father/son hunters is dramatic and scary. The scene in the maternity ward is rather gross. When all hell breaks lose the wheat and the chaff are sorted rather bloodily. Two brothers turn out to be the heroes who rescue a hand full of people along with the Iraq vet and her daughter. After the National Guard are quickly dispatched by a few passing aliens they ‘borrow’ an armoured transport and get out of the killing zone.

This is, in all honesty, a popcorn movie. The plot is minimal at best, the actors largely disposable and largely disposed of, the SFX are more than adequate though it is noticeable that most of the action takes place at night and you don’t actually see that much. There are a few reasonable moments and quite a few bits that might make you jump. But this is not a thinking film. It’s leave your brain in neutral and just go with it entertainment. There’s one good joke – about trusting the government – and an interesting bit at the end which nicely dovetails into the overarching story (plus leaving the inevitable door open for a sequel). I liked this movie because of its basic entertainment value. I’ve seen it several times now and could probably watch it several times more without getting bored by it. If you’ve been put off by the bad press and just want something to chill out to – and you’re into SF monster movies – you could do a lot worse than this. Just don’t expect to have any of your mental faculties engaged.  

Cartoon Time.

Is there a limit to life expectancy?

By Philippa Roxby for BBC News

19 March 2011

Move over Methuselah. Future generations could be living well into their second century and still doing sudoku to boot, if life expectancy predictions are anything to go by. Increasing by two years every decade, they show no signs of flattening out. Average lifespan around the world is already double what it was 200 years ago.Since the 1980s, experts thought the increase in life expectancy would grind to a halt but forecasters have repeatedly been proved wrong. So can we go on living longer and longer? Is there a limit to how long we can survive into old age?

The reason behind the steady rise in life expectancy is "the decline in the death rate of the elderly", says Professor Tom Kirkwood from the Institute of Ageing and Health at Newcastle University. He has a theory that our bodies are evolving to maintain and repair themselves better and our genes are investing in this process to put off the damage which will eventually lead to death. As a result, there is no ceiling imposed by the realities of the ageing process. "There is no use-by-date when we age, ageing is not a fixed biological process," Professor Kirkwood says. A large study of people aged 85 and over in Newcastle, carried out by Professor Kirkwood and his colleagues, discovered that there were a remarkable number of people enjoying good health and independence in their late 80s and beyond.

With people reaching old age in better shape, it is safe to assume that this is all down to better eating habits, living conditions, education and medicine. There are still many people who suffer from major health problems, but modern medicine means doctors are better at managing long-term health conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. "We are reaching old age with less accumulative damage than previous generations. We are less damaged," says Professor Kirkwood. Our softer lives and the improvements in nutrition and healthcare have had a direct impact on longevity. Nearly one-in-five people currently in the UK will live to see their 100th birthday, the Office for National Statistics predicted last year. Life expectancy at birth has continued to increase in the UK - from 73.4 years for men for the period 1991 to 1993 to 77.85 years for 2007 to 2009. Life expectancy for females at birth has also increased - from 78.9 years (91-93) to 82 years (2007-2009). A report in Science from 2002 which looked at life expectancy patterns in different countries since 1840, concluded that there was no sign of a natural limit to life. Researchers Jim Oeppen and Dr James Vaupel found that people in the country with the highest life expectancy would live to an average age of 100 in about six decades. But they stopped short of predicting anything more. "This is far from eternity: modest annual increments in life expectancy will never lead to immortality," the researchers said. "It is striking, however, that centenarians may become commonplace within the lifetimes of people living today."

We do not seem to be approaching anything like the limits of life expectancy, says Professor David Leon from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "There has been no flattening out of the best of the best - the groups which everyone knows have good life expectancy and low mortality," he says. These groups, which tend to be in the higher social and economic groups in society, can live for several years longer than people in lower social groups, prompting calls for an end to inequalities within societies. Within populations, genes also have an important role to play in determining how long we could survive for - but environment is still the most important factor. It is no surprise that healthy-eating, healthy-living societies like Japan have the highest life expectancies in the world. But it would still be incredible to think that life expectancy could go on rising forever. "I would bet there will be further increases in life expectancy and then it will probably begin to slow," says Professor Kirkwood, "but we just don't know." Methuselah is not turning in his grave just yet.

[I wonder if there is indeed an upper limit to life expectancy. I guess that there must be. But what that limit is would be anyone’s guess. Is 200 or even 300 out of the question? With our increasing understanding of the human genome maybe in the not too distant future individuals might live to be 500 years old. If it’s just a matter of keeping the body successfully repaired a lifespan of beyond 500 years doesn’t seem particularly fantastic. Could people actually become immortal – or as immortal as it gets? I doubt if anyone living today will find out but our ancestors might look back on the present age and wonder how we coped surrounded by so much death.] 

Just Finished Reading: The Meaning of Life – A Very short Introduction by Terry Eagleton

The author of this interesting little book will be the first to admit that a very short introduction to the meaning of life is a difficult task to undertake. Cleverly, in my opinion, he chooses not to attack the question head on. Indeed he starts by questioning the very question itself by asking if the meaning of life question is itself a meaningful question. Although many questions exist not all of them are meaningful. We can ask ‘What is the Capital of France?’ and expect a definitive answer. But what if we ask ‘Is there life after death?’ or  ‘What is the meaning of life?’ Have we then asked anything that can, even theoretically, be answered or have we instead asked ‘How fast is Green?’ Of course this hasn’t stopped many of the world’s greatest minds attempting some kind of answer. The author illustrates the difficulty outlined above by referencing Wittgenstein, Sartre and Nietzsche amongst others who have expressed a range of views on the idea.

Interestingly the author reminds us that, until fairly recently, meaning of life questions did not normally arise in polite conversation. Until the advent of the modern age the meaning of life was clear to everyone. That meaning was, of course, God. It is only with the large scale demise of belief in such a being, in Europe at any rate, that philosophers and the reading public have turned their energies to answering such a question. Turbulent times often bring up deep seated questions about existence. Without the safety net of belief, now largely understood to be illusory, such questions are like echoes in a vast and empty room. Modernity, the author suggests, has not only pushed religion into the private realm but has commoditised even it to such an extent that, except at extremes, it fails to address this most fundamental question. It is no surprise therefore that meaning is sought in a plethora of places.

The author brings up two interesting points. Firstly, if the meaning of life question actually had an answer would that make any difference to our daily lives: What if finding out the answer turned out to be a bad idea? What, for instance, would be the consequence of us finding out that the reason for our existence was as a food source for beings we can barely comprehend? Such a revelation would hardly enhance our lives. Of course another question, which the author raises through the work of Schopenhauer, is: What if life is fundamentally meaningless? What if we search for meaning to combat our feelings of loneliness or cosmic inadequacy? Maybe the reason that no one has, as yet, produced a convincing meaning of life answer is that no such answer exists?

Overall I thought that the author had a very good stab at the whole ‘meaning of life’ argument. He certainly came at things from an interesting and unexpected direction (maybe not being a philosopher helped). His conclusion, after much preamble, seems to be rather pedestrian – despite its pedigree. He argues that the meaning of life is happiness in the sense that Aristotle proposed. The idea that happiness is achieved through individual and societal flourishing based on the expression of classical virtues. Although I agree that this is a worthy goal – both for individuals and cultures – I wouldn’t go so far as to propose it for a candidate for the meaning of life. Despite such quibbles and disagreements, this is a very interesting and thought provoking little volume. If you have ever pondered on the question of meaning this might provide some interesting grist for your mental mill.              

Cartoon Time.

Well, Hello Kitty.....!

Just Finished Reading: Blood and Ice by Robert Masello



Nurse Eleanor Ames had no idea how long her relationship with Lieutenant Copley of the 17th Lancers would last or where it would take her. Even when she volunteered to follow him to the Crimea as part of Miss Nightingale’s field hospital little did she know that this was only the beginning of her adventure. Not until he came back from the Charge of the Light Brigade a changed man did she begin to understand that they were fated to be together for a very long time indeed. Running for their lives on Her Majesties ship Coventry, tossed by storm winds in the Southern ocean, their strange behaviour starts to turn the superstitious crew against them. Tossed over the side in chains the crew assume that they have disposed of their fears. They were wrong. Over 150 years later two bodies are discovered in the ice. At first unbelieving, the scientists at the Arctic Research station recover the find of the century which is sure to make visiting journalist Michael Wilde world famous. But as the ice melts and the strange couple vanish it slowly dawns on the isolated community that they have uncovered something that none of them are prepared for.


Although I never, or at least rarely, judge a book by its cover I must admit that I was totally entranced by this one. The look of the woman on the front literally sent shivers down my spine. If someone looked at me like that I’d be buying the first plane ticket out – no matter where it went. What I did learn, to my disappointment, is that the woman portrayed on the front cover is not the delightful Eleanor Ames I fell in love with in this book. It is probably meant to be her but, I believe, was created by someone who had not fully read the novel. In the novel Eleanor clearly has brown hair and green eyes, whilst the woman on the cover had black hair and blue eyes. As you can tell it rather rankled (pedantic, me?). Anyway, as to the story I was so looking forward to I can honestly say that I really liked it. The journalist Michael was OK despite being a bit wet, the scientists at the Pole were suitably odd and focused on their own particular pet projects but it was the characters of Lieutenant Sinclair Copley and especially Eleanor herself which sold me on it. The flashbacks to mid-Victorian England and the horrors of the Crimea war were very well told and very vivid. The incident that changed Sinclair’s and then Eleanor’s life was suitably creepy as was the resultant horror at the Arctic camp. I can certainly understand why Michael fell in love with Eleanor. The way she was described made me fall in love with her too. A young woman still full of life after all her strange experiences but lost in an age far beyond her wildest imagination would be a powerful attraction to most people. Of course knowing what she was as well as who she was would probably put quite a few people off the whole idea. But now I come to the biggest problem with the whole thing. I thought long and hard about how the author could end things. I had a few fairly detailed scenarios in my head and wondered which one he would pick. My answer: none of them. The ending was, at least in my mind, very unrealistic (yes, I know we’re talking horror/fantasy here so why am I bothered by realism) or maybe I should say unbelievable. Falling in love with such a woman might just about be acceptable but being blind to the enormous consequences of such an act are not. Although the ending didn’t ruin a hauntingly well written book it did leave a slightly bad taste in my mouth. Still, this is definitely recommended for anyone interested in a cracking good page turner. Just have a few pinches of salt ready at hand for the last 10 pages.

Cartoon Time.

The S Word: We need both scepticism and consensus



By John Beddington for New Scientist


18 February 2011


Science is progress, but not progress unchallenged. In our era of "instant solutions" and immediate response, it is easy, and perhaps tempting, to forget that true advancement is attained through criticism, scepticism and debate. Great scientists have often challenged the status quo, but armed with the facts and evidence required to justify their view. Those who challenge the collective view should be scrutinised, and if this scrutiny results in truth, should be rightly celebrated.


Yet if we become fixated on divergence, we lose sight of the importance of consensus; significantly a consensus built upon rigorous enquiry. Only through a collaborative effort and purpose can the greatest global challenges be addressed and tackled. We are faced with some incredibly big challenges - climate change being one of the biggest. Yet whilst there is a scientific consensus around both the fact it is real and its fundamental cause, the serious public debate required to drive progress is being undermined by individuals or groups who cherry-pick facts to drive their own agenda. This trend is not unique to the climate debate; the controversy over the safety of GM crops is another prominent example. What concerns me is not that uncertainties are scrutinised, for uncertainties will always exist. What concerns me is our inability, and often, fear of communicating, and admitting, this fact. Indeed, as scientists we must be more transparent, more open to describing the gaps in our knowledge. Scepticism is the driving force for further discovery and better evidence. But often there is a thin line between healthy scepticism and a cynical approach which ignores or distorts inconvenient evidence.


It is human nature to find evidence more convincing when it backs up our own preconceptions, but when we allow that impulse to influence how society acts on important issues, it is irresponsible and dangerous. Let's return to what science actually is: the testing and retesting of hypotheses by experiment and scrutiny to create an evidence base. Where the evidence falls primarily on one side of an argument, a consensus is formed. Whether in policy advice, news reports or documentaries, to misrepresent the balance of evidence, whether explicitly or implicitly, is a dereliction of duty. So I would issue the following challenges: It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence. We must make evidence, and associated uncertainties, accessible and explicable. In a world of global communication, we cannot afford to only speak to ourselves. We must also be confident in challenging the misrepresentation or exaggeration of evidence and the conclusions it leads to. Where significant consensus exists, it must be made obvious. In the Civil Service and other organisations with a stake in policy, we must guard against ideology, and consider the whole body of evidence, not just that which supports our own views. I will continue to carry this message across government in my role as chief scientific adviser. Scientific evidence is only one factor in politicians' decisions but its integrity must be preserved if poor decisions are to be avoided.


I know journalists often have little time to cover complex issues. However it is not enough simply to report opposing views on an issue. The public is best served if each view, and the evidence behind it, is rigorously tested, scrutinised and challenged. The best science journalism is a testament to this and I make no apology for challenging all to reach the highest standards. We all have a stake in this. The pursuit of truth is not just for the scientific elite, nor Fleet Street, nor the corridors of Whitehall. This is a call to all of us - follow the evidence, and challenge those who seek to distort it.