Give it up, give it up...

It's that time of year again: Lent! And it doesn't have to have anything to do with religion whatsoever, other than the timing. It's a personal challenge, a test of your willpower & strength of character - no matter how trivial the thing that's being forsaken. If it's important to you, it will be hard to give up.

So that's why I've come to the conclusion that my ritual of giving up pretty much all of the lovely bad food (cake, chocolate, crisps) is a bit wasted. It's FAR too easy!! That doesn't mean I'm not going to give up some of the naughty food again this year; it's such a nice feeling to know you've succeeded at something, I'm not letting that pass in a hurry.

But this year I've decided that I need to do something different, something really challenging. Which is why I'm having a break from Twitter. This may sound stupid to some of you, but it really is a useful tool if you find out how to use it properly - and checking it & interacting on it does become addictive. It's a whole different community. Contrary to popular belief, it's not all about self-interested celebrities telling the world they've just been to the toilet; anyone can use it, and for any means. I mainly use it as a soapbox.

Anyway. This isn't about me trying to convince cavemen & women who read the Daily Mail that Twitter isn't Satan's invention... I was attempting to show why it's so addictive, but I've probably just made myself sound odder! Trust me, it is addictive and that's why the part of me that wants to compete with myself thinks it's a really good idea to give it up for Lent. I'm too competitive for my own good sometimes...

So. What exactly does Lent entail for me?

• No cakes, crisps, sweets or chocolate bars.
• I'm still allowed biscuits, as I'd like to keep baking.
• No Twitter. Only exceptions are tweeting links to any blogposts, and checking for contact on Sundays.

That sounds about right.

The challenge is set.

True faith?

I came across this bizarre comment on an article about the possibility that the moon could have an effect on our weather when it gets really close to us on March 19th:

"We don't know much about how the universe acts on our planet climate but we all seem to accept the theory of evolution that MILLIONS of MILLIONS of MILLIONS years ago, man originated from the ape. yeah right,... hand me the banana please. Just shows how gullible we can be when we are willing to have blind faith on science about evolution and trust me, its blind faith. Here we don't even know much about how the moon will effect us but years ago, the mayans knew about dec 21 2010 and how the planets will align. No hubble telescope, no space shuttle, and yet they knew it. One must ask, how? oh i forgot, its millions of years ago.... haha I really hope those who swallow in blind faith the theory of evolution are right."

Seriously, how odd is that?! I'm not going to waste my time going through it and picking out every single thing that's wrong with it (I could be here until Easter, or even Christmas, at that rate), I just wanted to share it because it is utterly hilarious!

All I have to do is dream...

Now I normally leave the bizarre dreams to a certain Sarah Noble, but after last night I think I could be inducted into the 'Weird Dreams Club' officially.

Basically. It could be set now or at some time in the future, but we know there is alien life - and plenty of it. (When I say 'we' I mean humans, in case you didn't get that.) We have a space station, not dissimilar in looks to the ISS, devoted to intercepting any communications from these aliens - and for some reason I found myself in the dissection wing... All of a sudden the alien messengers (which looked like skeletons mostly, but had some flesh & blood around the neck and torso) seemed to start bleeding, then they sat up and started melting. People seemed quite scared at this point (no idea why!) and started rushing about the place.

Still with me?

Next we cut to planet Earth. By the looks of what's on the TV we've found out what's happened on the space station, and it seems to suggest that the entire planet is at risk of invasion. So naturally the bigwigs start making evacuation plans and everyone else panics. Groups of people start leaving, and then it comes to my turn. This is probably the weirdest part of the dream: Stephen Fry was there, and he'd acquired the power of making people teleport just by saying a particular phrase of Italian. As soon as I saw that I decided I didn't want anything to do with it, so I stayed on Earth...

Now I'm walking around, in somewhere that looks a bit like West Somerset Community College. There's a man there who's been branded some sort of outcast (because he never used to join in with anything) and is just sitting on the steps feeling lonely. Then all of a sudden a group of his old schoolmates & family turn up as they want to include him in their Stephen Fry teleport group, but want to get to know him better first. So he decides that he should teach them his own method of 400m hurdles, and we (I'm now part of the group too, for some reason) start running & hurdling down Long Street in Williton, going past the old Vets... When he taught us his special method it involved running sideways, spinning, and running sideways again somewhere in it - but I was the only one who did it properly.

In the end I know for definite that I was left on Earth. There hadn't been an invasion so anyone who was left just had the planet to themselves.

THE END

From humiliation to domination!

My memories of the last Ashes series down under are tainted by the fact that I was still working at the Co-Op at the time - although one good thing about that was that in the early hours after the staff Christmas party I came down to see England lose the 3rd Test, but I was still a wee bit drunk... Definitely cushions the blow!

No need this time, apparently! To think I was worried beforehand that I wasn't going to properly get into proceedings... As much as the pre-series talk is distracting or quickly forgotten once the action started I think I missed it this time round. You need the Glenn McGrath figure making outlandish predictions; I knew four years ago that I would miss him, and I was right!

Thankfully the way England have performed meant that I was drawn in from day 1 of the 1st Test. Nerves may have set in from the batsmen in the 1st innings, but they learned from their mistakes and the whole team have gone from strength to strength since. Whilst I agree with Freddie Flintoff that it's good to see a contest, I couldn't be more pleased that the Ashes urn is still in our possession! It's also great to be able to recycle headlines made about previous England teams & apply them to Australia's current one - 'Can't Bat, Can't Bowl, Can't Field' comes to mind...

So the first mission has been accomplished, but the final hurdle remains. As good as it is to retain the Ashes in their backyard, according to Beefy winning the series would be "the ultimate". So that's what we need to do. The team has got their celebrations out of the way (the hangover should be gone by now) and Australia have to cope with two debutants & a missing captain. Plus Sydney traditionally takes spin, so an uncharacteristically quiet Swann should be in his element.

Best of luck to the boys!

Feathers, nerves, dinosaurs & space...

Anyone who knows me is well aware of my feelings in terms of religion: I don't believe in a god of any kind, but if others do then that's up to them. As long as they don't preach at me. Or knock on my door, child in tow (bloody Jehovah's Witnesses). I always thought that was a fair deal.

The thing is I've now come to breaking point - I've had to put up with the Taunton preacher too many times (patronising as well as preaching), had the JWs a'knocking and been spammed constantly on Twitter. Why should I just sit there and take it? I use Newton's Third Law of Motions as an excuse far too many times, but this is how I see it.

Unlike Richard Dawkins, I don't blame religion for everything that's wrong with the world. I do agree with most things he says but he does go a tad far in some of his views for my liking. Plus you really shouldn't blindly agree with everything one person says, or take an old book as the absolute truth unquestioningly. That's all it is. A book.

I was very surprised by the reaction to what Professor Stephen Hawking wrote in his new book. Only as a child have I ever considered that the Universe was created by a divine force - but even then I was far too interested in dinosaurs and space, so I dismissed it very early on. Having to attend three Church of England schools (first, middle and college) wasn't the best, but it probably helped me to form my views on religion. The only thing that I reacted badly to was being forced to sing carols at Christmas, and I mean forced. I had to resort to miming. People would think I was overreacting, but music means something to me - it doesn't sit well with me being made to sing about things you don't believe in.

One of my favourite things at school was learning about Ancient Greece; I was especially interested in all their myths and legends. They made these stories up (including the gods that featured in them) to explain things that happened around them. This makes sense as science was in its early stages at that time -for example, they wouldn't know that sunrise was down to the movement of Earth in space, so they decided it was down to the sun god Helios driving the chariot of the sun across the sky. All very understandable.

That's when it hit me this week. If the Ancient Greeks invented these gods and stories to explain everyday life, then what stopped the early Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. from making up their own stories to explain life? The answer is 'nothing'. That's what their religions are. It's just their stories are written down in holy books so it looks official.

Yes, there are plenty of things that came into existence thanks to religion (the legal system, etc.), but I'd like to think that we could've come up with things like that anyway. Common sense is always helpful. I know some people need a bit of a boost of this, but there are enough people with ample sense to do things like this. Surely?!

The big question is, how have these religions lasted this long when others have died out? Obviously civilisations like the Romans and the Ancient Greeks have come and gone, but since then we've come through the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution with great scientific advances. We're currently living in the 'Digital Age' but there is still religion. It should have lost its primary aim by now, as most things can be explained scientifically, yet there are still some who reject evolution. Despite evidence. Where there's well-documented evidence how can you think it's up to whether you believe it or not?! One of my pet hates is when people say that it's still the 'theory of evolution'. This is merely a technicality; there is enough evidence available for it to be scientific fact - you'll have to do better than that!

One of the few things that makes me glad that religion has existed is related to architecture. You can't beat a lovely English village church, or amazing gothic cathedral. You just can't.

So that's it. I've probably managed to ruffle a few feathers, touch a nerve or two, but for once I don't want to have to talk in riddles. I welcome any comments. What have you got?

Talent will out...

Big Brother has a lot to answer for. It has made us into the 'quick fix' society we live in today - these days you're more likely to be known if you've pratted around on TV in a house for a few months than if you've actually achieved something worthwhile in your life. How did we get this lazy?

Even from the first series, when I heard what it was about, I couldn't understand the fascination. People said it was "addictive" - but how? People-watching I get, but that's real. It's not run by a group of producers who chose certain people because they knew they'd clash and "make good telly"... It's called reality TV but it just isn't. You're quite deluded if you think it is.

Since its inception, we've had to endure countless other programmes in the same genre; Popstars (to Popstars: The Rivals, Pop Idol and The X Factor), Fame Academy, Britain's Got Talent, The Apprentice... All would foist 'undiscovered talent' on us, and for what purpose? Oh yes, to make them famous for a while. Admittedly some of the winners of these programmes have managed to survive for quite a few years, but that doesn't really make it better. Take The X Factor and its previous incarnations, for example. The point of that programme (as I see it) is to take some ordinary folk, see if they can hit one note out of fifty, dress them up like real-life dolls, force them to perform in as demeaning a way as possible and eventually find a 'winner' - slowly but surely sucking the individuality and character out of them, until they're just another Cowell clone, built to the specifications of that particular year. The whole point of music is that it means something to you, and the person singing it should feel it - I've yet to see a 'reality' singer who does that. I doubt I ever will.

After we got bored of Joe Public (I say "we", what I mean is the audience watching this tat) it was inevitable that the 'celebrity' versions would appear, or even brand new concepts especially for 'celebrities'. The only positive to take out of this is that we don't get a brand new 'talent' forced upon us, we just get reintroduced to the washed up and forgotten 'talent' from yesteryear, or even just a few weeks ago... So the kind of things we get are Celebrity Big Brother, Dancing On Ice, I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!, Strictly Come Dancing, etc. I'll admit now that I do like to watch Strictly, quite how it snuck under the radar I don't know, but it did. The others can quite simply go to Hell! Charity versions of 'reality' shows are vaguely excusable (for example Comic/Sport Relief Does The Apprentice) - I still probably wouldn't watch them, but at least some good is being done.

Some good news is on the horizon for people like me, Big Brother is finally coming to an end. Not last night, as I was led to believe, but in just over a fortnight. How it has lasted this long is a mystery - nothing else would survive the drop in viewing figures over a matter of years, why is this excluded from the rule? It doesn't inspire me that something as utterly pointless as Big Brother has survived and other original ideas for programmes have been binned without the creators being able to realise the full potential. And people wonder why I get angry!

It's not a case of me wanting all the programmes I dislike to be taken off air - that would be great for me, but I do know what the word 'compromise' means (unlike some people I know). I also dislike pretty much all daytime TV (don't even get me started on Jeremy Kyle), but I'm willing to let that stay. Firstly, I don't ever see any of it - and I can't recall that any of it has had as detrimental an effect on society as 'reality' TV has. It sounds like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but I'm seeing the bigger picture. It's a matter of principle for me; a struggle against the underlying annoyance caused by it. Call me melodramatic if you like, I prefer 'enthusiastic'.


Talent will out.

"The name's Sherlock Holmes, and the address is 221b Baker Street..."

"The game, Mrs Hudson, is on!"



Yes, this is about the wonderful creation that is 'Sherlock'. I've been saying this to everyone anyway, but as soon as I even heard that they were going to be making it (months & months ago) I knew it would be good - now that I've actually seen it, I've come to the conclusion that it may just be one of my favourite programmes ever... I can find a few people who'd probably agree with that statement too!



The thing is, it may not have worked with a different lead pairing. Benedict Cumberbatch (best name ever?) is perfect as Holmes, Martin Freeman is brilliant as Dr Watson - and together they are just fantastic! There's also great support from Rupert Graves (Lestrade), as well as a host of other regular characters.



Some people may have been skeptical - yet another crime drama, a modern version of a classic novel series - but it is just my sort of thing, plus I think the BBC does a very good job of the modern re-takes. They are different entities, but I loved the updated Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare and Fairy Tales. And personally, I'd much rather the licence fee was spent on a quality detective drama than some 'talent' show which would make me want to rip my eyeballs out with my toes and burst my eardrums with a red-hot poker...



But what about the episodes themselves? (I'll try not to give too much away in case you haven't watched them - still available on iPlayer until Sunday!)




"A Study In Pink"



Series opener. Obviously a way to introduce the characters (even though 99.9% of the audience will know who most of them are anyway!), but without taking anything away from Sherlock's adventures.



Dr John H. Watson is recently back from the war zone and struggling to fit into 'normal' life; he seems to be getting nowhere with his therapist, has trust issues and can't afford to live on his own in London. Predictable, yes, but this is how he meets Sherlock Holmes (through a mutual friend) and ends up going into a flatshare knowing very little about his flatmate - other than that he apparently plays the violin when he's thinking! Before too long a case arrives and the timeless pair of Holmes & Watson set to work. In this episode there is a string of apparent suicides, but strangely they are linked. Naturally, Holmes is adamant it's a serial killer ("there's always something to look forward to!") and sets out to prove it - but he doesn't just want to find the killer, he needs to understand every last detail of the case to call it a result. As you can imagine, this leads to further trouble as Sherlock can't resist a challenge!



Quote of the week: "I'm in shock, look I've got a blanket!"



Other than the story, the characters and the setting, there were two things I absolutely loved. Firstly, any thought processes, texts and data searches appear on the screen. This adds another dimension to the programme, plus it means you don't get weighed down in dialogue; you have a chance to process their thoughts as your own, making the plot easier to follow. Secondly, the music. Mainly the jaunty and upbeat scores - they remind me a lot of the soundtrack to last year's BBC2 drama 'Desperate Romantics' (something else I'm a huge fan of). Modern enough to work, but hints of Victorian - just to remind you where all this has come from!




"The Blind Banker"



The first thing we see is a set of 400 year old teapots, which apparently need to be used in order to stay intact - I'm not arguing, stick the kettle on! Meanwhile our dynamic duo are in trying situations; one battling a self-service checkout, the other having a swordfight in the flat. I'll leave you to work out which is which!



This episode centres around mysterious killings - seemingly impossible, but bookended with graffiti and an origami lotus flower... It all points to a ring of smugglers hiding behind a cipher using a book that all the members own. Despite the busy nature of the crime solving, Watson has time to get a job as a locum and start dating a colleague, Sarah. Needless to say their first date is fairly eventful, but will the case get solved in time?



Quote of the week: "Don't eat while I'm working, digestion slows me down!"




For me it wasn't quite up to the level set by the first episode, but that's not to say it wasn't excellent still. The acting was brilliant as ever, just the story a bit lacking perhaps - I couldn't quite put my finger on it! As I said, still thoroughly enjoyable; whet our appetite for the series finale.





"The Great Game"




The final episode of the brief first series opens in Minsk. The interaction between Sherlock and a prisoner actually goes no further, but I really enjoyed this little part - it mainly consisted of Sherlock correcting the man's grammar rather than helping him like he is asked. Any of you who know me will be well aware of my feelings about correct grammar (not that mine is perfect mind!), so I could definitely relate to the character in this respect. Once the opening credits closed it appeared Sherlock was bored, but unable to cope with it whatsoever. When I was a child I was very much like this - someone's still like this now! Although I must say that neither of us have ever gone to the extreme of shooting the living room wall...



This week there are a series of puzzles designed for Sherlock to solve, and a hostage to save on each one. On top of this is a case of national importance given to Watson by Sherlock's brother - they don't do things by halves! The episode all builds up to the unveiling of the mysterious Moriarty. There's been a lot of criticism about the way he was played, but I really enjoyed his performance. It's always good when the villain makes you laugh, as you always want to see more of them. But that could just be me!



Quote of the week: "The wall had it coming!"



I think this episode was back up to the standard set in the first, and it definitely leaves you wanting more!





It has been confirmed that there will be a new series, but it hasn't yet been decided how many episodes there will be or any timescale... Each instalment will still be 90 minutes long, so this probably means there's less chance of the series being much longer than three episodes - fingers crossed though!


Here's the link to all of the episodes on iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/tv/?q=sherlock


Elementary...