Procrastination man - Part 2

Aller au contenu | Aller au menu | Aller à la recherche

Sunday 29 June 2008

A word on some nicked time

This is just a quick note, as I'm borrowing a friend's computer, to let you know how it all went in terms of oral exams...
Well, pretty well I think. First one was algebra, I had a choice between "Exemples et applications des notions de sous-groupe distingué et de groupe quotient" (Examples and applications of the notions of normal subgroups and quotient group) and "Matrices équivalentes, matrices semblables. Exemples et applications" (Equivalent matrices, similar matrices. Examples and applications). I took the former and offered two "developments" around An.
The second one was analysis. I had a choice between "Convergence de séries entières, propriétés de la somme. Exemples et applications" (Convergence of power series, properties of the sum. Examples and applications) and "Théorème d'inversion locale, théorème des fonctions implicites. Exemples et applications" (Local inversion theorem, implicit functions theorem. Examples and applications). Again, I took the former, and I reckon I did quite good. I offered, again, two developments - one was Tauber's weak theorem, the other one was Hadamard's theorem about power series with "holes".
The third and final one, from this morning very early - very early - was on formal calculus, and revolved around lattices and best approximation. And I nailed that one almost perfectly (I reckon).
Results are coming in mid-July. Wait and see. Thanks to everyone who sent their prayers/positive thoughts/... my way :-) much appreciated!

Wednesday 25 June 2008

Away notice

I shall be away for a couple of weeks. Not that I've never had two-weeks of post-free intervals, but as access to the internet shall be quite limited over those two weeks, there might not be much on here until, say, 12th July.
I'll be in Paris for oral exams of the agrégation on 27th-28th-29th (yes, even sundays!), prayers/good vibes/thoughts/crossing of fingers/... are very much welcome and appreciated! :-) Ah well, I'll try and write something on here to let you know how it went.
Then - oh joy! :-D - I'll be in sunny England! ;-) In England for the Doctor Who finale... how much better does it get? ;-)
Thanks to my regular readers!

Monday 23 June 2008

Britishness

This BBC News video fails to reach what the title implies it set out to do: explore how British students define Britishness. All it does is put in evidence that students from various backgrounds feel more, say, Chinese than British.

Still, it raises a very interesting question. Is there a British, or even an English identity? Let's start with history - the basis of many cultures throughout the world. One might say France and Frenchness was defined by the Revolution and the Enlightenment, and just like other countries, it does relate a lot back to its own history with a certain amount of pride. The only exception to that prideful look backwards that springs to mind is that of Germany. But Germany still defines itself around a quite strong guilt feeling about WW2. And Britain. Well... England. Parts of Scotland may look back to the Act of Union with scorn, or glee. If Ireland is to be considered part of Britain, then the independence war is something they pride upon as well. But England - well, England has nothing to look back upon with either pride or shame. The War of the Roses is a big part of Britain's history, admittedly, Oliver Cromwell and certain monarchs as well (Henry VIII not the least!). Yet they are not either celebrated or used as defining role models or anti-role models.
The closest England gets to having a national hero is Guy Fawkes. That guy who tried to blow up the Parliament. Quite revealing actually, how England's head figure is nothing of a traditional hero - quite the contrary. It shows how humble, at times borderline apologetic, the Brits are. And ready to make fun of themselves.
Is that to say England has no identity? Of course not - take a Hollywood blockbuster and compare it with a British-made film. Differences are striking - the Brits tend to take more time doing things instead of rushing to the schematics of action-packed/sitcom-packed/thrills-packed films. Their humour is different. Sarcasm is very very British. Which is why British television is flourishing with many comedies the likes of The IT Crowd, The Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers, Red Dwarf and many many others. In terms of culture, Britain is very much present - through innovative music, plays, films, etc.
But what I would say defines Britishness most is this: that they take their time. It is clear from the way the British cultural pieces are constructed; and it is embodied in three letters. Tea. What is more British than a little cuppa? Well... I say one, I should probably say five a day or so. It's not a quick coffee to keep going - it's a whole mug of hot tea you take one sip at a time. And that's what the Brits do. Drink tea. Take their time. Be helpful, and welcoming. And, ultimately, be the greatest nation in the world.
So, does it matter that wave upon wave of immigration comes to the UK? Does it endanger the identity? Far from it. It strengthens the slow entangling, mingling of Britain with the rest of the world, but the Brits take their time so much that this particular fact gives them a great inertia. School uniforms, everyday routines, are part of what makes Britain Britain, and are hard to kill habits. And short of a natural catastrophy, I don't see what could stop the UK from being the greatest nation there is out there.

Sunday 22 June 2008

Turn Left

Careful - spoilers are coming... quite a few actually.
Rose is back. Right, we knew that from Partners in Crime onwards. Sadly, though, there's no explanation as to how it is possible. After the whole shebang about parallel universes being sealed, a little nod in that direction would have been appreciated. Ah well, it is always possible to draw up big complicated theories (and we will), or just let it go (and I won't :-P). Still, that's not a gaping plot hole, and there's an easy and simple way to explain it. The biggest question is - why does she know all that she knows???
Back to the beginning. Donna gets attacked by a beetle-like styrofoam creature, which hangs onto her back (at last, that reference from Fires of Pompeii is explained). That creature feeds on changing time (a creature that feeds on time - RTD seems to get a few of his ideas from Steven Moffat!), which leads to a massive "what if" episode. What if Donna had not met the Doctor in The Runaway Bride? Well, we find out, the Doctor would have died. No regeneration possible. He would have died, drowned in the Thames. And all the days he's been saving since (nearly two entire series of Doctor Who) - well, they wouldn't have been saved. Adipose, Judoon on the Moon, Titanic, Sontaran... everything. Well, no Master, obviously, cause the Master was Timelordised by the Doctor. No Daleks in Manhattan either, but that's not explained.
And as a result, the whole world goes awol. Southern England is destroyed, and people are deported to the North (poor souls... Leeds!), where a housing situation has arised (there, RTD has found the way to fight slumping housing prices!) Half of the Americans are turned into walking fat. Martha Jones, Gwen Cooper, Ianto Jones, Sarah Jane Smith - they're all dead. Not only namechecking - this what if episode allows for a nice little remembrance episode, without any of those annoying flashbacks.
Here are a few questions, though. How did Rose come back? Well, the answer to that is fairly simple - Donna, by rewriting her story, created a universe that bent around her... thus creating a bridge towards Pete's universe. How did she get all this foreknowledge? That's not explained, and quite frankly annoying. Maybe when she absorbed the time vortex she knew all along what was going to happen to her, but also knew she couldn't play with it and placed it all in her subconscious? Or maybe (hopefully) we'll find a better explanation next time.
Despite those two gaping plotholes, Turn Left was a brilliant episode, with a brilliant Catherine Tate and a brilliant Bernard Cribbins. It shows humanity at its low and at its high at the same time. Last year, in Last of the Time Lords, the year that never was showed us humanity under an iron fist, but focused on Martha's Quest. Now we can see inside the houses and how, in a way, life goes on. The Italian landlord (or is he the landlord?) was a clear nod to La vita è bella... and we could have foreseen him being sent off to a "labour camp". Showing us humanity at its worst. France closing its borders, the UK creating camps à la Children of Men...
Turn Left certainly has a huge scope. Which is probably why it feels rushed. Too much info - going over the events from Runaway Bride to The Sontaran Stratagem in no time, is a bit too much. Still, you've got to remember that, as a Doctor-lite episode, it was a bit of a filler anyway... and a great filler at that. With a great new piece by Murray Gold, and the return of All the Strange strange Creatures!
Bring on next week! That's the only way you can feel after watching the "Next Time" trailer... to check names: Luke Smith, Sarah Jane Smith, Ianto Jones, Gwen Cooper, Jack Harkness, Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, Judoon, Harriet Jones (from Flydale North), RED DALEK, Donna Noble, the Doctor, a supposedly Davros-owned claw flicking a switch. Still, no Mickety-mick-mickey, no Pete Tyler, no Jackie, no K-9. No Clyde or Maria either. And definitely no Owen or Tosh.
And to finish off the references that were not noted above - a nod to the Third Doctor's Planet of the Spiders with that beetle thing (they could have done it better, if they had wanted). Kinda with the circle of mirrors to force a creature into revealing itself. And, obviously, Bad Wolf.

Wednesday 18 June 2008

Word of the wise...

Download Day - English
Download Firefox 3. No matter what browser you've been using, Safari, IE (especially IE!), Firefox 2, get yourself Firefox 3!
Among new features is the intelligent URL bar, and for having used Release Candidates for a couple of weeks now, it is an amazing help.
Oh and to you out there who still use IE6, please please upgrade to Firefox 3. Or IE7 if you want to stay with Microsoft. Just stop making web developers' lives a nightmare. ;)

Tuesday 17 June 2008

Numeracy skills and maths education

Those of you who do maths - by "do", I mean study/research/work in a field related to maths - are probably familiar with the fallacy that "maths are hard". How many times have you heard, as a reply, when you mentioned your speciality, "Oh, I was not good at maths" or "Oh, I never got on with maths", "That's a hard subject".
Of course, maths is not the easiest thing in the world. But then, neither are arts, literature - well, anything, really. Yet only hard science seems to be deemed "hard". When, quite frankly, GCSE maths and even A-Level maths is not that hard.
Have a look first at this video where people are asked to do a long division on the street. (Note that the Brits have a far more sensible way to write them all out, as there is no space issue should you wish to go to decimal places). Now, there are two things of interest here - firstly, even taking into account obvious editing, people have managed to finish the long division; and secondly, the lady that gives it a go at around 1:12 (the last one to get quizzed) has a very interesting reaction, both on being asked, and then on realising she could do it.
The surprise at being able to work out a problem that, even though it is fairly simple, still requires computational skills and looks complicated (e.g. you couldn't do it without a piece of paper, and if encountered, you would go straight to the calculator), shows the problem maths teachers are facing. That people don't expect to manage, and that as a result, failing is "alright" for them. It's the aeons-old idea that some people are good at maths, and some are not; and that nothing can be done about it.


Still, it does not stop the Brits from trying. BBC News has it that, as a measure to counter the lack of numeracy skills, the government will hire maths "specialists" in primary schools. Quoting the article

The aim is to counter the prevailing culture in which, Sir Peter says, the UK remains one of the few advanced nations where it is socially acceptable - even fashionable - to profess an inability to cope with mathematics.

Will the admission that maths needs special skills lead to that change? It is quite doubtful. Still, having someone around school who likes maths and gets on well with them, might just give the children a "role model", and - eventually - get around the problem of maths hate.


Now have a look at the video that was featured in the article. Change of focus here - the maths get contextualised. It is no longer a school exercise, it is a routine task. Obviously, the editing has a different bias here, and shows more people failing than succeeding to work out what 20 percent of £2 is.
Now let's overlook the simple "20% off/20% of" grammar problem (the lady that gave £1.60 for an answer shouldn't have been scoffed at - actually, no-one should have!). The approach is fundamentally different. The problem is presented as something "simple" - but yet again, it is contextualised. Ask the same question without the £ sign, and I am certain that more people will manage to get the right answer.
Regarding contextualised maths, the last answer, again, is of some particular interest. The man claims ignorance, and yet gives the right answer. Lucky guess, one might say (as the journalist does)? Not quite - and this is the centerpiece of contextualised maths. Contrarily to what most exercise books ask us to do (i.e. set the whole maths machinery running) he intuitively knew - not guessed - the answer; yet not having done the proper formalised maths, says he does not know. He strikes me more as someone whose mathematical skills are good.[1]


Finally, there comes the question of the assessment. Patronising in both videos, the first one gives praise at solving a problem that, after all, was only mechanics; whilst the second one merely laughs at people who give the wrong answer.
Now - a, there is nothing to be ashamed of when you don't manage to get the right answer (the French Minister for Education could not solve a simple year-4-level proportionality problem!); on the contrary, nurturing that shame will only lead to the aforementioned problem of "hard" maths. And b - praise needs to be carefully gauged, as too much praise for little accomplishments will only reinforce the fallacy that maths is hard.

Notes

[1] There's an excellent article about contextualised maths, groceries shopping and post-rationalisation. I'll find the reference sometime and update this.

Sunday 15 June 2008

Midnight Marmite

Midnight, Doctor Who's so far most original episode, is referred to on the Doctor Who forums as "a bit of a Marmite episode". Understand - some will love it, some will hate it.
That's a fair judgement. But that still holds true for most Doctor Who episodes. Love & Monsters is a striking example of division amongst fans, and Random Shoes, the Torchwood series one episode, even more so. What makes those episodes so controversial? They're original.
People will say, about any of those episodes: "That's not what Doctor Who is about". In a way, they're right, because they all explore further and further into the possibilities offered by the programme. But that's what makes their strength. Love & Monsters and Random Shoes were endearing, Blink was downright scary - and Midnight was definitely spooky.
And yet, when you stop and think about it, not much is spooky in the script. Of course, there's the banging on the hull that is scary, but from there on, Sky is not as much scary as alien. All she's doing is - well - repeating what is said around her. Why, deep down inside, should that be spooky? Because the said repetition is a way for her to appropriate the people around her. She's invading our innermost privacy - our thoughts. And we know nothing of her intentions. And that's spooky fact number one.
Spooky fact number two is what she assimilates. What the human race is like. She is, ultimately, the baddie of the episode. And in a series which, like Doctor Who, manages to show alien counterparts which are not fundamentally evil, it is all the more striking that the copycat becomes so filled with a murderous rage. This is echoed very nicely by the tourists' reaction to Sky's metamorphosis.
But then, as always in Doctor Who, there's this glimmer of hope - the one that says that the human race is worth it in the end. There's Jethro, and there's Dee Dee. And there's the nameless hostess. The three of them (interestingly also the ones that "serve": the child, the PA, the hostess) show more depth in their way of thinking, and in the end are more humane.
And of course there's the Doctor. Who ends up being taken over by that alien thing. And that's very spooky. Because if the Doctor's mind can't resist, nothing will. And to pull that off, to show the struggle within the Doctor's mind, you needed an actor at least as great as David Tennant! He's giving us his best performance so far - able to show that he is taken over by that alien thing, but to show that he is struglling, fighting, desperately - and that he is genuinely afraid. Hats off to every single actor of Midnight, actually - they were bloody fantastic.
So, a Marmite episode because it went into unchartered territory. But also - it felt a bit thin in terms of backstory - which is fine, given how much it has to deliver, and that the situation is only a pretext for this great character study; still, one feels cheated. We want to know more about that alien. And, who knows, maybe we will - maybe it's the Shadow?
Ah, we're getting to the series finale now. Is Turn Left going to be part one of a three-parter, or a stand-alone episode? No matter what, one can be certain of one thing: names will have an important role to play in that episode, quite possibly the Doctor's name. The theme has been launched all the way back in The Shakespeare's Code, has been picked up on in Last of the Time Lords, and then used various times in almost every single episode of series 4: subtly, for the matron in Partners in Crime, the augur names the Doctor and Donna in Fires of Pompeii, Jenny's name is reason for an entire dialogue in The Doctor's Daughter, and then, more importantly, the reason why the Doctor trusts River Song in the Moffat two-parter is that she knows his real name. We'll see... Still, interesting to see we did not get the "we're not a couple" line this week...
Bring on Turn Left!

Saturday 14 June 2008

Europe: not just for the elite

The Irish have voted against the Lisbon treaty, seriously bringing any chance of its enforcement to zilch. This comes after two naysayings of the European Constitution (draft) by France and the Netherlands.
Looking into the arguments of the aye, as they were brought to the masses during the campaign for the Constitution referendum - well, they were more pro-Europe arguments than pro-treaty/text arguments. To put it bluntly, you should vote for the Constitution because you should vote for Europe. And you should vote for Europe because it has been a help to the economy, and to many many different things so far. Don't worry about the text, it is not that important - the main point is that there is a Constitution.
Of course, it is important that there be, ultimately, a Constitution for the EU (though, to be fair, several countries can do without one). It brings some sort of stability to the institutions, and perhaps some more power. Still, the texts (both the Constitution and the Lisbon treaty) were intricate, and subject to a lot of interpretation. This is the result of massive brainstorming by the elite of the nations of Europe.
Whilst there was some anti-EU feeling, as well as a certain extent of national politics, in France's no to the Constitution, the main issue was that of a text that was not read/understood by the masses. Too long, too intricate. And it seems to be the reason behind Ireland's no to the Lisbon treaty.

Personally, I believe their "no" is good news. It means that politicians cannot forcefeed this treaty to the people of Europe via backdoors and loopholes. Admittedly, the referendum culture is very French - and it is not always a guarantee of democracy (but sometimes of demagogy); at least both the UK and Germany need to pass a bill before organising one (to my knowledge, the latest kingdomwide referendum in the UK was in '79, about membership of the EU). So it's fair enough that these countries, heck, that any country does not hold referendums on those issues. But when a vote has been held, and has indicated a no to the Constitution, a trimmed down text that is still essentially the same, should not be passed without the people's sanction.
So what now? Is the EU at a standstill? Most definitely not. Ireland's "no" needs to be analysed, and worked on - not to adapt the Lisbon treaty and provide a shiny new text that is still essentially the same; but to actually empower the people. The no is not a no to Europe, it is a no to a treaty that fails to make sense. And hopefully, that's what the powers that be will conclude. The European Union has lost itself in its institutions, its bureaucracy, so that it seems the only change can come from the top. The wake-up call from this second defeat will make it realise a Constitution cannot be given from the top, written by the unelected elites.
This is the message of hope that is sent through the EU by the Emerald Island - that, ultimately, Europe belongs to the people, not the corporations, not the elite.
And therefore, it is only right that the people should deal with the Constitution. They should be asked whether they want one, and elect a constitution-writing assembly, whose proposed text would then be accepted (or not). Of course, the process of electing such an assembly will be controversial: will Malta have as much power as Germany? Will it be proportional to the population? And it is costy as well. But I believe it is the only way forward. And acception of the text, once it has been agreed in each individual country to make one, should be averaged throughout the EU with a first-of-the-kind unionwide referendum.


See what I just did? I talked about the EU referendum/constitution/Lisbon treaty without ever arguing for or against their actual contents. Just like the media, and the yes camp, did...
Well, here's time to amend that. The Constitution was a half-arsed document which had a lot of good in it, but was far from perfect. One of its striking points was that it used the word "consumer" more that "citizen", and that there was more talks of "consumer protection" than of anything else. Its third part was allegedly only reprising existent treaties, and hyad no place in a constitution. Finally, it was odd that the Constitution gave a precise and definite way for a member State to leave - hardly paving the way towards a really united Europe, is it? Still, it had good points, first and foremost a declaration of rights which, sadly, was left out of the Lisbon treaty. It also outlined the role of EU president - a figurehead that appears necessary. And the good points, as well as the existence of a Constitution, outbalanced, in my opinion, the bad ones - which is why I voted for the text as it was. Still, I'm unsure as to how I would have voted when it comes to the Lisbon treaty, having not read the text.
Here's to hoping the leaders of our nations will finally stop pursuing this direction of imposing a treaty from the top!

Sunday 8 June 2008

Forest of the Dead

You've got to give Steven Moffat credit for writing truly original pieces of science-fiction. After the nanogene child, the time-travelling stalker robots, and the killer-but-not-quite-yet-very-scary statues, he has given us... well, this. Impossible to summarise quickly, for it is much much more than the plot that makes it worthy of the Moff.
Admittedly, the second part did not start off well. It quickly got lost into some cyberspace weirdness - without having enough scope to explore its implications properly, and got the viewer (me) a bit, well, wondering what that was all for. Or maybe it was just because it was so Donna-centered. Still, I have never thought that cyberspace and Who work well together. It just allows too much - the Matrix (from Doctor Who, eh, not the film!) being the pinnacle of stupidity ("I deny this reality"). The Virgin New Adventures tried it as well - the example that comes to mind is Love and War, by Cornell - which, by the way, introduced River Song's avatar, Bernice Summerfield... surprise surprise! But, again, it barely worked. I actually was surprised not to see the Trickster in those black clothes. Up to the core point (literally!), it was therefore all pretty weak - including the Vashta Nerada stuff, what with the library being theirs etc. seemed a bit weak, and only there to earn the label "with cuteness inside".
But once we got on to the next chapter, the conclusion of the Vashta/Cal/Donna plotline, it just got back to being great. There, you saw how everything that happened in the first episode, and even further to that point in the story, had a purpose. The discussion with the Vashta Nerada was there to show that they could communicate with that neural thingy with the voices of the crew, which itself was nicely brought in in the first part. The extra bits and pieces on River's sonic screwdriver also serve the purpose of a nice surprise towards the end... and it is nice to see Donna spending her time with some Tom Milligan lookalike, without definitely losing him by the end of the story. Who knows, maybe we'll see more of him in the finale?
The strength of Forest of the Dead lies clearly in Professor River Song. She is a character with a lot of scope, and her relationship with the Doctor is thoroughly explored. Unlike in the first part, Alex Kingston now portrays her with class and the chemistry between both actors is visible on screen. It's nice to see some (future) companion (?) stand up to the Doctor. We have seen this before (well, The Parting of the Ways, and The Fires of Pompeii to an extent), but never to that point. And it makes it just believable that River Song either married the Doctor, or is a regeneration of Jenny (I'd actually go for the latter).
Finally, possibly a Moffat trait - just this once, nobody dies! Let's look back at the previous episodes penned by (one of the) best Doctor Who writers. The Curse of Fatal Death, despite its non-cannonicity, had no deaths (despite quite some ageing by the Master, and the title!), The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances ended up with everybody living, in Blink, the angels did not exactly kill - they just sent people back in time, which is kind of a death, but with still the possibility of a happy life. In Timecrash, well, there is no reason for anyone to die! And in The Girl in the Fireplace, nobody gets killed while the story lasts (the crew members beforehand, and Mme de Pompadour of old age, but that hardly counts!). And this makes his episodes even more amazing!
So altogether, a solid 4 out of 5 for this episode. The best this series remains Planet of the Ood! Here's to hoping Keith Temple comes back for series five...

Three covers

A guide for international students coming to the ENS Lyon has been/is being made (only final touches); however, the original cover was deemed too "institutional" by the powers that be. So here are three different designs (keep in mind that the smaller pictures can - and probably will - change).



Comments/thoughts/ideas? Which one do you prefer, which one do you like the least?
Thanks.

Wednesday 4 June 2008

How?


How can they give results with no precincts reporting? Exit polls are one thing but they're far from reliable...
from Obama's victory speech available on youtube
Oh, and by the way - yay! Obama won the primary contest! Now on to the general election!

Monday 2 June 2008

Agrégation: admissibilité

So... today was the big results day. Theoretically, only the grades for the English agrégation should have been made available today, but mathematicians were early. Anyhoo, I failed (though not too miserably) at the English agrégation. By a small margin - to pass (to the oral exams step), one needed an overall grade of 38 out of 100, and I got a nice 35.
In fairness, it was a long shot, and I am still glad to have come that near (despite the unnerving aspect of being just that close). A long shot because preparing two agrégations in one year is insane, even when they are the two "easiest" ones. Also because I have an 100 percent maths background and have never studied English at University level. Which is why the following two grades (out of 20) were a pleasant surprise: 11 in translation, 5.5 in linguistics. 11 in translation is a very good grade for that exam, which is supposed to be marked with quite some severity. 5.5 is below par on the exam, but considering I have never followed a course in linguistics and/or phonology, and that I had to make up some of the "rules" I applied, it is surprisingly high.
The other two exams received slightly disappointing grades. The dissertation (about Coriolanus) earned me a low 5.5, which is still alright (again, considering I had followed no course on the topic). The text commentary, however, on the 79 referendum on devolution, was far more disappointing. I thought I did ok - not brilliantly, but ok, and I got a lame, ridiculous 2. Which pretty much accounts for the failure.


Ah well, the English agrégation was something extra. Maths is, as I mentioned above, what Americans would call my "major". And I got through to the next step, i.e. I am "admissible" and will go and have some oral exams in Paris.
As I am getting through, the individual grades are not disclosed.

Sunday 1 June 2008

Eye on France

CNN are celebrating Sarkozy's first anniversary as the president with a series called Eye on France, and the website asks its readers a series of five questions. Here's my go at answering them.

In his victory speech, President Sarkozy said France had turned "a new page" in its history. Do you agree?

French politics and French history, even though they are intricately intertwined, are not one. By accessing power, and by his behaviour as a President, he has dramatically changed the way politics work, in a way that is not too different from the way Nixon changed US politics. Permanent campaign is now part of France's political landscape (mostly because of the Parti Socialiste's lack of direction, everyone now looks ahead to the next elections in 2012). Private life is, more than ever, part of politic life in France. It becomes quite worrying when the headlines made by the President are about his private life than about actual political projects. Privacy interfering with political life is a double-edged sword - it can hide certain political facts, be a boost in opinion polls, but also, as we saw with the Monicagate, have disastrous consequences.
Another difference brought about by Sarkozy's arrival to power, a "page that is turned", as one might say, is that the establishment was somehow pushed around. Sarkozy does not come out of one of the Grandes Ecoles, he is one who says "magnifical" to the Queen, and seemingly does not pay much respect to those institutions. The great divide between left and right is also discarded, as the President is taking onboard figureheads from the alleged left-wing party, like Bernard Kouchner.
But in terms of society, no big change (like that of May '68) has been brought about. Or not yet, at least. Big strikes have always been there when reforms were introduced - France is actually renowned for them. So I don't believe there is a new page in the history of France.

What do you think most defines France's reputation around the world?

France's reputation around the world is twofold. There is the historical aspect - France is the nation of the Human Rights, of the Enlightenment, and has an impressive 18th-19th century culture, and many many touristic landsights predating that. It is also supposed to be the land of diplomacy (after all, French is the international language for diplomacy...). But lately, France has appeared as a meddler, insofar as it intervenes on the international scene in controversial ways. The first rupture was that of the war on Iraq, strongly opposed by the French. The second was France's "no" to the European Constitution referendum. And lately, protests against the Beijing Olympics have sparkled more in Paris than anywhere else.
This is what puts France in the spotlight - its foreign policy, not its culture or its stars. The Cannes festival is just over, and the winner is a French film, but such events are so exceptional compared to, say, Hollywood blockbusters, that its influence on people's perception of France is minimal.
In terms of society, France is shown mostly via its strikes, but again, they don't make much of the headlines in international media; Michael Moore's Sicko has given a (biased) view on French society as well, but it is quite doubtful whether the film has had a defining role in defining France's reputation around the world.
So, France is mostly defined internationally by its foreign policy.

Is French culture still alive today?

French culture is more alive than ever these days. A reason behind that is possibly the very cheap access to broadband internet, which has allowed the birth of many Internet artists. Music, humour, are therefore two very active scenes in France. Recent hit artists include Renan Luce. In terms of cinema, the gold palm at the Cannes festival shows it is quite alive, and successes of the past decade, like Amélie, are also a sign that French culture is alive and well.
Still, French cinema is far from being what American cinema is - and maybe it should not strive to become another Hollywood. Not that blockbusters are bad, mind - it's just that diversity is good. The French are known to hold tight to their "cultural exception", and rightly they should!

Who are France's most influential people?

France's most influential people these days are - well, the politicians. Or, more precisely, the politician around whom all revolves, Mr Sarkozy. Even though he does not wholly control the media, the buzz is around his private life, and he manages to keep it there. And reforms go forward, despite bad opinion polls, and despite strikes.
Big corporate heads are not that influential, however. They keep standing in the tempest of soaring prices, and economic stagnation, awarding themselves big bonuses; but that does not lead to much debate or change of course in France's economy or politics.

What do you think is unique/distinctive about the French?

What is unique about being French is not being ashamed of standing up for what you believe in. This is seen in our reactions in international politics; it is also seen in internal politics, as the huge strikes show. It would seem the French strike for anything, or for ridiculous demands - when they just want to hold on to what they have acquired at a dear cost. It is quite sad that strikes have been so overused that there seems to be no other way towards compromises, but British teachers have also been on strike for what could be seen as ridiculous demands by their French counterparts (salary demands, when French teachers get paid less).
It shows some pride, if not arrogance, but the results are those that we know today - it is the same willingness to stand up for themselves that led to the French Revolution.
In terms of what living in France means - I think everyone who has lived both in France and elsewhere will agree that it is the sheer amount of paperwork required for anything!

Shhh... it's a library

After a Eurovision-caused two-week break, Doctor Who is back, and what a brilliant episode Silence in the Library was! But the episode is so original I cannot review it without putting a big spoiler alert (funny, by the way, how spoilers are mentioned! Steven Moffat surely knows how to wink at the fans, as Timecrash had already shown).
So, yeah, big spoilers ahead. There, you've been warned. The story is that of a library. Well, not just a library, but the biggest library in the universe, taking up the entire surface of one planet! The BBC Books already had a similar idea, with The Last Dodo, which showcased a special zoo/museum which was, as well, taking up the whole planet, and had a shop! The Doctor seems to be very fond of giftshops, after references in New Earth, Smith & Jones, and now Silence in the Library. And, erm, in the Library, nobody has survived some big thing that happened about a hundred years ago. Yet there are billions of non-humanoid lifeforms on the planet. Which cannot be seen at the first glance. The Vashta Nerada. In parallel to that plot, is that of a young girl, and it looks like the TARDIS has landed in the middle of her dreams: the Library is in her mind. And she has some influence on it - but conversely, the Doctor manages at one point (though shortly) to communicate with her.
Despite a strong and original plot (well, less original than Blink so far, but let's wait for the second part to see Steven Moffat's clever explanation to everything), the strengths of Silence in the Library lie in the detail. Clever inventions, big and small, show what a good news it is that Steven Moffat becomes the showrunner. From small to big, here they are:

  • the facial information nodes. Maybe a bit silly, but they allow for great comic relief - for instance, when it says Run, for God's sake, run. But what seems unsignificant will play a big part in the end of the episode, bringing Donna-node into the action.
  • ghosting. A very cute/touching way of seeing death. And possibly an explanation for Rose's return? And a nice way to keep the walking Vashta Nerada spooky and speaking. A stroke of genius there.
  • professor River Song. Now that was a stroke of genius - to bring in a companion whose timeline crosses the Doctor's many times, and who has already met him - but not conversely! As the writer would put it - wibbly-wobbly, timey-whimey! Interesting how it was planted from the beginning with the reference to spoilers.


On that note, professor River Song is also a nice reference to the Virgin New Adventure's and Big Finish's Bernice Summerfield, another archeologist from the future. Didn't I tell you Steven Moffat knows how to keep the fans happy? Sadly, though, I have not found Alex Kingston as impressive and convincing as I expected her to be in that role. Maybe in the second part, she will get to explore her character more!
But yeah, Steven Moffat is one of the greatest Who writers so far, and he knows how to please both fans and scare kids alike. If I were a parent now, I probably would hate the man - last year's Blink had that scary ending minute included with no plot reason at all (but oh, it was good!); now he makes the darkness, something the children are already (irationally) afraid of - well, scarier, whilst still providing the chance to get an Action Figure of a Vashta Nerada! I'm sure many kids will have difficulties finding sleep tonight! And finally, after series one's Empty Child 's "Are you my mummy", this episode finishes with not one, but two sentences repeated endlessly...
Still, a great writer, and great direction - Euros Lyn, however, should be left to work with Steven Moffat only, as all other episodes from the same director have a maybe too childish aspect.
And now is the time for a small rant about the mid-season trailer - the things it showed were exciting, and on the grand series scale of things, it was not too spoilery (well, a bit, but still... nothing that was not expectable/known). And now, in the middle of Silence in the Library, it looks as though Donna dies, and I was ready to believe that, but having seen her in the trailer, I know this is wrong (Russel T Davies wouldn't have shot that scene on purpose, now... would he?)
So far, series 4 has only had one letdown, The Unicorn and the Wasp, and even that was not too dire. However, something like a series ark feels missing... or maybe I'm just being daft. Also, contrary to other seasons, my favourite this year (thus far) is not the Moff's episode. Planet of the Ood was amazing. Beware of Keith Temple, Mr Moffat!