Latest posts

The Wonder of Life on Earth

One of the criticisms of my book A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth was that it lacked illustrations of the many creatures mentioned therein. To fill what seems to be a yawning chasm lacuna hole I’m pleased to announce that there will be an illustrated version, aimed at younger readers (9-11 years). It’ll be called The Wonder of Life on Earth. The text is all-new, and it’s currently being illustrated by Raxenne Maniquiz. Click here to get a flavour of her wonderfully rich natural history art. It’s available for preorder, so put it in your Christmas shopping order … for 2026.

Posted in Writing & Reading | Leave a comment

It Has Not Escaped Our Notice

This one kindly sent in by our Correspondent of all things Chthonic, Mr C. D. of Leeds. I think it speaks for itself. What it is saying, though, is less clear.

Untitled

 

Posted in Apparitions, Silliness | Leave a comment

Reasons to be cheerful

It’s one of those typical mid-September days with the sun shining and the temperature promising to push the low-20s by the afternoon. And I’ve got the day off.

We seem to have had a whirlwind summer that was gone before it was over, punctuated by two wondrous weeks in Italy and a weekend in Devon. And just as it was drawing to a close  I found myself, for Reasons, booked into the European Society for Cardiology annual congress, which this year was held at the Excel in London, the weekend after the Bank Holiday. For work purposes, of course.

One of our clients has a drug for a certain cardiac condition, and it’s launching next Spring. So a couple of colleagues and myself had to work the Congress, catching up on all the latest data and checking out the competition. It was fun—ESC is my favourite congress, and I haven’t worked in the area for 4 years, so it was like coming home.

The funny thing was that many of the people I met were clients (and clinicians) who I’d last seen in the pre-pandemic days. Several of them told me they’d seen my name on an email, or heard it mentioned in conversation, and were happily surprised at the prospect of working with me again: “Richard? Richard Grant? He’s coming to ESC?”. I even got to talk to one of the big names, who was presenting trial results in a ‘Hotline’ session—he recognized me straight away (in front of a client) and I asked him a question about the study that he said nobody else had thought to ask, and we had a nice chat.

So that was gratifying, too.

I did have to work over the weekend (and stay in a hotel in Canary Wharf because of the trains from here not always being reliable or early enough), which is why I have a couple of random days off.

The work looks like it’s going to take off: in the run-up to launching a new drug there is a surprising amount to do, and especially in this ‘speciality cardiology’ (we’re not allowed to say ‘rare’ anymore, because it’s not) area. And, again for Reasons, I find myself having to build up my small team and be very involved in the day-to-day doing and running of the account, which isn’t quite the level I was hired at but is great fun and people seem to like what I’m doing.

In all, I’ve ended up being quite grateful for what happened in February.

And happily, Rhea has started laying eggs again. She essentially had the entire summer off, and got back on the job just after we got back from Devon and before I went to ESC. She’s our best girl.

Posted in cardiology, careers, clients, hens, job, Me, Rhea | Leave a comment

What Can I Do to Help?

Men who’ve heard me talk about my book (Not Just for the Boys: Why we need more women in science), or more generally about the issues facing women in STEM, not infrequently ask me this question: what can I do to help? I can point them towards the helpful list I first published about nine years ago, and which I frequently use in my talks as the last slide, to leave on the screen during Q+A. But perhaps I should also point them towards the book I’m currently reading, Unrooted by Erin Zimmerman, with its subtitle of Botany, Motherhood, and the Fight to Save An Old Science. The Canadian scientist is an evolutionary botanist, and a significant part of her book is dedicated to her love of that branch of biology, and her dismay that botany, in its classical form, is fading due to lack of funding and support, while molecular approaches take centre stage.

However, the part of the book I want to stress here is that summed up in the second word of the subtitle: motherhood and all the accompanying challenges for an early career researcher. Zimmerman thought, like many another young scientist, that she wanted and was destined for a career as an academic. However, her experiences of postdoc-ing while pregnant and after returning to work after the birth of her daughter (she was only entitled to four months maternity leave), demonstrated, for her, that the battle to combine the different roles became unmanageable in the face of an unsupportive boss.

That is the key point. He wasn’t overtly hostile, even particularly sexist, he simply failed to understand what she was going through, or how her experiences resulting from what he said and did and, just as importantly, by what he didn’t say or do, impacted her. Her experiences, I fear, are far from uncommon. Yes, there are misogynistic professors out there who are much more explicitly unpleasant, or even harassers and predators. But there are plenty more (and some of them women too), who simply have no imagination or sympathy for their team. All they are focussed on are the results, the papers, and being able to get the next grant. Sadly, our system of academic incentives currently makes such a focus unsurprising. The supervisors’ survival (particularly if they are still on tenure track or its equivalent) depends on these outcomes and not the wellbeing of the researcher.

Zimmerman describes this tension, this slow destruction of her ability to keep going in the face of apparent insensitivity and unawareness of what she’s going through, in miserable detail. It’s something many supervisors would be well advised to read if they want to be able to support their researchers.

“Each time you’re made to feel unprofessional for having caregiving responsibilities, each time you’re made to feel like a burden for requesting minor accommodation…it wears you down a little more. You believe that you are the problem. And when the reward at the end of those years of hard work and low pay are far from assured, it doesn’t take a PhD to figure out you might be happier and better off elsewhere, no matter how much you love the actual science and the questions you were trying to answer.”

I am sure those words will resonate with many women who have wanted to combine their love of science with love of their child(ren), but struggled.

Yet the reality is that academia should be quite flexible. Zimmerman’s complaint was in part that her boss simply made things difficult any time she wanted to deviate from what he saw as the ‘normal’ way of working. If she wanted to start early to fit in with when childcare was available, he seems to have rolled his eyes before giving grudging approval. Presenteeism should not be necessary in academic life, although some experiments (particularly with living organisms, which by and large her plants were not) may put certain demands on timings to make sure they stay alive. But otherwise, getting the job done – including reading at home in the evenings, if that’s what works – should be the only thing that matters, not when, or even where, it’s done.

I was clearly lucky in many ways when I combined motherhood and my science. It was a different age (four months maternity leave was generous then) and people – certainly in the Cavendish – hadn’t had to think about these issues before: as I was the first female lecturer there, I was obviously the first person to try to make this combination work. Maybe this made it easier as people collectively seemed to want it to go well. No one checked what hours I worked, as long as I turned up to lecture and run the practical classes at the appropriate times (and my working hours were extremely flexible, due to when childcare was available and how my husband and I shared the rest of the week). I didn’t have to go through the indignities of pumping milk in unsuitable surroundings, as Zimmerman did, since advice on how long to keep a baby on breastmilk alone was very different then, although I kept breastfeeding in part for many more months after I went back to work. I was shattered by these early months, lecturing at 9am when I thought my legs might give way I was so tired, but at no point was I faced with disapproval or even comment.

So, supervisors in general, think a little harder about what the young parents in your team may be going through and work out how to make it easier so that they can deliver what you want. Making their life a misery through inattention, disapproval or worse, will actually make the outcomes less successful for the whole team. A period of irregular working may still be significantly more productive than allowing someone’s drive to ‘wilt’, to use Zimmerman’s word.

“To keep making my way up the ladder with no additional thought given to my happiness or comfort in the workplace was getting frustrating. I felt like after more than a decade in research, I’d earned some basic consideration.”

So, if you want everyone in your team to be both successful in themselves and contribute to the success of your wider team, show a little consideration….I think that’s the next piece of advice I should proffer when I’m asked in the future ‘what can I do to help?’

Posted in ECRs, Erin Zimmerman, maternity leave, motherhood, Research, Science Culture, supervisors, Women in science | Leave a comment

In which I slowly kill what I love

a view of the moors

A recent trip to Exmoor – involving petrol

I sometimes feel like I am living in the last gasp of the “having your cake and eating it too” era. The planet is approaching a climatic tipping point – if not past it already. Widespread war is sparking ever closer, several bushfires punctuating an arid landscape of hatred, seemingly only a matter of time before the dots are joined into all-out conflagration. There is so much loathing, indecency and disinformation online that it’s hard to imagine a time when we were mostly a civilised society, let alone one governed largely by truth and common sense.

And yet. Some of us lucky few, in calmer pockets, still have our interesting jobs, our comfortable houses, our collection of “nice things”, access to forests full of serene greenery, gardens full of songbirds and butterflies, shiny cars and far-flung holidays – pleasant pastimes that nevertheless drive the aforementioned carbon-dioxide-fuelled apocalypse. But we do it anyway. The world is horrible. But it’s also beautiful.

These thoughts come and go as I live my life, a cycle of worry and complacency. There was an article in the Times yesterday about the Profumo Affair – can you imagine any politician these days resigning in scandal because he’d had an extramarital affair or consorted with Russian assets? It seems laughable now. No, he’d just shrug and go on, safe in the knowledge that the furore would die out in a few more news cycles. Maybe that’s no different from me: I am horrified or enraged by some injustice on the other side of the world, but then go outside and hoe my rows of lettuces and enjoy the feeling of autumn sunshine on my face.

Of course, we all try to do our bit. Our family has a 20-strong array of solar panels on our roof, an electric car, a rigorous recycling regimen. We do the little things: we don’t own a clothes dryer, but string up our laundry on the line. We have our milk delivered in reusable glass bottles, grow our own fruit and vegetables, keep laying hens and busy honeybees, make our own alcoholic beverages from garden produce, use metal water bottles and portable coffee mugs and sturdy shopping bags. The school run is on foot; the London commute is by train. But this is nothing when we fly to that conference or beach, or order more stuff that we don’t truly need.

Perhaps because I consume a lot of science fiction, whose forte is laying bare the stark differences between the present and some speculative, inevitably worse-off future, I am hyperaware of how good I have it right now. We are extracting every last pleasure that our way of life allows, heedless of the damage, and yet we still – mostly – can find beauty in which to immerse ourselves. My family and I regularly camp in the woods, swim in rivers and the sea, fish remote trout streams, stay in rural areas and eat in country pubs that haven’t changed much in hundreds of years. The air is usually fresh, the stars bright. Wild animal life is everywhere – lazy circling kites, damsel flies, beetles, long-tailed tits, painted ladies. I imagine my ancestors reading my journals (if such fragile paper survives conflagration) and marvelling at the miraculous bounty we enjoyed – both of the earth, but also the activities we pursued that slowly killed it.

It’s like living perpetually in cognitive dissonance. My human brain is not equipped to embrace the contradiction 24/7 – instead I enjoy the good parts, and try to forget the bad. Most days, I just get by, my life so full that I rarely have time to regret. I’m aware that, in the grand scheme of things, my time here is nearly up, and all of these problems will be passed down to my son alongside our estate and possessions. But it seems too late to change, and any drastic changes I make will not even register against the backdrop of 8 billion others on this planet. In the meantime, it seems only right that I do the best I can: cherish my family, enjoy my garden, try to be kind, chip away at the science whose ultimate goal is to help people.

On the individual human scale, I have to feel that this is enough. But history may not judge me so leniently.

Leave a comment

Objects In The Rear-View Mirror

It was so long ago, that sometimes it feels like only yesterday. It was the end of 1987, and there I was, a graduate student in Cambridge, finishing my Ph.D. and minding my own business (see photo below)

Screenshot 2024-09-11 at 08.52.59

Picture of Fitzwilliam College MCR, 1987. I was the President, in the middle at the front. Actually, the REAL President was Spocket the College Cat, seated on my lap. Pic retrieved thanks to Asako Saegusa.

… when I was suddenly hired by the Submerged Log Company on a 3-month contract as a junior news reporter (my first ever published piece is here), but with the main aim of re-starting a column in The Times that the S.L. C. had had in the 1960s. This was all very ancient history — before the internet; before the web; when the best I had at home was a dial-up modem; when the only computer in the workplace was in the Editor’s office; when we had typewriters (electronic) and faxes, and working from home was a virtual impossibility — and I submitted copy to The Times by a flaky pre-internet digital transmission system called MCI Mail.

However, a few weeks ago I was contacted by a historian of science (and, as it happens, a near-contemporary of mine at the Zoology Department in Cambridge) who was writing the history of this venture and sent me some of the evidence. I had long since recycled all the scrapbooks I’d kept from that era (I wish I hadn’t) so it was with a mingled sense of delight, apprehension and vertigo that reviewed the first ever piece I had published in The Times. It was from the Op-Ed page of the issue of 30 January 1988, and you can read it here:

Screenshot 2024-09-11 at 10.15.54

The piece seems prescient: it concerns this paper by James A. Lake of UCLA, whom I later came to know very well after I spent the first three months of 1996 as a Regents Professor there. In the paper, Lake presented a molecular phylogeny that grouped eukaryotes with a subset of prokaryotes he called ‘eocytes’. We now know these as archaea, and over the past few years their status as closest prokaryotic relatives of eukaryotes is now established. Now, I used to have a photograph of me and Lake in evening dress surrounded by people dressed as orcs… but that’s a story for another day.

Posted in Research, Technicrox, Writing & Reading | Leave a comment

For the Last Time

For the Last Time

I have written in the past about the challenges of doing something for the first time. For early career researchers, this could be anything from giving a conference presentation to travelling to another lab to learn a new skill or joining (and speaking up at) a departmental committee. Anything unfamiliar can feel unnerving, although the more one tries things out the more one learns (even, as I found when I gave a TedX talk, that I never wanted to do it again). Indeed, the more one tries, the more one may begin to believe that you can cope with new challenges even if you make a complete pig’s breakfast that very first time. With luck, you know you can live down any associated embarrassment and come back stronger next time around.

However, as I discussed in an earlier post, retirement from my post as Master of Churchill College is almost upon me, and I am now facing the opposite challenge. It is a weird sensation that every committee in College I turn up to chair, I know it’s for the last time. Whatever decisions are made, it is for someone else to carry out. It is not a very comfortable position to be in. Of course, I could be completely destructive and try to leave a mess behind me, but that really isn’t my style. More to the point, I am left thinking, why did I not do more? Why did I not push through that change that always lurked at the back of my mind, or encourage a junior member to be more forceful in setting out their imaginative ideas? One can always look back and feel that perhaps one was too laid back, too hesitant, too nervous…..You get the picture. Seniority does not necessarily bring supreme confidence (although, of course, it may for some people).

There will be some committees which were less exciting than others, at least for me, (that doesn’t of course mean they weren’t important), that perhaps I won’t be so sorry to see the back of. I am fortunate in that retired Masters remain Fellows at Churchill, so that I will be able to see how things that have been set in train pan out in the months and years ahead. Indeed, it astonishes me that not all colleges do this; how cruel to serve for a significant number of years and then be unceremoniously excluded from the future life of the college. I will, perhaps, be particularly interested to see how the work around sustainability develops, where Churchill has made significant strides, although there’s plenty more to do.  We are very proud of the fact that, not only have we installed solar panels on many of our, fortunately flat, roofs, but that we invested in training our maintenance staff, so that they have been able to do the installations themselves.

However, what this amounts to is that overall, doing things for the last time is definitely bittersweet. It is right and proper to move on: the historic habit of Masters serving for life is definitely something that should never be restored. One gets stale, apart from anything else, unable to see new solutions to old problems which a newcomer may spot instantly with their fresh eyes. I’m looking forward – even if with significant trepidation – to whatever comes next. I hope it will raise new challenges to stimulate (and the signs are starting to be positive on this front), new things to do for the first time, not the last. I hope I will still find the issues, quirky or deeply serious, which provoke me to continue with writing this blog, but I look forward to new horizons, situations, even committees to keep my brain agile and my service to the community non-negligible. Time will tell.

 

Posted in careers, challenges, Churchill College, committees | Leave a comment

What I Did In My Summer Holidays

My social media feeds have been full of pictures of people on their summer holidays. I haven’t actually been on holiday yet, though several Gees did enjoy a lovely short break in Wales in the spring, and later in the year me and Mrs Gee plan to go somewhere to celebrate our nth wedding anniversary. I don’t feel too deprived given that I live in a holiday resort anyway, and can go to the beach and have a paddle and an ice cream whenever I like.

Back at the ranch I have been putting the finishing touches to my next book, which is to say, I have approved the corrected text, and the next thing will be to get the corrected proofs so I can compile an index. Compiling an index is great. I find it to be one of the most interesting things you can do with your clothes on. What I wish to avoid is having to compile two indexes (one can have too much of a good thing), one each for the UK and US editions, so I hope that they’ll have the same paginations.

While on the subject of different editions, the foreign-rights people at my publisher, who are a bunch of eager terriers, have already sold the rights to editions in six other languages. I have some way to go to eclipse J. K. Rowling who’s published all seven of her Harry Potter books in 85 languages. My previous book has managed to get within the same order of magnitude, with 25 foreign-rights sales (we shan’t mention the pirated edition in Bengali). Most of the time the publisher will send me one or more complimentary copies. Here is my current shelfie:
IMG_8281
From left to right you can see the UK, US, Estonian, Indonesian, Italian, Chinese (simplified), Polish, Korean, Spanish, Romanian, Turkish, Hungarian, Brazilian Portuguese, Japanese, Dutch, French, Albanian, German, Greek and Portuguese editions. They’ll soon be joined, I hope, by editions in Swedish, Czech, Slovak, Chinese (traditional) and Azerbaijani. I believe that there are Ukrainian and Russian editions out there, but I doubt that I’ll get to see these in the foreseeable future because of the current unpleasantness. My father is hoping for an edition in Yiddish, while I am holding out for Sindarin. The Foreign Rights director said that they didn’t have many sales representatives in Middle-earth. We discussed the possibility of an edition in the Black Speech of Mordor, but she warned me that this ‘was not a language she would utter here.’

A fun side-effect of foreign translation rights has been that when an edition appears in a territory, and the foreign publisher gets behind it, I get to do interviews for foreign newspapers and broadcasters. The French edition went down well in this regard, as did the Romanian and Portuguese editions, and there was a week earlier this summer when I was Big in Brazil.

Although most people have said they love the book, quite a few have complained that there aren’t many pictures. To remedy this, I’ve written a much shorter version aimed at pre-teens, and it’s currently being illustrated. The illustrations I have seen are lovely, but as is often the way with publishing, this may take a while to come out, but I hope to be able to show you something soon.

In the meantime I’ve been working on something else, but it’s at an early stage and I have promised myself not to say anything about it in case I jinx it.

Leave a comment

Of the Rings of Power

In a famous letter to publisher Milton Waldman, probably written in late 1951 (No. 131 in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien), Tolkien wrote:

Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy story … The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.

Despite the objections of purists, then, Peter Jackson’s films of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, and the ongoing Amazon Prime TV series The Rings of Power, carry the imprimatur of the creator, whatever one might think of their intrinsic artistic merits.

As for creation, Tolkien, who was deeply religious, also had very specific views. Creation, as in authorship, is really what he termed ‘sub-creation’, for all, he believed, stem from the action of the Creator. As such, an author should hold on to their works but lightly, and not become too enamoured of their beauty. The relationship between authors and their works is a central theme in Tolkien’s legendarium — what became The Silmarillion, from which The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are, effectively, spin-offs. The whole thing is driven by the covetousness of the Elven-smith Feanor for his own creations, the Silmarils, whence the entire saga of apocalyptic disaster in which the Elves are utterly defeated by the forces of evil. The theme is reprised in the story of the creation of the rings of power. A cautionary tale, indeed, and on the grandest of canvases.

All of which justifies, amply in my view, adaptations of an author’s works that do not adhere strictly to the author’s own beliefs or intentions, still less those of that author’s admirers. This is especially true in Tolkien’s case, given the evidence for how he wished his myth-making to propagate. For all that there will be some who find it hard to take, there can be no adaptation of Tolkien that is not in the canon, by definition.

This need not apply, however, to one’s aesthetic judgements of the works in and of themselves. Although there were some aspects of Peter Jackson’s adaptations I found irritating, my unease rested with choices made by the scriptwriters rather than the fact that the films had been made, still less that they deviated from the books. Mostly, I loved them. With an adaptation, one must first own that books are different from films. Books leave a great deal to the imagination of the reader, but in films, everything must be shown. And because ‘everything’ accounts for an awful lot, a great deal must be left out. Characters are merged or cut entirely for the sake of the narrative. Time is compressed.

There are other problems, too, thrown up by the fact that Tolkien chose to ‘tell’ as much as ‘show’. In The Lord of the Rings, as in The Hobbit, we are told of events that happened long ago, or going on simultaneously but elsewhere. The action frequently stops so someone can recall an ancient tale, or sing a song in of days gone by. And in Elvish, to boot. That, of course, is part of the charm. Tolkien acknowledged that glimpses of distant vistas enriched the reading experience. For those readers who wanted more, he added, there were appendices to The Lord of the Rings, more than 100 pages of background to the events and personalities of Tolkien’s invented world between the fall of Morgoth, the Great Enemy, at the end of the First Age (or ‘Elder Days’) and the matter of The Lord of the Rings itself, at the end of the Third. Because the appendices (I am so tempted to call them ‘Supplementary Information’) are nearly all by necessity telegraphic and annalistic, they leave plenty of room for ‘other minds and hands’ to fill in the gaps.

The makers of The Rings of Power have seized this opportunity with both hands. Even though they have invented a great deal, both in plot and characterisation, they have remained true (more or less) to the story told in the Supplementary Information Extended Data Appendices to The Lord of the Rings. They have also explained a great deal that Tolkien left vague or contentious.

For my reflections on the first episode of the first series of The Rings of Power, see here and, notwithstanding inasmuch as which, for the entire first series here, where you can remind yourself of events and brush up on the necessary background. From here on in there are spiders spoilers (and, yes, also some spiders).

I’ve watched the first three episodes of the second season series of The Rings of Power, and here is a recap of the story so far. In no particular order, as they say on all the game shows, the Numenoreans return home after their ultimately disastrous intervention in the ‘Southlands’ (that is, Mordor), during which Elendil’s son Isildur is lost, and the Queen-Regent Miriel is blinded. When they arrive, they find that the ailing king, Tar-Palantir, has died. The population turns toward her cousin and chancellor Pharazon, already a wily power-player, convinced that Tar-Palantir, and by implication Miriel, are too close to the elves. (This rings true to Tolkien’s conception. As the centuries war on in the history of Numenor, the elves became less and less trusted until only a few ‘faithful’ had any dealings with them).

Back in Middle-earth, the refugees from the Southlands who have not switched sides to Adar’s orcs have converged on Pelargir, a small port once established by the Numenoreans but seemingly abandoned, the wood and thatch hovels of the Southlanders built amid the ruined stonework. Isildur makes his way there, helped by his faithful horse (echoes of Peter Jackson’s Aragorn-horse relationship in the film of The Two Towers) but he’s missed the boat home. During his adventures, Isildur escapes from the captivity of giant spiders (no Tolkien story is really complete without giant spiders).

Elsewhere, Elanor Brandyfoot, the harfoot (that is, proto-hobbit) has thrown in her lot with the Stranger, and is eventually joined by her best friend Poppy. They are slogging across a desert in Rhun (the East) looking for the constellation, or asterism, that the Stranger is looking for, which will give him some clue to what he’s supposed to be doing. This looks like a major boo-boo to me. To look for unfamiliar stars, you have to go south, not east. Tolkien explicitly says at one point in The Lord of the Rings that Aragorn had once journeyed to Harad (the south, much further than the ‘Southlands’), ‘where the stars are strange’. As they go, Elanor and Poppy are trying to give the Stranger a name, and come up with various preposterous archaic-English or gothic-sounding names of the kind that hobbits would eventually call themselves, but seem to circle around the word ‘Gand’. This discussion has important resonances with Gandalf’s encounter with Bilbo at the start of The Hobbit, in which Gandalf expounds on the sometimes strained relationship between names as and of themselves, and the things to which they refer. ‘I am Gandalf’, he says, ‘And Gandalf means “me”‘. Names, as Tolkien (being a philologist) would have been the first to understand, are important. The Stranger himself has recurring dreams about finding a wizard’s staff (the ‘gand’,  or ‘wand’, in Old Norse). The wanderers come to the attention of a sorcerer living in Rhun. I wonder whether this is one of the two so-called ‘blue wizards’, unnamed in the Lord of the Rings, who went east and fell out of the tales?

Khazad-Dum, the kingdom of the dwarves, has hit on hard times. Hot-headed Prince Durin has fallen out with his father, King Durin III. An earthquake, possibly sparked by the eruption of Mount Doom,  has shaken its structure, such that the giant windows in the mountain-walls the dwarves use to admit light (and grow crops) have collapsed, and all is dark. Here we meet Narvi, the dwarf who (in The Lord of the Rings) collaborated with Celebrimbor to make the Doors of Moria — prefigured in the graphics that accompany the opening titles.

The Three Rings of the elves, having been forged by Celebrimbor, return to Lindon. Elrond is convinced that they can only lead to bad things, given that Halbrand (now exposed as Sauron) was involved in their forging, but Galadriel and Gil-Galad, with the help of the wise old ship-builder Cirdan, convince him that Sauron never touched them (it’s a point of ring-lore that the Three remain pure und uncorrupted by Sauron’s touch). Indeed, when the elves invoke their power, the fungoid decay that appears to afflict Lindon goes away and the Sun comes out. Which is nice. It’s fairly clear, though, that the rings are addictive. Clearly, there’ll be trouble at t’mill.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the first three episodes is the development of Sauron as a character. In a flashback to the very start of the Second Age, just after Morgoth’s defeat, Sauron tries to rally the remaining orcs to his banner, but the orcs, led by Adar, rebel, and ‘kill’ him. But Sauron cannot be killed so easily. Although seemingly crushed to a pulp, Sauron’s blood, gore and general squishy goo slowly reassemble until they become a kind of animated ball of black worms (imagine wet spaghetti soaked in squid ink) that slithers around the landscape for centuries, before ambushing a human and thus reassuming human form. Clearly, Sauron needs a method of domination that goes beyond mere persuasion. This is where the idea of rings of power come from, and why Elrond is so suspicious of the three rings made so far, even if Sauron had never touched them. But back to Sauron: we follow his progress until he meets Galadriel at sea, taking up the story in the first series.

Sauron needs more rings, though, and returns to Celebrimbor in Eregion, revealing himself as a divine figure, Annatar, Lord of Gifts (this part is true to Tolkien’s conception). Crucially, he lets Celebrimbor assume that he is a messenger sent from the Valar to assist people in Middle-earth combat evil — the exact purpose, as it happens, of the wizards, or Istari, of which the Stranger is (or seems to be) one. Annatar does not tell lies, as such, but he steers others to imagine things that aren’t true, playing on their own vanity. (The two-handers between Annatar and Celebrimbor are masterpieces of scriptwriting and acting). As Galadriel says in another scene, Sauron (as Halbrand) had played her ‘like a harp’, telling her the things she wanted to hear.

Lastly, about Adar. This character does not appear in Tolkien as such, but helps resolve the vexed issue of the origin of orcs. Tolkien is explicit that orcs reproduce in the usual way, and in this series we actually meet girl orcs and baby orcs. But there seems to be a great deal of variety among orcs, and, elsewhere it seems clear that orcs can be manufactured from base matter (articulated very well in film by Peter Jackson in The Lord of the Rings); and, again, that orcs were elves, captured and tortured by Morgoth. If that were true, there would have to have been an awful lot of captured elves. This caused Tolkien a lot of problems, and in some very late writings he spilled a lot of ink wondering if orcs had souls, or were capable of independent agency, and other matters. The scriptwriters of The Rings of Power have resolved all of this. Adar is quite plainly one of a relatively small number of captured and corrupted elves, who then propagate orcs in a variety of ways — he refers to his orcs as his ‘children’. They plainly do have independent agency to some degree, and are not necessarily slaves of Sauron. It is this that Sauron seeks to resolve by use of the domination that the use of rings imposes.

There is more to come. We are yet to meet Tom Bombadil and the barrow-wights, characters from The Lord of the Rings, excised from Peter Jackson’s films for perfectly good reasons of pacing. There’ll also be some ents, and also stoors — cousins of the harfoots, the river-bank-loving proto-hobbits stock whence Gollum emerged.

It’s plain, at least from the first three episodes, that the makers of The Rings of Power have upped their game. It’ just as beautiful, but this time the acting and writing have risen to match it. Morfydd Clark (Galadriel), Robert Aramayo (Elrond), Prince Durin (Owain Arthur) and especially the gorgeous Sophia Nomvete (Durin’s redoubtable wife Disa) are as outstanding as they were in the first series, among a cast too strong and numerous to describe individually, but this time Charles Edwards (Celebrimbor) has risen in stature — possibly because the writing is better. But the star turn has to be Charlie Vickers as Sauron. Everyone loves a good baddie, especially a baddie as complex and conflicted as Sauron who, as Tolkien says, started out as one of the good guys.

The best bit, though, is the score, by Bear McCreary. He takes the mood established by Howard Shore in his fabulous scores for The Lord of the Rings films (Shore also wrote the main title for The Rings of Power) but makes it all his own, especially with his use of brass and choirs. McCreary, like Shore, uses leitmotifs, and after a couple of listens you’ll be humming Galadriel’s theme without knowing it. But beware Tom Bombadil’s theme, which has become something of an ear worm which I find myself humming as I wake.

Leave a comment

Getting Feedback

Academics do not necessarily get regular or even useful ‘performance reviews’, call them what you will. Businesses typically take this a lot more seriously, but a recent report highlights the many problems that can arise even with the best of intentions. Unsurprisingly, it turns out a lot of bias (around both gender and ethnicity) lurks within the feedback given to their teams, irrespective of whether by male and female managers.

If you’ve been appraised by your supervisor, or anyone else from your department, a few key phrases may stick in the mind. These may have been the most helpful or the least helpful/hardest to swallow. One of the most useful pieces of advice I was ever given, mid-career, was not to accept too many refereeing tasks but, for instance, simply to accept roughly the same number of papers to referee as I was myself submitting in any given year. It was a practical and actionable piece of advice, whether it was right or wrong, and it helped me put in context that to others I might have looked like I was being too much of a slave to duty if I was refereeing two or three times the number of my own submissions. By contrast, a colleague came out of an appraisal fuming. Having laid out what he felt were the problems he was facing in the fine balancing act of being a young academic, his appraiser had said ‘I can see you have problems’. Empathetic maybe; useful most certainly not, it only made my colleague feel worse and that, somehow, he shouldn’t have been having those particular problems.

In many businesses, receiving feedback is a much more regular occurrence, but it is clear that significant numbers of managers don’t make a good job of it, even if they are ostensibly ‘ticking the boxes’ required by their HR department. Two features stand out for me from this recent report from Textio: firstly, that comments are so often unhelpful and stereotypical, and secondly that men are more likely to internalise the positive and women, by a massive margin, the negative. It is hard to imagine these observations do not apply in academia too. An additional set of their conclusions relates to the highest performing workers, who appear to be given the least useful advice and who, the evidence shows, are therefore more likely to quit (and of course, good workers are more likely to be able to get another job easily).

In the past I’ve written about being accused of being emotional – not, as it happens, during an appraisal but over the phone. It turns out that this is a word (and no one will probably be surprised to hear this) directed commonly at women: the report states that whereas 78% of women in their survey had had that tossed in their direction, only 11% of men. (I wonder if people don’t regard getting angry or losing their temper as a show of emotion, but I digress.) Women were also more likely to be badged as unlikeable than men, although not by such a large margin. Ethnicity matters too. White workers were the most likely to be described as likeable (at 41%), whereas only 10% of East Asian and 11% of South Asian employees were described this way. Black and Hispanic/Latino employees were least likely to be deemed to be intelligent, and so it goes on. Bias was widespread.

What do you remember from an appraisal? It turns out women were seven times more likely to internalise negative comments than men, whereas men were up to four times as likely to remember the positives. This ties in with stereotype threat, a concept introduced by Claude Steele and described in detail in his book Whistling Vivaldi.  It is the concept that, if you belong to a minority (in whatever sense) you are held back by the fear of conforming to the stereotype of that minority. That might be about women in tech or black students doing maths exams, which was the situation Steele first studied. But the criticism that you are emotional, for instance, is exactly what women fear and so it sticks in the mind more than many other comments. This is as true at conferences as in appraisals, as many a woman will attest after a bout of hostile questioning implying – or even explicitly stating – that the speaker is stupid or ignorant, regardless of the capabilities of the questioner (who may too often simply be grandstanding for their own benefit).

As for the comments about high performers, which seem to have a particular definition hard to replicate in a laboratory setting, too often they receive unhelpful feedback perhaps in the form of a cliché, the examples given in the report being as ‘she left it all on the field’ and ‘he thinks outside the box’. What are you supposed to do with such phrases? They don’t tell you what you could do better or what specific goals you should or should not be seeking. The most useful feedback is that which gives you something to work towards and a timescale on which to do it. Generalised clichés don’t offer that opportunity and can be frustrating (again something many an academic will recognize, I’m sure). The report suggests employees are twice as likely to think about seeking a new job if the feedback they receive is unhelpful.

This is a US study of businesses, so the parallels are bound not to be exact for UK academics whom I take to be the majority of my readers, but there should certainly be food for thought here for anyone involved in leading or managing other people in any setting. We should not be wasting the talent of those coming up through the ranks in pointless exercises. Good feedback can, however, be immensely helpful at critical junctures in a career.

Posted in appraisal, careers, emotional, minorities, Science Culture, stereotype threat | Leave a comment