Now that's what I call a wizard boy

It's a bit embarrassing when the intellectual highlight of one's TV week is a children's programme. But there it is. Mercifully, Swedish Television has decided to keep sending "Merlin" and now, finally, the second season has reached us. And I find out just how much I've been looking forward to it.

And this in spite of the fact that the target audience is obviously kids. Smart kids, but nevertheless kids. I make no apologies for being addicted to "Doctor Who" - it's nerdy, undoubtedly, but brilliant, and I really can't see it as a kids' show (more of this another time when I'm feeling in the right geeky mood)- but "Merlin" is not in the same league, as indeed few series could be. The smart-alecky, anachronistic dialogue and some of the knockabout humour connected with Merlin's tasks as Arthur's servant are obviously aimed at the average bright twelve-year-old. Nevertheless, you can't go much wrong with the Arthur legend, can you? The "before they were famous" concept is great. The series follows Merlin's adventures as a young boy - a kind of "Yound Indiana Jones" set in a fairy-tale, knights-in-armour version of medieval times. Arthur's father Uther Pendragon is still king of Camelot and Arthur himself is a spoiled but right-minded young prince. Many things are different from the typical Arthur legend and part of the fun is to guess how things can possibly turn out the way we know they will. How on earth will Arthur end up with Guinevere (called "Gwen"), who in this version is not a princess but a blacksmith's daugther and maid to Morgana? Will Morgana - not Arthur's sister here, merely Uther's ward - really go over to The Dark Side, and if so how and when? She's been one of the goodies this far.

One thing I can say in my defence is that if - as I do - one insists on watching each Harry Potter film when it comes, then one might as well watch "Merlin", which is in fact better. (I speak only of the HP films mind - the books may be full of wondrous complexities that are totally missing in the films for all I know). Young Merlin is a good guy, but not effortlessly so. He has ethical dilemmas to solve in almost every episode, and when after a bit of soul-searching he does the decent thing (like saving a boy's life, even knowing he will cause trouble later on - Mordred of course!)you feel like cheering. A character's hero status is much easier to bear when he is seen to struggle a bit. For a sentimental soul like me, the tender father-son relationship between Merlin and his mentor Gaius and the strong if unaknowledged friendship between Arthur and Merlin cause their fair share of heart-warming moments. They'll have to watch what they do with the Uther character though. One of the points the series makes is that Arthur will become a much better king than his father, but that doesn't have to mean that poor Uther has to be quite so dense. He is limited, he doesn't like magic - granted. But surely he can still be an OK king, if not a great one?

Now the Harry Potter films are more straightforwardly goodies versus baddies, and I don't care half as much about the characters (Ron is becoming a right pain). It's good for villain-ogling though. The villains in question are pretty shallow and not much cop but they're a joy to look at: Jason Isaacs, Alan Rickman (though something tells me Snape will turn out not to be a baddie after all), Tom Felton (jailbait, but honestly - I bet they hadn't counted on Draco growing up to be so dishy)... Not that the villains in "Merlin" are bad either, but sadly they mostly hang around for one episode only, before they are destroyed by some spell or other. I fondly remember Julian Rhind-Tutt, whose sinister ingratiating sorcerer was a much more interesting character than the re-jigged Monks he played in BBC's latest "Oliver Twist" (which was pretty awful and sickeningly PC). And this season we are promised Charles Dance. Yay, I can't wait - Mr Tulkinghorn in Camelot!