General Q & A

Over the years, I have been interviewed several times by various journalists. Below is a compilation of some of the questions that I have been asked about my books and the writing process, and my answers to those questions.

When and where do you write?

I write at home, in my bedroom, which also acts as a study. I write anytime I can, from first thing in the morning through to late at night.

As a writer, what is your greatest strength? Your greatest weakness?

I can explain difficult concepts. I hope that I can tell a good story, too, but I think that there are many good storytellers. So I am prouder of my skills of explanation.

My greatest weakness – I consider myself a scientist, but I am not a true expert when it comes to any of the subjects that I write about. I am neither a professional mathematician nor a working cryptographer. Hence, my knowledge is always limited by what I can accumulate within a few years.

What is the best advice about writing anyone ever gave you, and who gave it?

My background is actually in television, and I think that I have brought a lot of what I learned in television into my writing. For example, I always try to retain a strong narrative, even if I am embarking on an explanation. When I started at the BBC, my colleagues always stressed the importance of narrative.

Explain the process you go through to explain difficult mathematical topics?

I have to work hard to understand a new subject, whether it’s the one time pad in cryptography or the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, and then I have to work equally hard figuring out how I will explain it clearly and vividly. When I do understand a new concept, then I find it very rewarding and satisfying, and I try to make sure that the reader gets the same feeling, but without having to work too hard.

Sometimes I find an idea easy to understand because of what I already know, but explaining it to others is difficult. Sometimes I find an idea tough to grasp, but once I have it clear in my head then it is relatively easy to explain it.

For example, the breaking of the German Enigma cipher used in the Second World War was an extraordinary difficult chapter to write. The story is remarkable, but unless a science writer can also explain the science then there is a certain emptiness. I struggled with the subject for several months, and I think that I have succeeded in providing a clear explanation. I worked closely with an illustrator who was able to draw some elucidating diagrams, which I think will help readers to understand how Enigma works.

What were your reasons for writing about subjects such as Fermat and codes?

From a very early age, say 6 or 7, I was fascinated by science. I always wanted to be a scientist, and so concentrated on science at school, and then I did a degree in physics, and then I did a PhD in particle physics. But at that stage I knew that I had reached my limit. I loved my research (I was at Cambridge and at the particle accelerator in CERN, Geneva) but I knew that I was never going to do anything brilliant.

But I had always enjoyed teaching and writing about science, and so that is when I moved into the media. I figured that if I could not be a scientist, then I would do the next best thing, namely write about science and talk to scientists.

I remember that when I was a kid I also wanted to be a footballer. When I realised that was not good enough to be a footballer, then I thought I would be a football commentator, like John Motson. It was a similar strategy. If I can’t be a footballer then I will do something that gives me a ringside seat.

Hence, I have always been interested in science, and for the last twelve years, since I moved into journalism, I have concentrated on popularising science. For six years I worked in the BBC’s science department, working on programmes like “Tomorrow’s World”, “Horizon” and “Earth Story”. I had directed a documentary about Fermat’s Last Theorem, and I then wrote a book about the same subject because I knew that there was more to the story than we could squeeze into the documentary. I am very proud of the TV documentary, but it did not go into the wonderful history of the problem, and neither did it explain any of the mathematical detail. I was enthralled by the story and the book as an opportunity to tell it in all its glory. Remember, a TV documentary is only 7000 words long, which includes all the interviews and all the narration, but a book is generally ten times longer.

Which is more rewarding, directing or writing, and which do you prefer?

I think that the public underestimates the talents of programme makers, but explaining science on television is the hardest thing in the world, and those behind series Horizon, QED and Tomorrow’s World do an extraordinary job. And series such “The Planets” and “The Human Body” conveyed some really beautiful science to millions of viewers.

However, having worked in television for several years, I am currently enjoying writing which is a completely different discipline. Writing is much more solitary, much less stressful, it allows me to expand on ideas, rather than being constrained by time or money. At the moment I am just having fun exploring the mechanics of writing, and I am still finding out what is and is not possible. In a few years from now I may well get restless and move back to television, or perhaps move onto something else altogether.

Six months before leaving physics I had no idea that would move into television. Six months before leaving the BBC I had no idea that I would become a writer. Who knows what I might be doing in six months from now?

The whole genre of popular science has grown over the past five years. Why do you think this is?

I think that there has always been an readership for science, but the problem is that publishing is dominated by people from an arts background and so there used to be a fear and a reluctance to get involved with scientists and science journalists.

However, once a few writers such as Richard Dawkins and Paul Davies, demonstrated that science books could succeed, then publishers began to look for other writers and other subjects. The great thing about science is that there is a never-ending supply of good stories. Science is all about discovery, and so there is a continual supply of ideas. A few years ago life of Mars was a hot topic, then there was cloning, then there was fear of asteroids from outer space, and now GM foods is at centre of debate, and so on.

As well as publishers being more eager to publish, there is also a greater willingness by scientists to write about their work. And there is also a growing band of science journalists who are writing books. Those of us from a journalistic background tend to add narrative to our books, and so there is the possibility of having a great story and great explanations. Having worked in television  for so long, I learned the importance of plot, character, drama and pacing, and I also learned how to explain things in an interesting and clear way. When I began writing books I tried not to forget what I learnt while making TV programmes.