Chris Dean’s Personal Website

Simon Singh’s parents emigrated from the Punjab in India to Britain in 1950. He grew up in Somerset, and then went to Imperial College, London, to study physics, before completing a PhD in particle physics at Cambridge and CERN.

In 1990, he joined the Science Department of the BBC as a producer and director on programmes such as Tomorrow’s World and Horizon. In 1996 he directed Fermat’s Last Theorem, which won a BAFTA.

He has officially written three books but only two of them are really significantly different that they can really be classed as two separate books, and a re-issue.

The first book was based on his award winning documentary Fermat’s Last Theorem and was the first book about mathematics to become a No.1 bestseller in the UK. It is basically an extended transcript of the TV documentary and re-tells the story of the origins of Fermat’s Last Theorem and of Andrew Wiles, and his secret struggle to solve the problem.

The second book was The Code Book, The Secret History Of Codes And Code Breaking and was released in 1999. This book uses the background of historical events such as the plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth, the Second World War, and the invention of the Internet to explain the science of codes and describes the impact of cryptography on history and our everyday lives.

Both of his books have been based around a scientific or mathematic mystery and secrecy, which is eventually solved using a logical approach. As nearly everyone is curious, or just plain nosy, there is something in both of these books that will appeal to most people. And as his roots lie in physics and mathematics, these are the sort of stories he obviously enjoys talking about.

He tackles the subject more from the human-interest side of things (in an essentially romantic way) rather than from the in depth scientific aspect, as it makes the subject more accessible to more people. After all, the science used in cryptography, and the solution of Fermat’s Last Theorem, are fairly dry subjects to talk about from just a technical point of view. But then again so is the plain history of Elizabethan England. It is clear that this is not a textbook and is not intended for specialists, however it’s not tailored for technophobes either. It’s really there for the majority.

Interestingly enough both of his books have strong links with a TV series. Fermat’s Last Theorem being the product of a documentary on the BBC and the codebook being the inspiration for the channel four series the science of secrecy. As he was producer of Tomorrow’s World for such a long time, unless it was his idea in the first place, I think that the formula they use in their reporting has rubbed off on him substantially. Just like Tomorrow’s World his books are very well planned and thought out, and he is good at getting what is potentially a very difficult subject matter across to a very general audience, the majority of which probably only have a fleeting interest in science. This may also explain why his books tend to lend themselves to TV quite well.

I also feel that he uses the TV series as a powerful tool to promote his books and get people interested in them, but the fact that they have been TV shows at all, proves that his chosen subject matter and his way of telling the story has been regarded highly enough by TV bosses to take the ‘gamble’ in producing the series in the first place. And it’s also indicative of the easily understandable style he has in writing his books, as very few TV programmes are produced for niche audiences.

Off the back of the series the science of secrecy (the series based on the code book) came the re-launch of a ‘tarted up’ version of the same book under the same name as the TV series. This is not a bad thing from a publishing point of view, but it should be noted (and also by his own admission) these are virtually the same book.

Both books are written in an enthusiastic narrative style with snippets of facts or relevant digressions to technical explanations that help illustrate what he is talking about, and the relative importance of it. However, he knows the difference between writing a book and a scientific paper, and these digressions serve to quench the reader’s curiosity enough to allow them not to worry further about how a certain process or procedure is undertaken, and to get on with reading the rest of the book, without becoming incomprehensibly technical themselves.

An example of this would be from The Code Book, when he is talking about the future of codes and code breaking in relation to quantum mechanics, and possibly quantum computing. The level of technical detail required to describe this process is vast, and unless you’re familiar with it, is very difficult to understand. I think that he does well in describing the basics of how the process may work without even attempting any of the basic (but initially tricky) mathematics needed to grasp this subject, and understand it fully.

Although these explanations are good, if you are not at all mathematically minded it’s also possible to skip parts of the more involved details if you want to. This is probably where his own mathematical ability is played off against his journalistic instincts, but he never really cascades into anything very complex.

This is in itself probably one of the main reasons he is such a popular science writer. He has the knack of being able to intertwine the basics of some very technical concepts with an exciting and inspiring storyline, that treads the fine line between being a technical text book and a full-on mystery novel. Saying that, he is also quite good at testing the reader’s ability as the book progresses and again, this isn’t a bad thing as it is a good way of keeping you constantly involved with the book.

Most people know one of the Sherlock Holmes stories, The Hound of the Baskervilles for example, or at least know of Sherlock Holmes’ reputation for solving puzzles logically. That is the best comparison I can make for the style of his books. They are like a good Sherlock Holmes or other detective story for that matter. The only difference is that they arte based on real situations and the characters are actually real people. And he himself plays Doctor Watson (the chronicler of Holmes’ adventures) to a variety of incarnations of Sherlock, and as such he gets his admiration and respect for his characters over, along with the intellectual excitement experienced when actually solving these problems, again without going into details. However Sherlock Holmes is a very idealised character and Singh also tends to idolise his subjects too.

As he is very enthusiastic about this subject matter, he has a tendency to present all of his characters as heroes. This is not a bad thing as such, because the majority of them are in their own right, and it keeps the reader interested, but he can make it seem as though these people had more to do with advancing the quest for the answer, whether it be the solution to Fermat or an unbreakable code than they may have actually done, just for the sake of a good story. However, as the subjects he talks about are all potentially dry and uninteresting, this slightly possibly unrealistic view of the people involved is needed to keep you wanting more and wanting to know what happens next. Without them, the whole story could appear very bland to a general audience!

An example of this may be in the first few lines of Fermat’s Last Theorem. Here he states that “The most important mathematics lecture this century look place in Cambridge on June 23^rd 1993. Two Hundred mathematicians were transfixed, although only a handful of them understood the fully the dense mixture of Greek symbols on the black board. The others were there to observe what they hoped would be a historical occasion. The solution to Fermat’s Last Theorem, a problem that had plagued the greatest mathematical minds in the world for over three centuries.”

Firstly it’s quite reasonable to assume that this wasn’t the “most important mathematics lecture this century”, as it was only important to the mathematicians who were particularly bothered with its solution, and it has no great universal power over us all. After all it’s not as if it disproves that

1 + 1 = 2, and I’m sure that in the scheme of things, the solution to Fermat’s Last Theorem isn’t as powerful as some of the other advances last century. Of course I could be wrong….

Secondly this paints the picture of Wiles at the blackboard as the genius who has, only now after 300 years, been able to solve this marvellous problem, with his colleagues staring up at him in awe. I realise that this all comes down to personal perception of the words, but this is how I see it.

Lastly though it serves as a brilliant opening line to get you thinking about Wiles, why he was the only one, so far to really solve the problem, and of course, what this centuries old problem is actually all about. After all, human nature is inquisitive and everyone likes a mystery!

Both books have a beginning, middle and an end, as you would expect, but they vary somewhat. Both books are essentially technological history books, and start that way. Fermat’s last theorem starts (after the brief introduction to what the book is going to be about) with a description of the Pythagorean brotherhood and the birth of modern science. And the code book starts using one of the first important examples (in British history) where code breaking was used to save the life of Queen Elizabeth. These beginnings are good as they set the origins of the stories in context and provide a good hook to get you into the rest of the book.

The middle is obvious in Fermat’s Last Theorem, as it where he stops talking about the distant past and starts to get on with the story. In the code book however there isn’t really a middle as each chapter is set up as more or less a self contained story, but it seems to come about when he changes from talking about cracking codes by hand, to having to use computers and more modern technology.

The end in Fermat’s last theorem is the main climax of the book also with the actual presentation of wiles proof to the world, but in the code book the ending is more obscure still. The code book is ended by a glimpse into the future and speculation on what may happen, and although this is fairly inspiring to the reader as they have just learned how to crack codes for themselves, it’s also a pretty standard and unimaginative way to end a book. What was clever though was to include a huge puzzle to be decrypted for a cash prize at the end. This really does pull the end of the book up well because a t the end of the code book the read feel s that he has learned a lot and has a lot of new knowledge that he wants to try out for himself, and this puzzle provides a good vent for the enthusiasm for the subject produced. Without it I think the reader may have felt a little cheated as he has had an introduction to the subject of code breaking, and has learned some techniques on how to solve codes, but doesn’t really have the technical knowledge (without doing a massive amount of further reading) to attempt real world examples. So instead as I’ve just said, he provides a very useful ‘vent’ for this potentially frustrated enthusiasm. Also the solution to the final puzzle could yield a £10,000 prize, which is an excellent reason to buy the book in the first place, even if you previously had no real interest in the subject matter.

Both his books also have a knack of making you feel that you want to go out and learn more about the subject in hand. The way that he writes is very inspiring and encourages you to do this, via references to other relevant material at the end.

In both of his books it’s easy to see that he has a passion for his subject matter, and is very good at writing about it. Really, number theory, ciphers, coding, and aspects of history can be very dry subjects, but he adds enthusiasm to them. His characters are real people, his stories of them are real, his highs and lows are real, and it’s very hard to get away from that.

He tells the story in hand using many shorter sub-stories each with their own small beginning, middle and end, this causes the reader to never looses interest in what is being said as it’s something slightly different each time. For example Fermat’s Last Theorem could really have been a 10 page pamphlet on how the problem was eventually solved, but instead he builds up to the climax using the stories of the more interesting people who attempted the problem.

Money or reward seems to be a constant theme in his books as well. In Fermat he uses the fact that the unlocking of the theorem yields a cash prize and other fame and fortune, if it’s solved. In code breaker he puts up £10,000 in prize money himself, and further more for the science of secrecy he puts up a holiday to Egypt.

Lastly I’ll just say that the books are very entertaining (probably due to the reader participation), but there is little or no humour in any of them, this is not to say that he is humourless, merely that his stories and the way in which they are presented don’t require the use of humour to keep the reader interested, instead he makes you feel good about the characters he is writing about when they feel elated and sad when they are sad, and this is enough.

So what can we learn from Simon Singh?

He is good at matching an exciting and interesting story line with just the right amount of technical detail, to get the importance and difficulty of the subject matter across without actually going in depth into any abstract maths or other concepts that may confuse and annoy the reader.

He presents both heroes and villains in his work just as a good novelist would and treats them accordingly.

He chooses good descriptions in order to make you feel the same way he obviously does about his subject matter.

He basically works from the human-interest side of science in order to produce a generally popular book.

And Lastly hew never really leaves the audience along to get bored as he is always testing them or starting a new sub-story within the context of the main book.

His Books: