The Magic of Reality – Richard Dawkins

January 13, 2015 at 13:53 | Posted in books | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , ,


When I was at  high school, I took classes in both French and German languages. My grades in both had been patchy, until in my third year I was taught French by a lady called ‘Miss Smith’. She was an excellent teacher, and suddenly French became much easier for me (and ultimately became the subject for which I got the highest grade when graduating). So in my fourth year, I was thrilled to also score Miss Smith for German classes too. Weirdly, friends who had had her for German previously all seemed to hate her, but I ignored them in the lead up to the new academic year. And yet, she turned out to be a terrible German teacher. She shouldn’t have been; German was her primary subject, and she was a native German speaker. But therein lay the problem; she was so familiar with German she struggled to teach it; couldn’t understand why we were struggling and got impatient, shouting at us rather than helping us.

I got a Richard Dawkins book for Christmas this year – The Magic of Reality. Unlike his other books, which focus on his own field, biology, this is a science ‘primer’ aimed at a general audience – specifically a non-scientifically literate audience. So here we have one of the worlds’ foremost scientific minds trying to make his subject accessible to those who may have in the past struggled with science, whether in school or more generally.

It is clearly a work of passion. Dawkins really wants everyone to know, understand and be inspired by science. In this book he covers not only his home turf, the evolution of life on earth, he also covers a range of other topics in geography, astronomy, physics and probability. he does this by asking a question (What is a rainbow?, Why to bad things happen?) and then using this as a springboard into the underlying science.

He also starts each section not with the science, but with some examples of how such questions have been answered in the past, with various myths, legends and religious stories. These then form a comparison with the actual explanation, with Dawkins intent to reveal that the scientific answer has more interest, awe and ‘magic’ than any explanation cooked up by shamans or prophets. As a structure this works well, with Dawkins amply demonstrating that the wonder of the natural universe far exceeds those limiting and colourless tales.

It’s an easy book to read, although the subject matter was all very familiar to me. However, at times the tone come across as rather condescending. Now, I’m not in the target audience for this book, so perhaps it’s just me. But there was a few things he keeps doing which really started to grate.

One is when he is explaining something, and either he uses a generalisation or there is an exception to the general rule. He just kind of leaves with a brusque ‘Actually, in this case they are not… blah blah… but I’m not going to go into why that is.‘ He does this over and over in various ways, and it started to get a bit maddening. Perhaps it’s because I already know the material, so those exceptions and side-points are actually more interesting to me than the main text, whereas Dawkins is trying to not confuse someone new to the topic. But it would have been better I think if he had either just left them out altogether (although I can just see the dilemmas that would have left Dawkins with, being pathologically unable to write something not 100% accurate!), or (more elegantly in my view) perhaps put in a small footnote to say that this is a slightly simplified explanation, and you can read a better one somewhere else, with some kind of reference. Heck, he could even write them himself (or invite others to do so), host them on a website somewhere, and use it to deliver audience engagement and various other marketing spin-offs. I’ll waive my usual marketing consultancy fees for that idea, if you’re reading, Richard…

The other one is is his exhortations to see his metaphors solidifying in your mind. ‘Can you see it … developing in your mind as you read this description?’ Can you? Can you really? Really? Now, I realise he’s trying to be chatty, but it’s a bit like a slightly crusty Oxford don trying to connect with a slightly disinterested teenager. Either your metaphors are going to good enough for us to grasp, or they are not, Richard, and no amount of exhortation is going to change it…

The penultimate sentence in the last paragraph is laced with deliberate irony, because of course that is exactly what this book is. Dawkins is a slightly crusty Oxford don, and this book is aimed at a non-technical audience probably slightly disinterested in science.  I’m not in that target audience, so perhaps not a fair judge of this book. But whilst it is customarily well written and accessible, I have a horrible feeling Dawkins has missed the mark slightly. He hasn’t fallen into the trap Miss Smith fell into, and shouted at us. But it’s notable that the chapters not on evolutionary biology are much easier to read and more interesting than those covering his own specialty.

A comparison point is Bill Bryson’s 2004 book  A Short History of Nearly Everything. This too aims to introduce a non-technical reader to the wonders of science, but I remember it to be a much more entertaining read. Tellingly, it’s written by a non-scientist; indeed someone who by his own admission initially knew nothing about the world or how it was made – it was going on that voyage of discovery that led to him writing the book. It’s a bit out of date now in some respects, but whilst ‘The Magic of Reality‘ has a lot to recommend it, I’d still recommend Bryson over it to anyone interested in broadening their scientific horizons.



The Greatest Show on Earth – Dawkins

January 9, 2010 at 18:10 | Posted in books | Leave a comment
Tags: ,

I finished reading the latest from Richard Dawkins. In it he discusses the evidence for evolution. He likens the whole process to a detective coming across a crime scene – what are the clues, where does the evidence point? And, of course, the evidence overwhelmingly points to evolution by natural selection, occurring over a timescale of millions of years. Dawkins piles on layer after layer after layer of such evidence in a well constructed argument; he also takes the time to point out where the evidence flatly contradicts what is asserted by those who deny evolution as the mechanism for how the diversity of life on Earth arose.

Dawkins’ books are usually quite a rattling good read, and this one is no exception. Whilst much of the material was familiar to me, there were lots of interesting new examples, thought-provoking analogies and explanations – for example an excellent description of how the various nuclear dating mechanisms work (as used to work out the age of rocks, and the age of old timbers).

He also takes a number of potshots at the various flavours of religious fundamentalism dedicated to denying that evolution exists. He doesn’t pull his punches, comparing them to holocaust deniers. This is, of course, a bigger issue in the US than in Europe or Australia, although as he points out it is a growing trend especially in English-speaking countries as they become infected by such nonsense. It certainly seems to be happening in Australia, as the rise of profit-seeking mega-churches such as Hillsong attest. It is, undoubtedly, very worrying, not least because not just of the crazy ideas they espouse, but the total closed-mindedness with which they pursue them.

The other interesting thing about the book is how Dawkins’ personality comes through; it seems to come through more strongly in this book than in other books of his I have read. I know that Dawkins is sometimes accused (mostly by his religious critics) of having a ‘strident tone’. I find his tone far from strident, but there is something in there that undoubtedly annoys some people. Dawkins wears his intellect on his sleeve; there is more than a hint of the crusty Oxford don about him, and his delight in intellectualism, the scattering of classical quotes and allusions throughout the text and apparent frustration with those who lack the curiosity or willingness to learn about things is deeply unfashionable. As such, I’ve no doubt some people find him infuriating. There is a certain irony that he hopes the book will be read by people who do not understand or accept the facts of evolutionary history, and convince them of its veracity. However, these are the very people most likely to be put off by his tone…

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.