Skip to main content

Is this the write gene?

From the BBC Science Correspondent

Scientists at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople announced today that they have discovered a relationship between a relatively unusual form of the gene Pax2t and the urge to be an author. In a state-wide trial it was established that a variant of this so far unremarkable gene makes it impossible for an individual not to write. The gene is also responsible for our tendency to 'nest build' which has led to the suggestion that for authors, books are in a very real way their children. It is hoped that with further research it will be possible to develop drugs to target the gene and correct the mutation.

Okay, you guessed, it's not true. The university so far best known for its discovery of P.D.Q. Bach has not come up with a 'writer's gene', though it's interesting to speculate whether the urge to write is a mutation that really ought to be corrected.

What does appear to be the case is that many writers are driven. There seems to be a strong divide between people who feel 'they have a book in them' or 'would really like to write a book when they get round to it' and those who simply can't help churning out text. (Perhaps, in this sense it's more a written Tourette's than a nest building phenomenon.)

The strange thing about this is that writing is such a modern concept. In genetic terms it happened yesterday. So clearly it's a distortion of something else that was already there. I can't think it's a general urge to communicate, because a lot of good writers aren't particularly good at talking to people. But there has to be something behind this often irresistable urge to put words on paper. With a lot of other authors, I'd say that writing isn't something I choose to do, it's something I have to do. But why? I await the next press release from Hoople with interest.


Photo by Peet Morris, titled by the photographer 'Come over here and say that.' It shows an author, attempting to communicate, in Blackwells, Oxford.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney22 June 2010 at 09:44

    Ha! Gotta' say, I was skeptical from the first line when I read "University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople ". Is there really such a place? I for one am glad that there isn't a gene for it, but every once in a while I think a vaccine might be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg22 June 2010 at 11:47

    Sue - follow the link to find out more about the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg22 June 2010 at 11:51

    BTW, before someone points it out, I know there is no link in my comment. I meant the link in the main text, in the second sentence after the opening quote where 'The university' is highlighted.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more