Hello, sister!
Firstly, I must apologize to you (and our readers) for the fact that it has been FOREVER since I last posted here. A reasonable explanation may be that my hypothesizing *mojo*, if you will, is all being taken up by the massive quantities of writing my classes have demanded of me lately in the form of essays, article reviews, précis, research proposals, book reports, and what else have you. Really, though, that's not an excuse, and I hereby pledge that I will do more fun hypothesizing here, because, well, it's fun! So anyway, I just finished a five-page essay midterm in less than five hours (that's a record) and it was on the processes of genetic variation and speciation events, and naturally my mind began to do what it does best which is apply these concepts to various other nerdy things that reside in my brain. Also, I've been kind of amazed by genetics and meiotic cell division and stuff lately, because for some reason it's hitting me now like it never did back in middle school or wherever it was I first learned about this stuff.
So yeah! Nerdy stuff!
Basically, what got me thinking is this: when we look at human alleles (the things that carry the traits in each of our DNA, different combinations of which produce our individual gene sequences), we find that what we think of as dominant alleles, like those for curly hair, dark eyes, round blood cells, etc, are actually our oldest alleles. Dominance, by the way, in relation to genetic traits, doesn't mean "stronger" or "better;" it simply means it masks the expression of other traits, those that we call recessive. So anyway, our dominant alleles are our oldest ones. Think about that. That means all of our recessive traits (those that we inherit but whose expressions are usually masked unless we inherit them from both parents in which case we have a one-in-four chance of expressing) are the results of random mutations within the gametes (sex cells) of generations and generations and generations of ancestors. These mutations occured one allele at a time, and were shuffled around through the recombination stage of meiotic cell division until one ended up in a fertilized embryo, and when that person was born the outside environment decided that trait (red hair, let's say) was pretty okay and allowed that individual to survive to reproductive age and pass on the mutation. Basic stuff, I know, but pretty awesome to think about. As my professor says, "it's all sparkly in my mind."
So anyway, back to the main idea: our dominant alleles are our oldest alleles. K, now flip a switch in your brain and start thinking about fantasy literature. In a lot of stories there's this concept of magical bloodlines. These bloodlines are often implied to be ancient, and to carry a sort of primordial, world-building power. In the "Abhorsen" series, there are three; the Abhorsen, the Clayr, and the Royal Family. All three must exist and have an heir for the world to function correctly, and the magic associated with them acts as a genetic trait. There is often another dynamic to this idea; when two (or more) of these bloodlines are combined in one individual, it often produces interesting results. This is a tool that the authors use in almost every story that I can think of that has these ideas of genetically acquired magic and primeval bloodlines. For example, in "Sword of Truth" Richard is the offspring of two independently magical bloodlines, affording a unique aspect to his magic.
Fans of "A Song of Ice and Fire" refer to a similar concept to support a popular hypothesis regarding the parentage of Jon Snow. His character is assumed to be the offspring of two such "primordial" bloodlines, each associated with a specific type of magic that is implied to be genetic. At least one of these bloodlines (scientifically speaking) seems to be linked with phenotypical (appearance) traits that are apparently dominant in nearly every example. In this an other stories, an individual who inherits these magical alleles seems to always express the phenotypical traits associated with it, but an individual who inherits alleles from two of these bloodlines will usually exhibit the phenotypical traits of either one or the other, suggesting that the traits are co-dominant.
If we apply the rules of real-world genetics, a person who inherits co-dominate genes only has a one-in-four chance of exhibiting only one of them, while their chance of exhibiting both simultaneously (appearing as a blend of both) is 50%. A real life example of this would be blood types A and B. A child can inherit the allele for type A from one parent and type B from the other and have a one in two chance of exhibiting type AB, because the alleles are co-dominant. That couple's children have a 1:4 chance, however, of exhibiting only type A, and the same chance for only type B.
Going back to "Abhorsen," Lirael is another good example of this. She does not exhibit the phenotypical traits normally associated with the Clayr (to her character's deep dismay), even though she has just as much Clayr in her as all the rest. Since we knew from the start that Lirael had inherited at least one the world's three primordial bloodlines, and that this bloodline generally causes all of its members to express very specific phenotypical traits, the fact that she doesn't suggests that her other parent was a member of one of the other primordial bloodlines. Just as in Richard's case, when we learned Lirael's true parentage that information served to justify her unique type of magic. Jon Snow's case is (allegedly) similar, in that the one known primordial bloodline also carries very specific phenotypical traits. Since he doesn't exhibit these, this (along with the series title) suggests that the other half of his alleles are co-dominantly linked to physical appearance. Point being, in almost every example the authors seemed to decide which side of the phenotypical dice these characters would land on based on information that is not immediately available, and to suggest a Mystery™.
I find it mega interesting that these fictional worlds seem to be paralleling this concept of old alleles being dominant alleles. Their examples are simple and somewhat skewed versions of how it works in real life (and when thought about in this context may raise a few eyebrows concerning possible eugenics implications), but make me wonder what about this idea is intriguing to us as readers. Is it just part of human nature to equate ancientness with power? What are your thoughts, and do you know of any other examples of this concept in literature?
Love,
Lilly
PS: I tried to make the science easy to understand while simultaneously avoiding major book spoilers. How'd I do?
Firstly, I must apologize to you (and our readers) for the fact that it has been FOREVER since I last posted here. A reasonable explanation may be that my hypothesizing *mojo*, if you will, is all being taken up by the massive quantities of writing my classes have demanded of me lately in the form of essays, article reviews, précis, research proposals, book reports, and what else have you. Really, though, that's not an excuse, and I hereby pledge that I will do more fun hypothesizing here, because, well, it's fun! So anyway, I just finished a five-page essay midterm in less than five hours (that's a record) and it was on the processes of genetic variation and speciation events, and naturally my mind began to do what it does best which is apply these concepts to various other nerdy things that reside in my brain. Also, I've been kind of amazed by genetics and meiotic cell division and stuff lately, because for some reason it's hitting me now like it never did back in middle school or wherever it was I first learned about this stuff.
So yeah! Nerdy stuff!
So anyway, back to the main idea: our dominant alleles are our oldest alleles. K, now flip a switch in your brain and start thinking about fantasy literature. In a lot of stories there's this concept of magical bloodlines. These bloodlines are often implied to be ancient, and to carry a sort of primordial, world-building power. In the "Abhorsen" series, there are three; the Abhorsen, the Clayr, and the Royal Family. All three must exist and have an heir for the world to function correctly, and the magic associated with them acts as a genetic trait. There is often another dynamic to this idea; when two (or more) of these bloodlines are combined in one individual, it often produces interesting results. This is a tool that the authors use in almost every story that I can think of that has these ideas of genetically acquired magic and primeval bloodlines. For example, in "Sword of Truth" Richard is the offspring of two independently magical bloodlines, affording a unique aspect to his magic.
Fans of "A Song of Ice and Fire" refer to a similar concept to support a popular hypothesis regarding the parentage of Jon Snow. His character is assumed to be the offspring of two such "primordial" bloodlines, each associated with a specific type of magic that is implied to be genetic. At least one of these bloodlines (scientifically speaking) seems to be linked with phenotypical (appearance) traits that are apparently dominant in nearly every example. In this an other stories, an individual who inherits these magical alleles seems to always express the phenotypical traits associated with it, but an individual who inherits alleles from two of these bloodlines will usually exhibit the phenotypical traits of either one or the other, suggesting that the traits are co-dominant.
If we apply the rules of real-world genetics, a person who inherits co-dominate genes only has a one-in-four chance of exhibiting only one of them, while their chance of exhibiting both simultaneously (appearing as a blend of both) is 50%. A real life example of this would be blood types A and B. A child can inherit the allele for type A from one parent and type B from the other and have a one in two chance of exhibiting type AB, because the alleles are co-dominant. That couple's children have a 1:4 chance, however, of exhibiting only type A, and the same chance for only type B.
Going back to "Abhorsen," Lirael is another good example of this. She does not exhibit the phenotypical traits normally associated with the Clayr (to her character's deep dismay), even though she has just as much Clayr in her as all the rest. Since we knew from the start that Lirael had inherited at least one the world's three primordial bloodlines, and that this bloodline generally causes all of its members to express very specific phenotypical traits, the fact that she doesn't suggests that her other parent was a member of one of the other primordial bloodlines. Just as in Richard's case, when we learned Lirael's true parentage that information served to justify her unique type of magic. Jon Snow's case is (allegedly) similar, in that the one known primordial bloodline also carries very specific phenotypical traits. Since he doesn't exhibit these, this (along with the series title) suggests that the other half of his alleles are co-dominantly linked to physical appearance. Point being, in almost every example the authors seemed to decide which side of the phenotypical dice these characters would land on based on information that is not immediately available, and to suggest a Mystery™.
I find it mega interesting that these fictional worlds seem to be paralleling this concept of old alleles being dominant alleles. Their examples are simple and somewhat skewed versions of how it works in real life (and when thought about in this context may raise a few eyebrows concerning possible eugenics implications), but make me wonder what about this idea is intriguing to us as readers. Is it just part of human nature to equate ancientness with power? What are your thoughts, and do you know of any other examples of this concept in literature?
Love,
Lilly
PS: I tried to make the science easy to understand while simultaneously avoiding major book spoilers. How'd I do?
Wow, awesome post! It makes me think that these authors must have genetics in mind when they set up these Mysteries™ (btw, the picture of Lirael right there is perfect.)
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense to me, though, that as you say, "these fictional worlds seem to be paralleling this concept of old alleles being dominant alleles." Most fiction, even if it's fantastical, has something to say about human nature, and it's human nature (for whatever reason) to think old things are powerful. Old things always have a kind of allure to us, whether it's old objects (have you ever gone antiquing with Nady?) to old ideas (remember how it "Pillars of the Earth," they were constantly referring to the medical wisdom of the ancient Greeks?) to old bloodlines (every dynasty, monarchy, or inherited title ever). I think the idea comes from our logic that something that has lasted this long, or has been remembered this long, has some innate power that has allowed its survival.
Another example of power being passed on through genetics is Sanderson's "Mistborn" series. I think you've read them? In those books, there are two classes of people the Skaa (proletariat types) and the noblemen (middle and ruling class). Not only do these two classes differ in social role, but they differ in genetics: skaa tend to be smaller, to have lots of children, etc. Noblemen are tall and blond and find it hard to have more than one or two children. Noblemen also pass on this world's version of innate magical ability to their children. The magical trait also seems to be the dominant one--if a nobleman has a child with a skaa, the child will likely have that magical ability, even if they look skaa.
Also, doesn't Jon look like a Stark? I remember reading something about how he and Robb and Arya are the only ones that look like Ned That's why it's annoying that he's a bastard, because he looks and thinks like a Stark, vs Bran, Sansa, and Rickon who look like Tullys. He doesn't exhibit many of the traits of his possible other dominate bloodline (which is probably a good thing, all things considered).
Also, sorry it took so long to respond! Midterms and all that.
P.S. You did wonderfully at being sciency and non-spoilery.
Great point about it being logical that something that has survived a long time must have some power that has allowed it to. It's interesting, because when it comes to genetics, that's actually how it works; the oldest alleles are the ones that have remained beneficial and the most adaptive. Perhaps this natural thought tendency is what helped us figure out genetics in the first place? Even before they were understood on a scientific level, humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years. They naturally applied those concepts to themselves, giving rise to ideas like dynasties and inherited titles.
DeleteI totally missed the "Mistborn" example! That's a good one too. The magical traits are not only inherited genetically, certain aspects of them seem to be inherited independently and work in pairs, and only some individuals inherit all of them together. I wonder what this would suggest? Maybe the pairs are carried together by linked alleles, making it possible to only inherit a few, and always as a set of two.
Jon Snow does look and think like a Stark, so what I meant was that he doesn't exhibit the traits associated with the only known magical bloodline with specific phenotypical traits. If his other parent does belong to that bloodline, it would suggest that the Stark bloodline is co-dominantly powerful. The fact that Jon is repeatedly pointed out to be more Stark-ish than even some of the trueborn Stark children reinforces this to the reader, as well as the warging, which seems to be a genetic Stark magical trait. All of this together creates a body of evidence suggesting that the two genetically inherited magical traits are on opposite and equal sides: fire and ice.
Hmm, just thought of another aspect to the "Mistborn" societal/genetic differences. You brought up the fact that the Skaa have a lot of children while the nobility find it difficult to have more than one or two. In their world, the ability to have an abundance of children or not is actually implied to be a genetic trait. This kind of mimics the situation in the real world, where the majority of large families belong to the economically/educationally disadvantaged classes while the world's wealthy and/or educated folk statistically have fewer children. This is purely cultural, of course, and has nothing to do with genes.
DeleteAlso, this link that shows up between genetics and physical characteristics and personality is fascinating. It shows up a lot in literature and history, but it's not scientific reality now that we understand genetics a bit more. The examples I'm thinking of:
ReplyDelete--Jon Snow not only looks like a Stark, but he also thinks like one, unlike a couple of the trueborn Stark kids.
--Harry Potter looks like his father, but has his mother's eyes. The eyes being the window to the soul, his deepest nature is more like his mother's.
--Lirael has both Clayr and another dominant bloodline, but she looks AND acts like that other one, despite not knowing that she's part of that bloodline.
All good examples! I addressed the Stark thing above, I think, but the other two are classic examples of the basic questions surrounding "nature and nurture." With Harry, there is the additional idea of a cultural symbol like eyes being the window to the soul having relevance to something biological, as if the phenotypical genes Harry inherited from his parents somehow knew (or influenced) what his future personality would be like.
Delete