#writing a book and it's terrifying to think that people will completely misinterpret Basic Concepts in it

[distinctiveusername]

it's insanely sad and devastating how bad people's reading comprehension is like it's gone beyond neurodivergence (which I completely understand) it's straight up missing the entire point of basic straightforward sentences or concepts

[theskyexists]

Gideon the Ninth

the thing i like about this book is that it starts at breakneck speeds and continues at only slightly lower velocity

which is good because once they’ve arrived things could have got real boring because Gideon is no analytical genius and Harrow does not trust her one bit with an inch of plot

(I like that Gideon’s ‘dumb’ - with which i mean, ‘not curious’ - though she’s of course extremely alert, incredibly emotionally resilient and of course - an incredible fighter - and quite sneaky)

it’s a puzzle and you get tossed the bits. the fact that it’s an empire and then Gideon talks about invasion armies four chapters on and it becomes clear that a-ha you mean the Real Deal - a Real Empire huh?

the fact that Gideon knows nothing - is told nothing - is kept from all possibilities of gaining information on other places or politics or how things are going is a handy little choice

the other thing i like about this book is that (apparently) this is enemies to lovers but i don’t actually hate Harrow

she’s horrible to Gideon in a way but there’s such an expectedness about it and appropriate emotional response from Gideon that i copy Gideon’s emotions on her - the contempt and wariness and pure desire to simply fucking win. they’re ‘clean’ and merciless.

another thing i like about the book is that it is very good at introducing a lot of characters in a way that you can recognise them later

another thing that i like is that it has a ‘plot’ which on the face of it seems very hmmm basic or ordinary but it’s not what it’s about - it’s about Gideon - and that’s why the story doesn’t devolve into an uninteresting concept. also, every time it seems to - we get a little look at the complexity that implies a genuine mystery. the sci-fi nature to it all makes this so sparking and interesting

doors locks keys key rings yeah

the fascinating thing is that Gideon COULD be in two completely different minds about Harrow. she has an animal response to her being in danger and to helping her - that is to say she has an animal response TO help her. she fantasises about killing her or hurting her but what really keeps her going 100 reps in is winning/getting Harrow’s regard for something she’s done completely independently.

Palamedes and Camilla seem nice. Like Harrow’s and Gideon’s functional counterparts.

I absolutely love how Harrow takes everything supremely seriously - she is a True Necromancer - inherently CREEPY and FORBIDDING and POWERFUL.   and Gideon does Not take in seriously at all and the clash is so wonderful - it’s such a tongue in cheek meta way to do this ....necromancy genre stuff

it SEEMS like humanity was dying and they found a way to re-animate the dead and gain immortality in the lab and that’s what they built their theocratic information-poor ‘resurrection’ space-faring imperial nation on. and they got there doing truly ABOMINABLE things to people

how big ARE your biceps. jpfjfkldsfk Jeannemary......

Gideon misinterprets palamedes’ interest in Dulcinea for attraction but really he knows she’s his main competition and she’s a mastermind. calling it now.

they work together and learn to appreciate each other. But i can’t remember if i’ve been told what Harrow had done to Gideon....

Abigail and Magnus did not ask for permission did they....

Harrow had walked in on Gideon at exactly the wrong moment when they were nine (hah). Hmmm. And her parents were dead from that moment on if I understand correctly? And it broke their relationship. Gideon saw her do something that convinced her that Harrow was a monster. right? I have suspicions.

It’s so CLEVER how Gideon and thus we the audience, do not know SHIT about the magic system - because it makes it so deliciously interesting. Fortunately it’s not frustrating yet to have all that information withheld.

I think Harrow underestimates Dulcinea - and Gideon learns not to. But Harrow knows she is being manipulated.

I just laughed out loud LOUDLY. Gideon is such a snarky jock chad and Harrow is a deeply sour nerd. juice

‘nice to know the other houses are also creeps’ lol

‘probably because you asked’ - ‘that’s all it takes’  - and it’s all she ever demanded! oh GOD. fuckin hell. Harrow did not get that? did not understand that to be friends all they needed was to be free of coercion?? lolololol

‘What are these theorems for?’ Harrow explodes. For this very outrage Harrow! the shock! the realisation that you care - really care about this other person who would have given her life for your ambition! you’re not learning about necromancy - you’re learning to truly trust to each other to the depths of your souls and cells. (edit: i was partly wrong)

the eighth breed batteries - genetic match - yikes that’s so creepily put.

i love how the characters are finding out constantly at exactly the same time as the audience is - but the audience - if they WERE quite quick on the uptake would have had cause to know already - just like the characters.

Another thing i really like about this book is that the building has enormous character - and the character has grown on me enormously as well despite my inability to visualise descriptions very well.

Another thing i really like is that Gideon crushes on all the hot or kind girls.

I just laughed most heartily. That fuckin line from Gideon to Palamenes with the Fourth as witness was so got.damn. well-timed writing ahahahahaa

all the nicknames for Harrow are so good ‘my midnight hagette’ pffjfkjf

The Fourth’s terrified anxiety at the facility suddenly transforms it into a horror story. exceptional

WHAT THE FUCK

so what the fuck sets a cavalier/necromancer pair up for death by bone abomination??? and if Harrow had not suggested they switch - would this have happened???

WHAT ! THE! FUCK!

so i was completely wrong. it’s not about permission (the fifth had it), it’s not about being ahead in keys (the seventh were), it’s not about cavalier and necromancer trusting each other (the fourth did) - i don’t believe its about weakness because the fifth weren’t weak

this just went in a horror direction i cannot understand and it really fuckin sucks that the fourth were RIGHT to be so scared. and also i really liked them - esp jeannemary

and also i there really seems no rhyme nor reason to any of it

that little bit of flimsy from the Second House with ‘Gideon’ on it implies some sort of loop to this where the roles shuffle - since the experiment lines up exactly with Harrow’s expertise as well - and so does the incinerator in a completely different way

Gideon thinks she’s failed because she ‘let’ jeannemary die - she thinks Harrow thinks this too - but that’s not true at all - Harrow is much more practical than that. But Gideon is traumatised.

i so badly want to know what the FUCK happened when they were nine.

There is miscommunication between Gideon and Harrow but it’s so - it’s so obscure in a sense - so much from a Gideon point of view that there’s only glimpses of Harrow’s multi-faceted elements. ‘don’t make fun of my-’  WHAT? her social awkwardness? her inability to be the tiniest bit vulnerable - or social - or in any way anything but her own most sharpened tool?  - and relate to others in the same way - them being tools as well? She was trying to explain herself but Gideon REFERENCED that she can never forget that she hates Harrow - what  does that mean??? is it the incident? is it the fact that Harrow has always had the power to hurt her? and used it?

the whole CONCEPT of a cavalier and necromancer is so delicious but so foreign to Gideon and thus us as a romantic concept that it’s only hitting me now - it’s everything you’d want from an institution set up for devotion. if this was made into a film or a series the very concept would draw thousands and it would become a fanfic AU genre.

things really are happening a LOT. i feel Gideon’s exhaustion acutely

GIDEON DID IT??? I THOUGHT HARROW DID!! BUT THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. it’s EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE - I thought Harrow’s parents would have done something horrid to Gideon and Harrow had killed and reanimated them out of an animal sense of protection for her enemy/playmate. BUT OF COURSE - it is Gideon who always acts with an animal tendency towards protection of Harrow - even at nine years old?

goddamn the Ninth House was a fucked up place for a child though. why would they treat the only other child like that what the fuck.

......I’m starting suspect that Gideon’s origins may also have been....related to some kind of greater nonsense...

WRONG AGAIN. Harrow just killed them. LOL. WRONG AGAIN. The whole family tried to kill itself but Harrow refused to. WOW. (wait i remember that they told us before that it was suicide? right?)

because she opened the door.

and she has to become a lyctor BEFORE - something. i do believe that something’s coming out of the no-longer-locked-tomb. unless Harrow really is just trying to prevent the infertility problem of her house

ok so Harrow was nine and Gideon was eleven. so Harrow is two years younger. Gideon is 18. Harrow must be 16. wow so fuckin young. did Harrow really blame Gideon for the deaths of her parents - or did Gideon THINK that - just like she thought the same about Jeannemary?

yeah yeah Dulcinea is a dangerous hawk who’s killed her own cavalier or something. but palamenes is a BITCH for not filling Gideon in

oh im so glad that Dulcinea isn’t. but that does explain why ‘Pro’ knocked the Eighth out - that was Dulcinea wasn’t it? herself? or was he ‘alive’ - his spirit somehow fused to his corpse?

THE TIME HAS COME TO TELL YOU EVERYTHING

HMMMMMMMM - WAIT IS GIDEON THE THING FROM THE LOCKED TOMB THOUGH. ALL THE STUFF ABOUT HER GOLD EYES AND RED HAIR AND WEIRD PHENOTYPE. DO THEY ALL HAVE FALSE MEMORIES

naw that’s nonsense.

I knew it. I KNEW IT. Harrow is an extremely vulnerable over-thinking mastermind stupid idiot who doesn’t understand Gideon AT ALL and who is super easily hurt.

jezus fucking christ what a fucking burden to bear for Harrow - to know that she was born at the cost of the lives of TWO HUNDRED CHILDREN. jezus fucking christ. ‘i was tired of being two hundred corpses’ MY!!! GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

she was suicidal at 10 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!! is it any wonder that she was always fighting literally FIGHTING Gideon and being so horrible. AND THEN SHE WATCHED HER PARENTS KILL THEMSELVES RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BOOK

they sure made her sympathetic - and so much of that was obvious from the start that she also seemed secretly sympathetic from the start

well at least Harrow knows that she treated Gideon completely unfairly and horribly all because she hates herself

i cannot tell whether Harrow is in love with the girl who is the Emperor’s end or she’s scared shitless. whether she wants to live forever to see her wake up because she wants to see the glory or because she wants to stop her

GIDEON HAS THE EXACT SAME QUESTION AS ME AAAAHAHAHAHAHA

that dynamic of Harrow playing everything straight and Gideon going - hold up this is funny.

ok so why didn’t Harrow tell her this before i wonder. because she couldn’t bring herself to unless she was forced to - to keep Gideon? hm

i was wrong again. i mean - it was clear from the very start and from Harrow’s crush on the Emperor’s greatest enemy that the Empire is a sickening construction leeching off the deaths of millions but! i guess i though there was going to be a horrid sacrifice at the END - but instead there is yknow - it’s horrid all the way through. it’s just that nobody seems aware of how horrid it is except Gideon who makes jokes about it - so you  just accept it.

the blood and bone and fat and corpses and death are all actually indications of profoundly fucked up things! who knew!!

it seems that dulcinea is not actually dulcinea and still the hawk that killed everybody - because that still wasn’t explained was it - nor the ability to animate pro

so much is happening and it is very good. i think the lyctor liked Gideon because she reminded her of her own. but shes a ruthless immortal who’s been in pain for ten thousand years. and she hates her maker

‘the vengeance of ten billion’? sounds like they sacrificed a lotta people for these powers

so but why did she kill the fourth? and why can she control bones when she’s from the first house?

making the so-likeable sympathetic weirdly compassionate but ruthless dulcinea the villain - it’s brilliant. all the kind things she’s said and done for Gideon. that psychopathic compartmentalisation

Ianthe - the lyctor fighting another lyctor. Had they ever fought?? and the Emperor had Hands. but there are only a couple remaining. and she was hiding in the Seventh House... what did the Hands die of. god do i want to know those histories. Cytherea is ...mad about having been lied to....

Gideon - always wanting to save others. even Ianthe - a deeply horrible person by all accounts

YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TO ME - YOU WILL NOT DIE HERE - GIDEON WHAT AND WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU.

so the whole reason Ducilea knocked off everybody in the building one by one is because she needed the emperor not to be suspicious. isn’t he gonna be just that now??? but it doesn’t matter because these fight scenes are surprisingly epic

the sheer fucking POETRY of Gideon being the last dead daughter of the Ninth House to become one with Harrow’s fate - GOD

wow im sad

what a way to end her pov

The Emperor seems crazily benevolent for a guy who apparently tricked his first lyctors into undeath and sacrificed (implied) 10 billion people and allowed horrible necromantic sins and experiments. who runs an empire on death and has children conquer planets

Gideon’s yet unexplained origins, phenotype, disappearing body AND the fact that she survived tear gas at age one + a whole crazy siphoning with only mild negative effects, and Cytherea kept being cryptic about her origins/death/etc., and that Gideon from the past, gives me a semblance of hope. but im just not sure how book two from Harrow’s pov is gonna hold up without Gideon’s sense of humour

I really loved this book for how all the personal dramas of the characters were perfectly spooled out until everything became clear

anyway this book was - very good

i just wish UHHHHHH that if you absorbed somebody’s soul they actually fuckin stayed with you and didn’t just fucking actually DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but what a worldbuilding MASTERPIECE - and how MASTERFULLY ABSOLUTELY MASTERFULLY UNWRAPPED - in bites and pieces and flecks and tosses - and FAST - it explains why the start is so fast because it NEEDS TO BE - and by the end they go in for longer explanations - i think there’s ONE explanation for something that could plainly be inferred - ONE in the whole book.

this magic system is so fucking DOPE!!!!!!!!!!!

[makingscipub]

Epigenetics: Grappling with definitions

Definitions of epigenetics are notoriously slippery. This does not seem to hamper basic research. But it might hamper public understanding.

The words ‘epigenetics’ and ‘epigenetic’ have undergone quite substantial changes in meaning over time, leading up to a meaning which is now popular but open to misinterpretation. This history and increasing confusion has been charted, for example, by Haig, Deichmann, Greally, Henikoff and Greally, Deans and Maggert and many more.

But what do we mean by public understanding of epigenetics? We refer here not only to how people in the street might understand the word and concept  (most people have, however, never heard the word before), but also academic ‘publics’, including medical doctors, philosophers, sociologists (of science), policy analysts, advertisers etc., indeed anybody not actively carrying out research in epigenetics… How is this public understanding shaped and on what conceptions of epigenetics, or indeed misconceptions of epigenetics, is it built?

In this blog post we, that is Aleksandra Stelmach and I, will only be able to dip our toes into this topic, which will be tackled in more detail in an academic article in the future.

Epigenetics on Twitter

While we were thinking about issues around meanings and definitions of epigenetics in academia and elsewhere, we came across an exchange on Twitter which can be seen as a sort of microcosm of debates about definitions of epigenetics (mainly amongst academic twitterati) that might provide some insights into understandings, misunderstandings and attempts at understanding through the use of metaphors and analogies.

It all started with a tweet posted on 27 August 2018 by Christina Farr (Reporter at @CNBC.com with a focus on health and tech) asking: “anyone have a super simple explanation of what ‘epigenetics’ is? I’ve been paying with a few ideas, but I think you guys can do better. Shoot…” And people shot! There were around fifty replies.

Reviewing definitions

One reply/thread was by John Greally who is very active on twitter dispelling myths and misconceptions about epigenetics.

His thread recounts the history of definitions of epigenetics, from a developmental to a molecular one, leading up to the most recent but most misleading one: … “(5) Then the era of genomic biochemistry exploded, and a lot of regulators of the genome started to become discovered. Needing a name for this, the biochemists back-translated #epigenetics to epi-above/upon-genetics DNA sequence.” “(6) This definition covers every single genomic regulator, as we’ve thrown out the requirement that processes be heritable through cell division. The one regulator we don’t include, oddly, as it probably drives most #epigenetic processes, is transcription factors”.

We won’t go into the scientific intricacies of this explanation (but comments welcome, especially from biochemists), but we want to stress that this back-translation is very popular in academia, and we have employed it ourselves.

It is also used in the Wikipedia article on epigenetics, which, a few days later, provoked some debate, with John Greally remarking: “The wikipedia definition is based on the genomic biochemists’ epi+genetics travesty of a back-translation, with a tincture of heritability, a tip of the hat to cell differentiation, no wonder people are confused.” The wiki article itself would also deserve some analysis in the future! But back to Greally’s thread in answer to Christina Farr’s question.

As people had already begun to supply definitions, he warned her that “(8) The responses you’re getting to your question are focused on the epi+genetics definition. We can’t do simple let alone super-simple for you, when the term #epigenetics is ambiguous even for people working the field. To claim otherwise is misleading.” He put it more forcefully in 2016 when he said: “The shift in use of #epigenetics from developmental to molecular biology completely screwed the definition”.

Apart from the long thread supplied by Greally, what are the other answers to Christina Farr’s questions about a simple definition of epigenetics? The responses can be roughly grouped into three (as far as we can judge): those staying within mainstream of epigenetic science, those straying beyond mainstream of epigenetic science, and those providing metaphors and analogies.

Venturing beyond mainstream science

Lamarck

The first tweet we saw just said: “Lamarckian theory updated”. This view of epigenetics is widespread in some parts of academia, especially ‘bio-adjacent fields’, including the philosophy and sociology of science/biology, influenced in part by scientists like Jablonka, Laland, and Szyf, for example. Most recently, Peter Ward, a paleontologist, has written a book based on this hypothesis entitled Lamarck’s Revenge.

Genes and genomes

This nod to Lamarckism is often linked to a rejection of some central tenets of mainstream genetics and genomics, especially a view attributed to classical genomics, namely that genes/genomes are fixed and rigid entities. It is then claimed that after the advent of epigenetics, we can finally see them what they are, namely flexible, reactive and dynamic entities. As one tweeter writes: “How your so-called unchangeable genes can change? The answer is epigenetics”.

Nature and nurture

Szyf is mentioned in a response that focuses on nature and nurture, also a strong talking point in sociological research into epigenetics. “Nurture impacts nature: life events alter your DNA, and you pass these changes along from generation to generation. See TED talk by Dr. Moshe Szyf”.

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is a recurrent topic in sociological writing, and also in biological writings that influence it. Here we find, for example, speculations about how social experiences can be passed down generations of humans, a hypothesis that is widely criticised by working scientists, such as Kevin Mitchell and Jerry Coyne for example.

One tweeter writes: “An organism’s environment can have an effect on what genes are expressed, and those changes can be passed down to later generations!” The next tweet goes even further! “On a slightly different direction, I think some of the deep emotions we experience are actually epigenetic memories from emotions experienced by our ancestors”…..And this one goes further still: “Epigenetics from ancient Indian spiritual tradition: Every thought, word, and action leaves an imprint on our DNA- that can be manifested in our life or future family’s life”….

But…

As PZ Myers said in a blog post from 2015, epigenetics deals with “mechanisms that modify the expression of a genetic signal”. Gaining insight into these mechanisms is essential for understanding life, development and disease, from cells upwards. This is also important in evolutionary terms, as “gene expression is constantly being tweaked and modified” prompted by environmental triggers. But this does not mean, he stresses, that “you can explain a complex, higher-level psychological phenomenon like resentment of your mother” by reducing it to “a chemical reaction”!

And so we come to more mainstream science definitions (as far as we can tell).

Staying within mainstream science

Classic definition

One tweeter rehearses one of the most wide-spread definitions: “Epigenetics describes how gene expression changes occur without changes to the DNA sequence.” Another points out: “Post-translational modifications that direct gene expression. But since the modifications aren’t inheritable, it’s not really genetics.”

Cells

Others focus, rightly, on cells: “All of our cells have the same DNA – but epigenetics provides the next level of instructions to distinguish between a beating cell in the heart and a breathing cell in the lung.” And: “Genetics maintains information across an organism’s lineage. Epigenetics maintains information across a cell’s lineage.” And: “Cells in the body come from one fertilized egg. Epigenetics refers to the changes of gene expression of each cell as it specializes to function as part of a tissue. This is a fascinating journey for each cell & terrifying when the cell stops following the rules producing cancer!”

Environment

Another tweet focuses on the influence of the environment: “How environment impacts the expression of genetics. You can be ‘genetically pre-disposed’ to something but may never actually experience it unless the triggers are there. A example of this is Celiac Disease: a number of ppl have g-intolerance but don’t express signs for years.” Another points out: “Genes that ‘switch on’ based on environmental factors. For example, average coyote litter size increases when the local coyote population is under stress.” This brings us to metaphors and analogies…

Metaphors and analogies

Some of the metaphors and analogies used to define epigenetics are well-known and rooted in older ones, familiar from genetics and genomics, some are more creative.

Computer

Two tweets use computer metaphors: “Computer analogy – genome is hardware, epigenome is software (which can be changed)” and, the other way round: “Genetics is the software. Epigenetics is the user profile.”

Switch

Many definitions of epigenetics have been linked to the on/off switch metaphor (see Stelmach and Nerlich, 2015). One tweeter just said: “Turning genes on and off.” Whereupon another replied: “Specifically, it involves the factors that manipulate DNA’s 3D conformation / accessibility so that different genes can be turned on (expressed) or off (silenced).” Another tweet links the switch metaphor to the script metaphor: “Genes alone aren’t able to explain differences in genetic scripts. Something turns them on and off—epigenetics studies the driver’s of change”.

Book

So we come to various book, script and language metaphors: “If genome is a recipe book and all cells have a copy, how does each cell know which recipes to use? Only skin cells need recipe to make pigment, for example. Epigenomics provides ‘post-it notes’ in the recipe book, so each cell only uses the right recipes”. “I always liked the idea that epigenetic marks (themselves only one aspect of epigenetics) are ‘annotations’ to the genome–they don’t change the text itself, but they affect how it’s interpreted. Maybe that’s too high-falutin’, but I find it clarifying.” “It’s like putting an accent on your words where genetics is changing the language.” “Hollywood analogy: DNA is the script (fixed) – epigenetics are the actors (variables that influence the end product)”.

Music

Some tweeters homed in the ‘music of life’ metaphor. One wrote: “The musical score vs how you play it.” Another said, on a similar note: “genetics are the keys on the piano, epigenetics are the songs that are played”, and got the reply: “So is the piano the Proteome then?! :)”, and the first one retorted: “yes haha brilliant! and the pedals microbiome?!” expanding the metaphor into a little bit of absurdity perhaps!

Creative metaphors

There were however some tweeters who were more creative in their metaphor/analogy use: One defined epigenetics as: “Levers that affect gene expression. e.g., A tortilla, meat, salsa, avocado,…thrown on a plate do not become a delicious taco. Those things that can affect how the taco tastes (how meat is cooked, temperature, order & amount of ingredients,…) is epigenetics.” Others wrote: “Regulating genes without changing them. It’s like being a parent or a pet owner.” “How we are wired is the primer, the environment pulls the trigger and fate does the rest…..or something like that” and finally: “Bowling analogy: Genome sets up the pins, epigenetics tells you what knocks them down.”

There was also a tweet that engaged in wordplay: “Or: ‘It matters not only what genes you have but also how you wear them’”. Very nice!

What is epigenetics and who can define it?

As we have seen, many people threw a definitions of epigenetics into the ring after Christina Farr asked her question, but what to make of these definitions? Can one classify them as we did? What about the metaphors and analogies? Do they illuminate or obscure? Comments welcome!

Some tweeters engaged with these questions and wrote: “These responses seriously make my head hurt. Not everything can or should be summed up by a catchy analogy. Some topics really aren’t all that simple…”. Another attached a picture of a quote by Haruki Murakami: “Some things in life are too complicated to explain in any language” – and in any metaphor?

There was also some reflection on who contributed definitions and metaphors. Somebody said in not too complimentary terms: “the chasm between what bio-adjacent people think (I am including a lot of MDs who are not doing research but ended up commenting about ‘epigenetics’ […]) and what is actually true is kind of amazing..”

The concept of ‘bio-adjacent people’ is intriguing and one should perhaps look at this more closely in the context of the emergence of bio-social research agendas based on various interpretations of epigenetics. This still leaves the question: is there a true definition of epigenetics?

The ‘truest’ one might be this one, provided in answer to Christina Farr’s question: “A very nascent (and often over-hyped) study of the ways a gene expresses an organism’s characteristics”.

It is important to monitor emerging and changing definitions, meanings and misconception of epigenetics that circulate in the public sphere, including academia, in order to see through what’s hype and what’s reality. This small analysis of a Twitter conversation provides some insights into what’s ‘out there’.

Image: Pixabay

  The post Epigenetics: Grappling with definitions appeared first on Making Science Public.

via Making Science Public https://ift.tt/2orrHEM