A Dawkins metaphor is helpful but flawed.

On Thursday, December 27, 2012, I wrote this, intending to post it then:

In a metaphor in The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins compares the human genome to a dictionary of words with instructions; eg, that the lists of words in David Copperfield and The Catcher in the Rye are essentially the same, but what is different is the order in which the words are strung together.

The metaphor is helpful but flawed. I’m not a fan of Intelligent Design, so my objection doesn't arise from that, but if the only difference between these books were the word order, the metaphor would be equally valid for any two sufficiently large corpora of texts intended for the same reader.

What makes any book interesting is not merely the presence of words; any computer can generate a list of words. It's that the words create completely different experiences in the hands of different writers. It isn't the list, after all, and not only how the words are "strung together," but their meter, context, balance, etc.

[2012-12-27]

Compare the sound of a novice and a professional playing the same piece of music. The novice may get every note right, and the timing may be perfect, but it’s not the same music. A real relationship with a medium comes only with time and an abiding affection.

Not everyone can hear it. Or read it. Or see it. Or feel it. But it’s there nonetheless.

[2013-11-13]

c0