![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cladistics
Apr. 22nd, 2003 11:49 pmMy sweet ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nellorat has just posted about an idea that the two of us have been batting around since this year's ICFA: that literary taxonomy based on Linnean models are problematic and counter-productive for many of the same reasons that biological taxonomies based on Linneaus are problematic and counter-productive. There is a new model of biological taxonomy which is pushing out raw Linnean taxonomy, called cladistics, and it might be useful to bring a cladistic approach to the study of literary genera.
Here are some things I have said in meat-space, but I'd like to have the thoughts written down somewhere that they will be preserved and propagated:
1. The key difference between cladistics and Linnean taxonomy is method. Linneaus tried to come up with a set of defining characteristics for each taxonomic box--for instance, all molluscs (phylum) have a shell except for the ones that don't, or all mammals (order) have hair except for the ones that don't. (Here, of course, we can see one of the key failings of Linnean taxonomy.) Cladistics pays attention to how much two or more organisms or populations resemble each other morphologically or genetically, and how they differ from each other and from a (purported or demonstrable) common evolutionary ancestor. Thus, we can build a cladistic chart of the primates based on the points at which, in their descent from a common lemur-like ancestor, different groups of primates deceloped specific morphological features like large brains or opposable thumbs.
Likewise, we can look at a novel (Little, Big is a great test case) and discuss its similarity to other works ("portal" novels like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, "generation epics" like The Forsyth Saga, "science fiction dystopias" like Make Room, Make Room, and "liminal" fantasies like Nights at the Circus) without trying to shove it into a single category. It partakes of the literary effects of all of these "types," and gains at least some of its narrative impact from juxtaposing all of these different types against each other.
2. Samuel R. Delany was pointing at something like this several years ago when he implored critics to stop trying to "define" science fiction (creating a set of works which "are" or "are not" science fiction) and instead concentrate on "describing" science fiction--that is, identifying ways in which science fiction creates the effects it creates.
3. A key difference between biological evolution and the evolution of ideas is that ideas don't follow the rules of biology. New ideas don't arise in a purely random, undirected ways. as genetic mutations do; they don't have the same type of winnowing as genetic mutations; and characteristics of ideas can leap from work to work without concern for boundaries. A fish will not develop feathers just because it sees a bird. However, Somtow Sucharitkul can grow up in Thailand and see Star Wars and come out with "Fiddling for Waterbuffalo", about an alien encounter that might be a demonic possession, or is it vice versa, or read a lot of everything and come up with The Aquiliad, a time-travel alternate history with steam-powered Roman legions fighting dinosaurs from their flying saucers. Because ideas and influences are promiscuous and fertile, in ways that biological entities cannot be.
(Note that in the world of prokaryotes, the eternal verities of biology get all wiggly anyway, since genes can pass freely not just between individuals but, in fact, between species.)
nellorat has just posted about an idea that the two of us have been batting around since this year's ICFA: that literary taxonomy based on Linnean models are problematic and counter-productive for many of the same reasons that biological taxonomies based on Linneaus are problematic and counter-productive. There is a new model of biological taxonomy which is pushing out raw Linnean taxonomy, called cladistics, and it might be useful to bring a cladistic approach to the study of literary genera.Here are some things I have said in meat-space, but I'd like to have the thoughts written down somewhere that they will be preserved and propagated:
1. The key difference between cladistics and Linnean taxonomy is method. Linneaus tried to come up with a set of defining characteristics for each taxonomic box--for instance, all molluscs (phylum) have a shell except for the ones that don't, or all mammals (order) have hair except for the ones that don't. (Here, of course, we can see one of the key failings of Linnean taxonomy.) Cladistics pays attention to how much two or more organisms or populations resemble each other morphologically or genetically, and how they differ from each other and from a (purported or demonstrable) common evolutionary ancestor. Thus, we can build a cladistic chart of the primates based on the points at which, in their descent from a common lemur-like ancestor, different groups of primates deceloped specific morphological features like large brains or opposable thumbs.
Likewise, we can look at a novel (Little, Big is a great test case) and discuss its similarity to other works ("portal" novels like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, "generation epics" like The Forsyth Saga, "science fiction dystopias" like Make Room, Make Room, and "liminal" fantasies like Nights at the Circus) without trying to shove it into a single category. It partakes of the literary effects of all of these "types," and gains at least some of its narrative impact from juxtaposing all of these different types against each other.
2. Samuel R. Delany was pointing at something like this several years ago when he implored critics to stop trying to "define" science fiction (creating a set of works which "are" or "are not" science fiction) and instead concentrate on "describing" science fiction--that is, identifying ways in which science fiction creates the effects it creates.
3. A key difference between biological evolution and the evolution of ideas is that ideas don't follow the rules of biology. New ideas don't arise in a purely random, undirected ways. as genetic mutations do; they don't have the same type of winnowing as genetic mutations; and characteristics of ideas can leap from work to work without concern for boundaries. A fish will not develop feathers just because it sees a bird. However, Somtow Sucharitkul can grow up in Thailand and see Star Wars and come out with "Fiddling for Waterbuffalo", about an alien encounter that might be a demonic possession, or is it vice versa, or read a lot of everything and come up with The Aquiliad, a time-travel alternate history with steam-powered Roman legions fighting dinosaurs from their flying saucers. Because ideas and influences are promiscuous and fertile, in ways that biological entities cannot be.
(Note that in the world of prokaryotes, the eternal verities of biology get all wiggly anyway, since genes can pass freely not just between individuals but, in fact, between species.)
