One of Ted Chiang’s most noted philosophical SF short stories, “Story of Your Life”, was made into a successful time-travel movie, Arrival, sparking interest in the original. However, movie viewers often misread the short story: “Story” is not a time-travel movie. At no point does the protagonist travel in time or enjoy precognitive powers, interpreting the story this way leads to many serious plot holes, it renders most of the exposition-heavy dialogue (which is a large fraction of the wordcount) completely irrelevant, and genuine precognition undercuts the themes of tragedy & acceptance.Instead, what appears to be precognition in Chiang’s story is actually far more interesting, and a novel twist on psychology and physics: classical physics allows usefully interpreting the laws of physics in both a ‘forward’ way in which events happen step by step, but also a teleological way in which events are simply the unique optimal solution to a set of constraints including the outcome and allows reasoning ‘backwards’. The alien race exemplifies this other, equally valid, possible way of thinking and viewing the universe, and the protagonist learns their way of thinking by studying their language, which requires seeing written characters as a unified gestalt. This holistic view of the universe as an immutable ‘block-universe’, in which events unfold as they must, changes the protagonist’s attitude towards life and the tragic death of her daughter, teaching her in a somewhat Buddhist or Stoic fashion to embrace life in both its ups and downs.
What interesting for me that (in a small sample of people that I asked) usually people that read story first and watch movie later like story better, while people that watch Arrival first and then...
What interesting for me that (in a small sample of people that I asked) usually people that read story first and watch movie later like story better, while people that watch Arrival first and then read story - like movie better.
I definitely belongs to a second camp - I accidentally (having zero idea what this movie about) watched the movie in a theater and become completely in love with it and with it ideas.
I'll be the outlier then! I really enjoyed both, but view them as two separate works that express similar themes. I could not choose which I like better.
I'll be the outlier then! I really enjoyed both, but view them as two separate works that express similar themes.
I enjoyed both immensely and do not consider one to be markedly superior to the other. Chiang is brilliant. So is Villeneuve. I don't have to choose 🤷🏿♂️
I enjoyed both immensely and do not consider one to be markedly superior to the other. Chiang is brilliant. So is Villeneuve. I don't have to choose 🤷🏿♂️
In my experience, that's true for a lot of books with movie adaptations.
usually people that read story first and watch movie later like story better, while people that watch Arrival first and then read story - like movie better.
In my experience, that's true for a lot of books with movie adaptations.
I loved this movie, in part, because it was, for me, (one of?) the most realistic, believable stories of first contact I've ever seen. The aliens actually seemed alien, and the language challenges...
I loved this movie, in part, because it was, for me, (one of?) the most realistic, believable stories of first contact I've ever seen. The aliens actually seemed alien, and the language challenges helped a lot.
Since seeing the movie, I've wanted to read the story it is based on ... but I've never yet gotten around to it.
Now, I'm glad I waited, having this warning and added perspective to keep in mind, once I do.
Edit:
I've skimmed gwern's review/explanation, but it looks to be, perhaps, even longer than the story itself, and makes little mention of the core plot device of the movie.
The movie plot is founded largely on a popular theory that the language(s) we speak shapes our way of thinking, and/or our perception of our environment ... that is, Linguistic Relativity Theory, aka Sapir-Whorf Theory ...
Does anyone know if this theory is still foundational to the story? (w/o the special effects the movie attributes to it — I'm trying to avoid actual spoilers here)
Learning how the aliens think definitely shapes the protagonist’s understanding of time, but not in quite the same way as the movie. Although, I’m not sure either one really holds up to scrutiny....
Learning how the aliens think definitely shapes the protagonist’s understanding of time, but not in quite the same way as the movie.
Although, I’m not sure either one really holds up to scrutiny. How could the aliens have evolved?
Here is gwern's summary:
What interesting for me that (in a small sample of people that I asked) usually people that read story first and watch movie later like story better, while people that watch Arrival first and then read story - like movie better.
I definitely belongs to a second camp - I accidentally (having zero idea what this movie about) watched the movie in a theater and become completely in love with it and with it ideas.
I'll be the outlier then! I really enjoyed both, but view them as two separate works that express similar themes.
I could not choose which I like better.
Thanks! I'm happy that I was wrong.
Probably thats a good reason to read this story again.
IMO the book helps me understand the movie better, but if I had to choose one, the book conveys a lot more emotion. But the movie is still solid.
I enjoyed both immensely and do not consider one to be markedly superior to the other. Chiang is brilliant. So is Villeneuve. I don't have to choose 🤷🏿♂️
In my experience, that's true for a lot of books with movie adaptations.
I loved this movie, in part, because it was, for me, (one of?) the most realistic, believable stories of first contact I've ever seen. The aliens actually seemed alien, and the language challenges helped a lot.
Since seeing the movie, I've wanted to read the story it is based on ... but I've never yet gotten around to it.
Now, I'm glad I waited, having this warning and added perspective to keep in mind, once I do.
Edit:
I've skimmed gwern's review/explanation, but it looks to be, perhaps, even longer than the story itself, and makes little mention of the core plot device of the movie.
The movie plot is founded largely on a popular theory that the language(s) we speak shapes our way of thinking, and/or our perception of our environment ... that is, Linguistic Relativity Theory, aka Sapir-Whorf Theory ...
Does anyone know if this theory is still foundational to the story? (w/o the special effects the movie attributes to it — I'm trying to avoid actual spoilers here)
Learning how the aliens think definitely shapes the protagonist’s understanding of time, but not in quite the same way as the movie.
Although, I’m not sure either one really holds up to scrutiny. How could the aliens have evolved?
What a fascinating post.