I'm a fan of both the movie and short story. I believe that the differences in story come from the differences in medium. In the short story, the physics example is a good metaphor to convey how...
I'm a fan of both the movie and short story. I believe that the differences in story come from the differences in medium. In the short story, the physics example is a good metaphor to convey how the heptapods think differently, but a wordy explanation of a physics concept wouldn't go over well in Hollywood or be very interesting to watch in film. The image of the circle in their langauage is a visual way to convey the idea of knowing the destination to find the path to get there. For heptapods, seeing the future is just a necessary part of navigating the present. That's why the linguist has to remember her future conversation with the Chinese official to survive the present and get there.
To me, the physics and that conversation contribute the same information to the story. Again, the difference between your "what if" from the written form and the film's events is all in the medium. The story spells out in words a way of interpreting the heptapods' different worldview, and the film uses visual metaphors such as circular writing and a deceptive sequencing of shots. I think your perception of the film not having a "what if" question comes down to how we interpret different art forms. Writing can be interpreted, but anything from a character's perspective is already an interpretation. Visual art has to be interpreted from scratch by the viewer. The short story asks "what if?" directly, but the film makes you first ask "what is being questioned?", which will eventually lead to a what if question.
I hope that helps, but thanks for posting this topic. This is one of my favorite stories (in both media) and it was interesting to think about it in a different way.
Thanks to your post, I went ahead and read Story of Your Life. It's a very good story, and I enjoyed it a lot. However, one idea that I'm not very convinced about is the absence of free will with...
Thanks to your post, I went ahead and read Story of Your Life. It's a very good story, and I enjoyed it a lot. However, one idea that I'm not very convinced about is the absence of free will with the heptapods. I can't understand the idea that even if you know that you are going to die next week, you will still follow the most optimal path to fulfill that future. The future is a level two chaotic system, so it cannot be accurately predicted without altering its course. To quote a section from Sapiens:
Level two chaos is chaos that reacts to predictions about it, and therefore can
never be predicted accurately. Markets, for example, are a level two chaotic
system. What will happen if we develop a computer program that forecasts with
100 per cent accuracy the price of oil tomorrow? The price of oil will immediately
react to the forecast, which would consequently fail to materialise. If the current
price of oil is $90 a barrel, and the infallible computer program predicts that
tomorrow it will be $100, traders will rush to buy oil so that they can profit from
the predicted price rise. As a result, the price will shoot up to $100 a barrel today
rather than tomorrow. Then what will happen tomorrow? Nobody knows.
Why does knowing the future force you to enact it? The lack of free will was the only thing hard for me to digest, but other than that I really liked the story. Sadly I can't say the same thing about the movie. The physics concept about variational principles was the central idea that strung the whole story together. Without it, the movie seems incoherent, and personally, I think there were a lot of plot holes.
Rant incoming
Some scattered examples to explain what I mean.
For much of the movie, you're just supposed to accept things without explanation. For instance: "The heptapods experience time differently because of their language."
Okay...why? There is no mention of what aspect of the language actually makes them think differently. The story explains it: the heptapods' writing is non-linear and could be read in any direction, which corresponds with their non-linear view of time; their writing is all weaved together, so they must know the entirety of their paragraph before they write it, i.e. see the future. In contrast to the story, the movie simply makes a statement and leaves it at that.
When the linguist was brought into the heptapod chamber, it seemed that the heptapods can understand human speech, and the linguist can suddenly read heptapod B without the aid of a tablet. Before this scene, the movie did not give any indication that the two species had gained such fluency in each other's languages, so it seemed like Hollywood magic to move the plot along.
Cheaty time paradox things. The linguist learned how to read the mess of heptapod writing by remembering her future presentation about the heptapod language. But then how did her future self learn the language? Well from her past self remembering her future self of course. But then you have created an infinite paradoxical cycle, where the linguist has never really learned the heptapod language but knows it anyway.
Besides those plot holes, I didn't really like how they went about presenting the story. Story of Your Life is science fiction, and its main focus is a scientific concept. The movie tries to put the focus on the science too, but I don't think the film medium works too well for that. With no internal dialogue or narration, they have to rely on the characters to convey ideas. But by investing too little in the characters themselves and glossing over the scientific concepts, you end up with two non-likable, flat main characters and no clear science.
I also liked how the movie represented the heptapod language, it's probably my favourite aspect of the movie. I was a bit disappointed they didn't put more focus on how it worked. When the...
I also liked how the movie represented the heptapod language, it's probably my favourite aspect of the movie. I was a bit disappointed they didn't put more focus on how it worked. When the heptapod squirted out that bunch of circles, I was hoping the linguist would study and translate it, and explain how the language works along the way. But instead I just get a memory recollection and the linguist suddenly knows how to read the script! It seemed like a very lazy way to advance the plot.
I am not opposed to the author's idea on free will, I am just a bit confused by its logic and trying to see why the heptapods would act in accordance with the future. It certainly was thought provoking for me! I tried to imagine it as a river following its path even if it knows where the path will lead to, but this model doesn't explain how free will exists if the future is unknown. Maybe it's fundamentally impossible for my sequential oriented mind to understand this concept. It kind of hits on a point other people have brought up before though, that any aliens we conjure up will always be reflective of human nature, because everything we write will be from a human point of view. We might never be able to predict what aliens are like because they might be too bizarre for us to imagine.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll go read The Hundred-Light-Year-Diary, and if I like it, I'll go check out the Orthogonal series as well.
It's been a while since I read "Story of Your Life", but what you said is the exact reason why I didn't like the movie. It's great production and cinematics no doubt: my girlfriend who is usually...
It's been a while since I read "Story of Your Life", but what you said is the exact reason why I didn't like the movie. It's great production and cinematics no doubt: my girlfriend who is usually doesn't like sci-fi liked the movie a lot. However, the core essence and idea that "Story of Your Life" illuminates -- that you so aptly describe -- would fundamentally fail when presented visually. The movie is great no doubt; but to me, the movie and book are very different experiences and the movie is not a very faithful adaption.
I'm a fan of both the movie and short story. I believe that the differences in story come from the differences in medium. In the short story, the physics example is a good metaphor to convey how the heptapods think differently, but a wordy explanation of a physics concept wouldn't go over well in Hollywood or be very interesting to watch in film. The image of the circle in their langauage is a visual way to convey the idea of knowing the destination to find the path to get there. For heptapods, seeing the future is just a necessary part of navigating the present. That's why the linguist has to remember her future conversation with the Chinese official to survive the present and get there.
To me, the physics and that conversation contribute the same information to the story. Again, the difference between your "what if" from the written form and the film's events is all in the medium. The story spells out in words a way of interpreting the heptapods' different worldview, and the film uses visual metaphors such as circular writing and a deceptive sequencing of shots. I think your perception of the film not having a "what if" question comes down to how we interpret different art forms. Writing can be interpreted, but anything from a character's perspective is already an interpretation. Visual art has to be interpreted from scratch by the viewer. The short story asks "what if?" directly, but the film makes you first ask "what is being questioned?", which will eventually lead to a what if question.
I hope that helps, but thanks for posting this topic. This is one of my favorite stories (in both media) and it was interesting to think about it in a different way.
Thanks to your post, I went ahead and read Story of Your Life. It's a very good story, and I enjoyed it a lot. However, one idea that I'm not very convinced about is the absence of free will with the heptapods. I can't understand the idea that even if you know that you are going to die next week, you will still follow the most optimal path to fulfill that future. The future is a level two chaotic system, so it cannot be accurately predicted without altering its course. To quote a section from Sapiens:
Why does knowing the future force you to enact it? The lack of free will was the only thing hard for me to digest, but other than that I really liked the story. Sadly I can't say the same thing about the movie. The physics concept about variational principles was the central idea that strung the whole story together. Without it, the movie seems incoherent, and personally, I think there were a lot of plot holes.
Rant incoming
Some scattered examples to explain what I mean.
For much of the movie, you're just supposed to accept things without explanation. For instance: "The heptapods experience time differently because of their language."
Okay...why? There is no mention of what aspect of the language actually makes them think differently. The story explains it: the heptapods' writing is non-linear and could be read in any direction, which corresponds with their non-linear view of time; their writing is all weaved together, so they must know the entirety of their paragraph before they write it, i.e. see the future. In contrast to the story, the movie simply makes a statement and leaves it at that.
When the linguist was brought into the heptapod chamber, it seemed that the heptapods can understand human speech, and the linguist can suddenly read heptapod B without the aid of a tablet. Before this scene, the movie did not give any indication that the two species had gained such fluency in each other's languages, so it seemed like Hollywood magic to move the plot along.
Cheaty time paradox things. The linguist learned how to read the mess of heptapod writing by remembering her future presentation about the heptapod language. But then how did her future self learn the language? Well from her past self remembering her future self of course. But then you have created an infinite paradoxical cycle, where the linguist has never really learned the heptapod language but knows it anyway.
Besides those plot holes, I didn't really like how they went about presenting the story. Story of Your Life is science fiction, and its main focus is a scientific concept. The movie tries to put the focus on the science too, but I don't think the film medium works too well for that. With no internal dialogue or narration, they have to rely on the characters to convey ideas. But by investing too little in the characters themselves and glossing over the scientific concepts, you end up with two non-likable, flat main characters and no clear science.
I also liked how the movie represented the heptapod language, it's probably my favourite aspect of the movie. I was a bit disappointed they didn't put more focus on how it worked. When the heptapod squirted out that bunch of circles, I was hoping the linguist would study and translate it, and explain how the language works along the way. But instead I just get a memory recollection and the linguist suddenly knows how to read the script! It seemed like a very lazy way to advance the plot.
I am not opposed to the author's idea on free will, I am just a bit confused by its logic and trying to see why the heptapods would act in accordance with the future. It certainly was thought provoking for me! I tried to imagine it as a river following its path even if it knows where the path will lead to, but this model doesn't explain how free will exists if the future is unknown. Maybe it's fundamentally impossible for my sequential oriented mind to understand this concept. It kind of hits on a point other people have brought up before though, that any aliens we conjure up will always be reflective of human nature, because everything we write will be from a human point of view. We might never be able to predict what aliens are like because they might be too bizarre for us to imagine.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll go read The Hundred-Light-Year-Diary, and if I like it, I'll go check out the Orthogonal series as well.
It's been a while since I read "Story of Your Life", but what you said is the exact reason why I didn't like the movie. It's great production and cinematics no doubt: my girlfriend who is usually doesn't like sci-fi liked the movie a lot. However, the core essence and idea that "Story of Your Life" illuminates -- that you so aptly describe -- would fundamentally fail when presented visually. The movie is great no doubt; but to me, the movie and book are very different experiences and the movie is not a very faithful adaption.