Ted Chiang has won the PEN/Faulkner Foundation's short story prize(lithub.com)
lithub.com
Ted Chiang has won the PEN/Faulkner Foundation's short story prize
https://lithub.com/ted-chiang-has-won-the-pen-faulkner-foundations-short-story-prize/
118 comments
I actually don't think that it's very true to the original - arguably, it loses the entire point of the original. In particular, I agree with Gwern's take (https://gwern.net/story-of-your-life) that the original Story of Your Life does not involve any time travel/precognition, while Arrival makes it very clear that Louise has precognition.
To be clear, I quite like Arrival. I just think its message is quite different from the short story.
To be clear, I quite like Arrival. I just think its message is quite different from the short story.
Yeah I agree. I read the short story after having seen the movie and I thought the language/time stuff was clearly different. That's also why they changed the cause of the daughter's death from a climbing accident to an illness, because it wouldn't make sense for her to be killed by mountain climbing if her mother could have seen it coming.
Disagree. I thought there's a part in the story where the narrator talks about the inability to change the future. she knew her daughter would die in a fall and couldn't change it
Maybe my previous comment wasn't clear enough, since I agree with you. I think both versions make sense in their own context:
In the short story she sees all of her life "simultaneously" but it all still works with our typical notions of causality. The future can't influence the past, and so she can't use knowledge of the future in the present.
In the movie, she gets glimpses of the future which she then uses in the present. She learns the Chinese general's phone number from a memory of the future and then calls him. In the movie it wouldn't have made sense for her to see her daughter die in an accident and then not act on that information at all, so they changed it to an illness which she couldn't prevent even with foreknowledge.
In the short story she sees all of her life "simultaneously" but it all still works with our typical notions of causality. The future can't influence the past, and so she can't use knowledge of the future in the present.
In the movie, she gets glimpses of the future which she then uses in the present. She learns the Chinese general's phone number from a memory of the future and then calls him. In the movie it wouldn't have made sense for her to see her daughter die in an accident and then not act on that information at all, so they changed it to an illness which she couldn't prevent even with foreknowledge.
I feel its super clear if you read the story before the movie existed. Also the physics examples, which aren't in the movie, make this clear.
There are two views of the world, in one you have freewill and experience making choices. In the other, you have no free will, and the things you do are set. They are set and you know what they are.
That's why its important that her daughter died of something preventable, so when you find out at the end that it hasn't happen yet, yet she does nothing to stop it even though it is in the future, you are getting a taste of seeing the world in this second way.
Cancer, there is nothing anyone can do, and it throws aside the whole premise.
The acting on seeing things in the future break the premise as well.
The point of the story was that you can't act on the future. If you can see the future you can't change it. It's also why the aliens had no strong reason for coming or leaving. They were always going to come, have the explosion and leave.
There are two views of the world, in one you have freewill and experience making choices. In the other, you have no free will, and the things you do are set. They are set and you know what they are.
That's why its important that her daughter died of something preventable, so when you find out at the end that it hasn't happen yet, yet she does nothing to stop it even though it is in the future, you are getting a taste of seeing the world in this second way.
Cancer, there is nothing anyone can do, and it throws aside the whole premise.
The acting on seeing things in the future break the premise as well.
The point of the story was that you can't act on the future. If you can see the future you can't change it. It's also why the aliens had no strong reason for coming or leaving. They were always going to come, have the explosion and leave.
> She learns the Chinese general's phone number from a memory of the future and then calls him.
Didn't she do something like this in the short story as well? The part where she learns the non-zero-sum phrase?
> In the movie it wouldn't have made sense for her to see her daughter die in an accident and then not act on that information at all
It didn't make sense in the story either. I remember being infuriated.
Didn't she do something like this in the short story as well? The part where she learns the non-zero-sum phrase?
> In the movie it wouldn't have made sense for her to see her daughter die in an accident and then not act on that information at all
It didn't make sense in the story either. I remember being infuriated.
I recommend you read the linked post above: https://gwern.net/story-of-your-life, which argues that the story is not about precognition at all.
> and on my first read, I thought [Story of My Life] was downright mediocre—it seemed like some formal experimentation ... wrapped around an unnecessarily confusing plot & second-rate physics mumbo-jumbo in the service of a heavy-handed point. On my second read years later, having read some more about related topics in physics & philosophy since, I realized that I (along with almost everyone else who read it, judging from online discussions & reviews of the story and Arrival) might have been badly mistaken and that the plot was deliberately open to misreading and the physics mumbo-jumbo was in fact the whole point and the formal structure nicely reflected that.
> Didn't she do something like this in the short story as well? The part where she learns the non-zero-sum phrase?
If you carefully read the section, she learns the "non-zero-sum" phrase before having her daughter. The flashforward where she uses the "non-zero-sum" phrase is just her recalling the memory - no precognition required.
> “Mom, what do you call it when both sides can win?” I’ll look up from my computer and the paper I’ll be writing. “What, you mean a win-win situation?” … “I’m sorry, I don’t know it either. Why don’t you call your dad?”…A representative from the State Department named Hossner had the job of briefing the U.S scientists on our agenda with the heptapods. We sat in the video-conference room, listening to him lecture…“You mean it’s a non-zero-sum game?” Gary said in mock incredulity. “Oh my gosh.”…“A non-zero-sum game.” “What?” You’ll reverse course, heading back from your bedroom. “When both sides can win: I just remembered, it’s called a non-zero-sum game”
> and on my first read, I thought [Story of My Life] was downright mediocre—it seemed like some formal experimentation ... wrapped around an unnecessarily confusing plot & second-rate physics mumbo-jumbo in the service of a heavy-handed point. On my second read years later, having read some more about related topics in physics & philosophy since, I realized that I (along with almost everyone else who read it, judging from online discussions & reviews of the story and Arrival) might have been badly mistaken and that the plot was deliberately open to misreading and the physics mumbo-jumbo was in fact the whole point and the formal structure nicely reflected that.
> Didn't she do something like this in the short story as well? The part where she learns the non-zero-sum phrase?
If you carefully read the section, she learns the "non-zero-sum" phrase before having her daughter. The flashforward where she uses the "non-zero-sum" phrase is just her recalling the memory - no precognition required.
> “Mom, what do you call it when both sides can win?” I’ll look up from my computer and the paper I’ll be writing. “What, you mean a win-win situation?” … “I’m sorry, I don’t know it either. Why don’t you call your dad?”…A representative from the State Department named Hossner had the job of briefing the U.S scientists on our agenda with the heptapods. We sat in the video-conference room, listening to him lecture…“You mean it’s a non-zero-sum game?” Gary said in mock incredulity. “Oh my gosh.”…“A non-zero-sum game.” “What?” You’ll reverse course, heading back from your bedroom. “When both sides can win: I just remembered, it’s called a non-zero-sum game”
That was a great read overnight. Thank you. Also one of the prettiest functional websites I've had the pleasure of reading on my phone.
Yea. There's a recurring theme in Ted Chiang's works about the inability to change the future.
What's Expected of Us: https://www.nature.com/articles/436150a
Which makes sense if there's a goalie with his thumb on the scale.
I watched the movie first, found out who wrote it, and read the book it was in.
I did love a lot the short story, and kind of got mad at "Arrival" for some of the changes it makes to the story. But. After several (SEVERAL) re watches of the movie, I got to "understand" what Villeneuve was about, and I fell in love with the movie as well.
It currently sits in probably my top 5 preferred movies to re watch (Being the others both Blade Runners, About Time & Notting Hill in no preferred order)
I did love a lot the short story, and kind of got mad at "Arrival" for some of the changes it makes to the story. But. After several (SEVERAL) re watches of the movie, I got to "understand" what Villeneuve was about, and I fell in love with the movie as well.
It currently sits in probably my top 5 preferred movies to re watch (Being the others both Blade Runners, About Time & Notting Hill in no preferred order)
I do wish to add that while Villenueve was great, to me, the key man in this adaption was Eric Heisserer, who wrote the screenplay.
There's a really good interview of the changes he made, how the script came to be, and how he got Villenueve on board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDXlaa9JpuI
The anecdote about the most important line in the film is also really funny in that the line seems so deep and philosophical, but it came about almost entirely through improvisation at the last minute.
The whole thing is one of those rare cases where I consider the original story by Ted Chiang, the script by Eric Heisserer, and the film by Denis Villeneuve to all be complimentary.
There's a really good interview of the changes he made, how the script came to be, and how he got Villenueve on board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDXlaa9JpuI
The anecdote about the most important line in the film is also really funny in that the line seems so deep and philosophical, but it came about almost entirely through improvisation at the last minute.
The whole thing is one of those rare cases where I consider the original story by Ted Chiang, the script by Eric Heisserer, and the film by Denis Villeneuve to all be complimentary.
Thanks for the link. I'll definitely watch it this weekend.
As much as I enjoy the original Blade Runner, it really does not feel like a masterpiece the way 2049 does.
Note the usage of quotes from Nabokov's Pale Fire during the baseline test. A few I liked:
Joe (aka "K") has to pass the baseline test to demonstrate his lack of emotional state.
There's a scene early on in the film where K will be giving a present to his hologram love, Joi. She's the opposite of K - full of emotion, joy, sadness. Joe just had a rough day, comes home, and she tries to cheer him up
It's clear the film is a true labor of love from Hampton Fancher and Michael Green. They put their entire being into this work.
Note the usage of quotes from Nabokov's Pale Fire during the baseline test. A few I liked:
Do you feel that there's a part of you that's missing? Interlinked.
Did you buy a present for the person you love? Within cells interlinked.
Joe (aka "K") has to pass the baseline test to demonstrate his lack of emotional state.
There's a scene early on in the film where K will be giving a present to his hologram love, Joi. She's the opposite of K - full of emotion, joy, sadness. Joe just had a rough day, comes home, and she tries to cheer him up
Joi : Would you read to me?
[gets up, crosses to table, 'picks up' Nabokov's Pale Fire]
Joi : It'll make you feel better.
'K' : You hate that book.
It's clear the film is a true labor of love from Hampton Fancher and Michael Green. They put their entire being into this work.
I read a post some time ago that explained how that test came to be - It was created by Ryan Gosling of all people - and it's an incredible story inside an incredible story.
Not sure if this [1] is the post I read back in the day, so I hope it does explain the story correctly (Haven't read this one in particular, just googled for it). Then I thought "May be I picked that from Hacker news" [2] and [3] (May be you should go at these in reverse order)
[1] https://cohost.org/mcc/post/178201-the-baseline-scene [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813595 [3] https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/blade-runner-2049-how-a-key...
Not sure if this [1] is the post I read back in the day, so I hope it does explain the story correctly (Haven't read this one in particular, just googled for it). Then I thought "May be I picked that from Hacker news" [2] and [3] (May be you should go at these in reverse order)
[1] https://cohost.org/mcc/post/178201-the-baseline-scene [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813595 [3] https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/blade-runner-2049-how-a-key...
Crazy to me that people think 2049 was a masterpiece. That film was full of the most generic sci-fi story tropes possible and entirely missed the chaotic, visual genius of the original. It’s a forgettable sci-fi action movie that no one would have looked twice at if it weren’t named Blade Runner.
Previous discussions on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37963935
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21960584
Previous discussions on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37963935
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21960584
I barely remember 2049. I remember so much of the original. Ridley Scott and team created the world from scratch and mastered the atmosphere. 2049 is very good, but it's basically a requel.
I think Villeneuve - out of the current cream-of-the-crop directors - best understands how to /adapt/ for film. Chiang has a masterful grasp of the short story format, in turn. Both the short story and film delighted me, and both seem suited well to their medium.
Arrival and Dune Part 1 are both really good, 10/10, adaptations.
Dune 2 to me shows that even with an amazingly talented adapter/director, that there are some limits to what can be conveyed from literature to film.
The limit in Dune 2 comes down to the fact that much of the “action” in the novel takes place via internal monologue. To convey that in film ends up being very, very hard and with Dune you can’t escape it.
In my viewing of Dune 2 I thought they weren’t able to really show the vastness of Paul’s internal journey, his visions of Jihad, struggling with his place in the universe as his mind is transforming. I didn’t feel that was in the film and made a lot of other actions and motivations more confusing.
I’m glad we have so many ways to tell stories, and I’m wholeheartedly for adaptations, but the fact that some types of ideas and stories are best expressed via one medium over another is something to embrace as well.
Dune 2 to me shows that even with an amazingly talented adapter/director, that there are some limits to what can be conveyed from literature to film.
The limit in Dune 2 comes down to the fact that much of the “action” in the novel takes place via internal monologue. To convey that in film ends up being very, very hard and with Dune you can’t escape it.
In my viewing of Dune 2 I thought they weren’t able to really show the vastness of Paul’s internal journey, his visions of Jihad, struggling with his place in the universe as his mind is transforming. I didn’t feel that was in the film and made a lot of other actions and motivations more confusing.
I’m glad we have so many ways to tell stories, and I’m wholeheartedly for adaptations, but the fact that some types of ideas and stories are best expressed via one medium over another is something to embrace as well.
Certainly true! Expressing internal conflict and ideas in external, comprehensible ways is maybe the single most difficult challenge for the filmmaker. It's very hard to get right. 'The medium is the message' still rings true.
I guess I should re-watch it since I read the story first, then watched the movie and I had a hard time with what I perceived was unnecessary monkeying with the story of the daughter that I felt made the movie story less rich and complex. But it's probably time to revisit both mediums.
I’m a book person, not a movie person. But I have so much love for the movie About Time.
+1
+1
The anthology "Stories of your Life and Others" was the best scifi anthology I've read.
Personally I love "Exhalation" a lot more
Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate
I shared this with a friend who grew up native in an Arabic-speaking country. After finishing it, he said he'd like to read it again but in the original Arabic. He'd interpreted it as authentic from his native storytelling culture.
Such an amazing writer.
I shared this with a friend who grew up native in an Arabic-speaking country. After finishing it, he said he'd like to read it again but in the original Arabic. He'd interpreted it as authentic from his native storytelling culture.
Such an amazing writer.
I read both collections after, like others, getting introduced to Ted Chiang because of Arrival, and both rank highly among my favorites. Chiang can write some beautiful prose (best exemplified by "The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate") and excels at taking a single interesting idea and taking it somewhere fascinating. With very few exceptions, his stories don't have real characters - they're just named tools to express ideas - but that works well with the kind of stories he writes.
Highlights for me from Exhalation:
The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate - beautifully written story in the style of Arabic literature
The Lifecycle of Software Objects - resonated strongly with me due to its criticism of the software industry, and raises great ethical questions about AIs
The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling - I was intrigued by the Tiv tribe's concepts of truth, and blown away when I later found out that "mimi" and "vough" are real concepts and not Chiang's imagination
Anxiety Is the Dizziness of Freedom - a great and plausibly seeming examination of the psychological and social effects of communicating with alternate realities
Highlights for me from Exhalation:
The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate - beautifully written story in the style of Arabic literature
The Lifecycle of Software Objects - resonated strongly with me due to its criticism of the software industry, and raises great ethical questions about AIs
The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling - I was intrigued by the Tiv tribe's concepts of truth, and blown away when I later found out that "mimi" and "vough" are real concepts and not Chiang's imagination
Anxiety Is the Dizziness of Freedom - a great and plausibly seeming examination of the psychological and social effects of communicating with alternate realities
Funny the last 3 are also among my highlights, but I would venture that they’re specifically good examples of Chiang’s ability to do character work. In various ways, they give a marvelously detailed and lyrical picture of people evolving over time, dealing with and coming to peace with circumstances and adversity.
I understand that it's not really a story, but The Great Silence is also excellent.
It’s my favorite Ted Chiang story (it’s a story to me).
That's up there too, maybe it's because I read SOYLAO first. I really liked both, though.
> The movie isn't a literal adaption of the short story, but IMHO it is very true to the original.
I think it depends on what you mean. It takes the literal plot in a different direction—I think necessarily, because it'd be very hard to convey on film the important parts of the story without something like very heavy-handed voice-over. But I could go for the argument that it is true to the spirit and mood of the story. (Personally, I enjoyed it—it's by far my favorite Villeneuve's movies—and, as a huge Ted Chiang fan, I didn't feel cheated, but neither did I feel that I'd seen a very faithful adaptation.)
I think it depends on what you mean. It takes the literal plot in a different direction—I think necessarily, because it'd be very hard to convey on film the important parts of the story without something like very heavy-handed voice-over. But I could go for the argument that it is true to the spirit and mood of the story. (Personally, I enjoyed it—it's by far my favorite Villeneuve's movies—and, as a huge Ted Chiang fan, I didn't feel cheated, but neither did I feel that I'd seen a very faithful adaptation.)
It wasn't a different direction. Everything in the story is in the movie as well. The movie just contains a ton of more plot and details because of course you can't just translate a handful of pages of a sci-fi concept to the big screen.
Ted Chiang is extremely recommended to anyone who enjoys inventive fiction. His work borders fantasy and science fiction, switching effortlessly from one topic to the next, with absolute mastery, being thought provoking, sophisticated, yet never stuffy or boring, with his only aim to tell a good story.
If you like Borges, Clarke, Stephenson and others you will love Mr. Chiang. Some of his writing is the best I've read in creative fiction in any genre.
If you like Borges, Clarke, Stephenson and others you will love Mr. Chiang. Some of his writing is the best I've read in creative fiction in any genre.
Also strongly recommend Greg Egan, who I place in a similar bucket to Chiang.
Egan has some books that fall into an (afaik) completely unique sub-genre that I have heard described as "math-fi".
Some of his books are (credibly) described as a textbook wrapped in a narrative veneer. E.g. he has 3 books set in a universe with a ++++ metric tensor, and another book set in a ++-- universe. He painstakingly rederives many details of physics, chemistry, etc. to a level of detail that I've never seen even in physics textbooks, and then creates a story where characters in that universe discover its properties. The books are good even without paying too much attention to the math, but if you find that part interesting, he has detailed supplemental materials on his website.
Egan has some books that fall into an (afaik) completely unique sub-genre that I have heard described as "math-fi".
Some of his books are (credibly) described as a textbook wrapped in a narrative veneer. E.g. he has 3 books set in a universe with a ++++ metric tensor, and another book set in a ++-- universe. He painstakingly rederives many details of physics, chemistry, etc. to a level of detail that I've never seen even in physics textbooks, and then creates a story where characters in that universe discover its properties. The books are good even without paying too much attention to the math, but if you find that part interesting, he has detailed supplemental materials on his website.
Eactly, Eagan is "math-fi", and Borges is "philosophy-fi". And yeah, what Eagan does is absolutely mind blowing. He mathematically derives entire universes entirely unlike our own, determines what it would be like to live in them, and then writes about characters that do.
(And this isn't boring shit like "this world is four-dimensional, so its inhabitants need more legs, woah!", this is bizarre shit like "better clear the road so that we can rotate the museum down it, before the sun moves on".)
(And this isn't boring shit like "this world is four-dimensional, so its inhabitants need more legs, woah!", this is bizarre shit like "better clear the road so that we can rotate the museum down it, before the sun moves on".)
I've read something like 7 egan books now but my math isn't good enough to know if they're any of the four you described via metric tensor (cause the wiki page on it went over my head). Surely not Incandescence? Maybe Schild's Ladder? Curious which ones you mean, a list of names is fine if you don't want to spoil anyone.
The Clockwork Rocket trilogy is ++++, and Dichronauts is ++--.
Reading these really helped my intuitive grasp of relativistic mechanics.
Incandescence is also cool but (minimal spoilers) is more or less the normal +--- metric. Not nearly as mind-bending as ++++ or ++--.
Reading these really helped my intuitive grasp of relativistic mechanics.
Incandescence is also cool but (minimal spoilers) is more or less the normal +--- metric. Not nearly as mind-bending as ++++ or ++--.
His stuff is amazing. The only one I've read so far that I haven't liked was the one on the virtual pets. That one seemed to go on forever.
Well the virtual pet story had two problems! The first is that it seemed to go on forever, and the second was that it ended before the story was complete.
Yeah, I think that one suffered from not really having a clear vision of how AI would work, so it lacked the backbone that most Chiang stories start with and couldn't figure out what to do with itself and so went on too long. I'd like to see Chiang revisit that topic soon with DL scaling in mind to sharpen the vision and boil it down to its essence. (Hopefully he's no longer dismissing LLMs as 'blurry JPGs of the Internet'...)
I feel like the only person in scifi who doesn't LOVE Ted Chiang. Don't get me wrong -- I like his writing a lot. But, I often feel like it's a little 'light' -- not sure how to describe this exactly.
I guess I'm saying he's not Philip K Dick or Stanislaw Lem, or even William Gibson, but he's awarded/discussed as much.
I will, of course, buy his next book, short or long-form. But I'd love it if he went a little higher/deeper conceptually. I think he has it in him.
I guess I'm saying he's not Philip K Dick or Stanislaw Lem, or even William Gibson, but he's awarded/discussed as much.
I will, of course, buy his next book, short or long-form. But I'd love it if he went a little higher/deeper conceptually. I think he has it in him.
I just want to counter balanced this by sharing love ted chiang but cannot happily get through any p k dick and little Gibson either. I find Chiangs work hits me deeper on a conceptual level and perhaps it's that exact lightness of tone. I find Dick and Gibson too affected with gravitas and a vision of stylistic coolness that I do not share for me to enjoy them. But that is all purely subjective preference, they're both objectively fine writers
I wouldn't say PKD is gravitas. He is often funny and has a workingman prose. Gibson, yes. Though, I find his later works, like Peripheral, less stylized and serious.
For me Ted Chiang short stories are like a little trip in a story form. He's not the most rounded storyteller in atmosphere or dialogue and rich characters, but the central idea he's interested in exploring in each story often blows my mind, and that seems like his end goal, like breaking open the boxes we're stuck inside a little bit. He seems satisfied if he's able to reach that destination concisely.
Oh wow! I'm late to the Ted Chiang game, having only read his books last year, but I've read a lot of PDK, a fair amount of Gibson, and a little bit of Lem. I think Chiang's less eager to end on a grim note than they are. And maybe that's what you're feeling. But I think the topics he deals with can be incredibly big, and incredibly dark. For instance, The Lifecycle of Software Objects was so realistic, and so dismally cynical about the software industry in particular, that it made me feel palpable fear and pre-emptive shame for the future.
I re-read Lifecycle based on your comment, and.. I think I have more precise critiques now; one is just that his writing is targeted a fairly simple reading level, and it bothers me.
The second is that I think most of Lifecycle has been said before, and possibly better, and sometimes has been said for decades. I don’t mind a short story with a single new idea, but Lifecycle is verging on novella, and I think it didn’t need to be nearly so long, or put another way, the length wasn’t used to get the depth in to the story I’d like to see for the page count.
The main Lifecycle story points: can software be human/a person? If so, does it need to be raised/cared for? What will the people who do that think about it? Is that a dead end in AGI? If software agents get autonomy, will some of them willingly be sex robots? Is that really that different than humans grinding in software jobs?
I mean, okay, those are all super reasonable things to write about, and not uninteresting, but PKD famously hit up these questions of personhood in the 60s, as did Lem - PKD with weirdo psychoanalysis dystopia settings, Lem with lighthearted stories about competing constructors.
I guess I didn’t find it that dismally cynical about software either, but I may be jaded ;)
The second is that I think most of Lifecycle has been said before, and possibly better, and sometimes has been said for decades. I don’t mind a short story with a single new idea, but Lifecycle is verging on novella, and I think it didn’t need to be nearly so long, or put another way, the length wasn’t used to get the depth in to the story I’d like to see for the page count.
The main Lifecycle story points: can software be human/a person? If so, does it need to be raised/cared for? What will the people who do that think about it? Is that a dead end in AGI? If software agents get autonomy, will some of them willingly be sex robots? Is that really that different than humans grinding in software jobs?
I mean, okay, those are all super reasonable things to write about, and not uninteresting, but PKD famously hit up these questions of personhood in the 60s, as did Lem - PKD with weirdo psychoanalysis dystopia settings, Lem with lighthearted stories about competing constructors.
I guess I didn’t find it that dismally cynical about software either, but I may be jaded ;)
I get you. A lot of short stories feel a bit... empty? to me. Like there's an effort to be profound but they don't get there.
Yes. I re-read some Chiang after this thread popped up, and I would say his writing style is aimed at like a sixth grade level. I’m sure Mr. Chiang can write to many audiences, but I think this contributes to this feeling of lightness/emptiness — simple writing, and I’d say sometimes simplified concepts. And, in the story I re-read, I’d say some of it was overexplained. It may explain his broad popularity though; I’m just not sure I’m his audience.
Agree. Many feel like “I had an idea, I daydreamed a bit, then I wrote down my daydream”, leaving me with a shrug.
I just read two stories by him because of the hype in this thread, and I can firmly say... I don't get it. Doesn't mean it's not great literature, but it's not for me. I wonder how much of me not enjoying it is because of the "Seinfeld is unfunny" concept though.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...
To me reading his work feels often more like going through a news report than enjoying a short story.
I used to read all the collections of "The Years Best Science Fiction" by Gardner Dozois
I stopped reading them after a while, because it felt like eating a box of assorted donuts. Very creative/stimulating but too many idea changes, too short and too quick.
I really find novels more compelling compared to short stories. They seem to have more depth, explore more adjacent things, allow for character development, take the time.
In fact, nowadays from time to time I go too much the other way. I quit at book 7 of the 20 book series because there're not enough new ideas/momentum.
I stopped reading them after a while, because it felt like eating a box of assorted donuts. Very creative/stimulating but too many idea changes, too short and too quick.
I really find novels more compelling compared to short stories. They seem to have more depth, explore more adjacent things, allow for character development, take the time.
In fact, nowadays from time to time I go too much the other way. I quit at book 7 of the 20 book series because there're not enough new ideas/momentum.
Oh man, I miss Gardner. He had great taste. I own almost all of those Anthologies, and agree that they were best read slowly.
As someone with aphantasia, who typically reads non-fiction and watches fiction, Ted Chiang’s work really stands out for me. Most visual descriptions are in service to technical details, and therefore they are enjoyable conceptually.
You make me doubt myself. I can't imagine stuff with the closed eyes, but when I read book I kind of can imagine stuff somewhat.
Is it aphantasia or not? Matter of degree?
Aphantasia is objectively measurable. Aphants lack a pupil response to “imagining” shapes of various brightness. They also lack the measurable “stress/anxiety” response to anxiety provoking written passages, but not images.
If any part of your imagination is like the experience of seeing, you probably don’t have it.
If any part of your imagination is like the experience of seeing, you probably don’t have it.
No, I remember it was like experience of seeing when I was a kid. I really saw stuff when I read the book. Now I kind of imagine it with thinking somehow. Hard to explain.
interesting...see this is why I although I find some of his work interesting I can't really get into it. I prefer fiction w/more visual descriptions that I can get immersed in.
Thank you! I too have aphantasia and I really appreciate this comment :)
I'm another aphant who really appreciates Chiang's writing! I wonder if he is one too
Well deserved. "Hell is the absence of God" is my favorite of his stories. It's one of the few short stories I find myself repeatedly re-reading.
One of my favorite sentences in any book.
“And God sent him to Hell anyway.”
“And God sent him to Hell anyway.”
God I love that line. I almost wish the story ended right there.
My favorite as well.
Mine too. Beautiful work. The characters. The imagery. The language. Magical. It's published in an anthology that has many other good stories too.
Highly recommend his Tower of Babylon, I think about it regularly, love his brand of sci-fi
I re-read it often. It’s one of the best short stories I’ve read in the entire life.
Interesting that he's never written a full novel, only short stories.
I wonder if that in itself made his works higher quality: no pressure for high word count, and thus economy with words and no filler content.
I wonder if that in itself made his works higher quality: no pressure for high word count, and thus economy with words and no filler content.
What differs a short story from a novel is definitely not “economy words and filler content”. The two are very different narratives, structure and concepts. You don’t usually start writing a novel and realize it’s a short story or vice versa. Even if you do, then you rethink your whole structure.
Economy with words and filler content might differentiate a good from a bad novel, but not a novel and short story.
Economy with words and filler content might differentiate a good from a bad novel, but not a novel and short story.
I think of movies as the equivalent of short stories and serialized series as novels. That distinction also seems to hold when it comes to adaptations.
Good point.
Which novels would you recommend that had no filler content?
Which novels would you recommend that had no filler content?
“Filler” is very subjective. A very long chapter going on a tangential introspective mourning thoughts may be viewed by some, as it “doesn’t move the plot forward”, but it can be the most pungent point of emotional connection in the entire novel for others.
Sometimes going on talking about minor characters routine is kind of the main point of an author’s intention, but it may read as “filler” by some.
Or something like Brandon Sanderson books, where his fans enjoy spending more time in that universe, but make their novels very long.
Sometimes going on talking about minor characters routine is kind of the main point of an author’s intention, but it may read as “filler” by some.
Or something like Brandon Sanderson books, where his fans enjoy spending more time in that universe, but make their novels very long.
"A Canticle For Leibowitz"; "The Stranger"; "The Fall"; "Childhood's End"; "Riddley Walker"; "The Martian Chronicles"; "The Sea of Tranquillity"; "Animal Farm"; "Catch 22"; "The Catcher in the Rye"; "A Clockwork Orange"; "Dr. Strangelove"; "To Kill A Mockingbird"; "The Little Prince"; "The Unbearable Lightness of Being"; "Lord of the Flies"; "Charlotte's Web"; "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn"; "All Quiet on the Western Front"; "The World According to Garp"; "Invisible Man"; "Flowers for Algernon"; "Sophie's Choice"; "The Road"; "All the Light We Cannot See"; "The Goldfinch"; "Atonement"; "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time"
"a wizard of earthsea" is one of my gold standard novels in that respect
What is "filler content"?
Because from how I understand it I'd argue there is no such thing as "filler content" in novels.
Because from how I understand it I'd argue there is no such thing as "filler content" in novels.
To the other great nominations, I would add:
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Given how long he's been writing (he sold his first story in 1989), the fact that he's only published 18 short stories and no novels in his entire career probably says a lot about his approach.
He has also written ~15 short stories over 35 years. Quality over quantity.
Stephen King, to me, suffers from the exact opposite.
His short stories are amazing and right to the point, but most of his novels are filler and would probably work better as short stories. In novels King has to answer questions he can skip in short fiction which is why his novels always end so unsatisfactory ('it was aliens all along!').
His short stories are amazing and right to the point, but most of his novels are filler and would probably work better as short stories. In novels King has to answer questions he can skip in short fiction which is why his novels always end so unsatisfactory ('it was aliens all along!').
evidenced by the huge variation in word count among his short stories. some are a couple pages, while others are essentially novellas.
If you haven't had the chance, I highly recommend his short story called Understand. It'll resonate with a lot of people who are on the spectrum and like to think very meta.
I was hoping this had meant he'd written a new story.
I would really like to know why he continues to work a day-job. Does he enjoy writing technical documentation that much?
I thought most of the authors nominated for PEN prizes this year were boycotting the organization and the awards were canceled? [1]. I guess Ted Chiang didn't withdraw his nomination like everyone else did.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246578813/pen-america-cancel...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246578813/pen-america-cancel...
From your linked article:
> But the event was canceled when nearly half of the writers and translators nominated withdrew their books from consideration. The awards will still be granted to those who did not withdraw.
> But the event was canceled when nearly half of the writers and translators nominated withdrew their books from consideration. The awards will still be granted to those who did not withdraw.
[deleted]
Looks like this is sort of a lifetime achievement award you can't withdraw from. Other authors donated their winnings to Palestine in protest, so maybe he will as well.
I read the letter [0] and am deeply confused.
For context, I agree with the basic philosophical premise. I'm a Jew, but Israel is a repressive apartheid state, and while it had a right to defend itself, it's approach in Gaza absolutely meets the internationally accepted definition of genocide. The positions of individual Jews and Israelis are on a wide spectrum, but it's also not controversial to say that as far as the current Israeli leadership, this genocide is not an accident, not even from a lack of care. It is absolutely within their goals and desires to have all Palestenians eliminated from the territory administrated by Israel, and they're going as far as they can without losing the international support of the United States.
With all of that said, I have no idea what PEN has to do with this. If they are endorsing it, they should stop. If they're funding it, they should stop. If they're invested in organizations directly supporting the Israeli government, they should stop.
But if all they are is "an organization in the US", then their tax dollars are going to fund the genocide. And every single American taxpayer is equally complicit here, which is to say not at all. People SHOULD be fighting for change, and advocating for it. But not through empty speeches or statements. Statements from PEN do not protect or save the rights of Palestinians.
I also think this is meaningfully different from the BLM era when protestors stated that silence is violence, and a lack of a statement is a tacit rejection of the movement. BLM was/is about an inherently American problem of systemic racism. White Americans benefit from systemic racism through no action of their own, so acknowledging it and at least making an effort to get woke to it (the original meaning of the term) is at least a necessary step to choosing to helping to dismantle it. American Corporations do play a part in that.
But on Israel/Palestine, I just think these moves do not help the cause.
[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VEF-Hrg8wN7WHiSljqwd9IqH...
For context, I agree with the basic philosophical premise. I'm a Jew, but Israel is a repressive apartheid state, and while it had a right to defend itself, it's approach in Gaza absolutely meets the internationally accepted definition of genocide. The positions of individual Jews and Israelis are on a wide spectrum, but it's also not controversial to say that as far as the current Israeli leadership, this genocide is not an accident, not even from a lack of care. It is absolutely within their goals and desires to have all Palestenians eliminated from the territory administrated by Israel, and they're going as far as they can without losing the international support of the United States.
With all of that said, I have no idea what PEN has to do with this. If they are endorsing it, they should stop. If they're funding it, they should stop. If they're invested in organizations directly supporting the Israeli government, they should stop.
But if all they are is "an organization in the US", then their tax dollars are going to fund the genocide. And every single American taxpayer is equally complicit here, which is to say not at all. People SHOULD be fighting for change, and advocating for it. But not through empty speeches or statements. Statements from PEN do not protect or save the rights of Palestinians.
I also think this is meaningfully different from the BLM era when protestors stated that silence is violence, and a lack of a statement is a tacit rejection of the movement. BLM was/is about an inherently American problem of systemic racism. White Americans benefit from systemic racism through no action of their own, so acknowledging it and at least making an effort to get woke to it (the original meaning of the term) is at least a necessary step to choosing to helping to dismantle it. American Corporations do play a part in that.
But on Israel/Palestine, I just think these moves do not help the cause.
[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VEF-Hrg8wN7WHiSljqwd9IqH...
Yeah, you're right, this letter doesn't give a lot of context, and honestly I'm only knowledgeable about the context because my wife is a writer and has judged awards for them in the past/we have a lot of friends in NYC lit circles.
One of the major things that pushed things over the edge for writers affiliated with PEN is they were platforming Mayim Bialik [1]. They're an organization founded around free speech and protecting writers and they hadn't made any statements about the journalists killed in Gaza. For an organization that is often virtue signaling for (progressive) political causes their silence was pretty loud for many writers that interact with them as literary community members. They had even canceled events that featured stories of Palestinians due to not wanting to stir controversy. And then they go and platform Bialik and I think a lot of people just turned on them in frustration at that point.
[1] https://lithub.com/two-novelists-have-cut-ties-with-pen-over...
One of the major things that pushed things over the edge for writers affiliated with PEN is they were platforming Mayim Bialik [1]. They're an organization founded around free speech and protecting writers and they hadn't made any statements about the journalists killed in Gaza. For an organization that is often virtue signaling for (progressive) political causes their silence was pretty loud for many writers that interact with them as literary community members. They had even canceled events that featured stories of Palestinians due to not wanting to stir controversy. And then they go and platform Bialik and I think a lot of people just turned on them in frustration at that point.
[1] https://lithub.com/two-novelists-have-cut-ties-with-pen-over...
”What's expected of us” is wonderful.
https://www.nature.com/articles/436150a
https://www.nature.com/articles/436150a
He’s always thought provoking! “Story of Your Life” is obviously great. A lot of people mention it down below - an order of magnitude better than the movie IMO, since I think the movie missed the main interesting, mindblowing point.
Possibly my favorite is the last story in the “Story of Your Life” collection, “Liking What You See: A Documentary” (I think I got the title right). It’s about a controversy on a college campus where the administration is getting ready to make a rule requiring that students use a technology that blocks their perception of beauty in humans. It’s not even a real technology, but the way he shows all sides of the issue - showing that it’s a lot more complicated than it looks at first glance - it feels REAL. Amazing author.
Possibly my favorite is the last story in the “Story of Your Life” collection, “Liking What You See: A Documentary” (I think I got the title right). It’s about a controversy on a college campus where the administration is getting ready to make a rule requiring that students use a technology that blocks their perception of beauty in humans. It’s not even a real technology, but the way he shows all sides of the issue - showing that it’s a lot more complicated than it looks at first glance - it feels REAL. Amazing author.
If you like Ted Chiang and scifi short stories, consider checking out Jay Lake's Last Plane to Heaven, or Charles Stross's Wireless collection.
Short stories are such a fantastic and frustrating format, because the best ones blow your mind and leave you wanting another thousand pages.
Short stories are such a fantastic and frustrating format, because the best ones blow your mind and leave you wanting another thousand pages.
Science fiction is perfectly suited for short stories. It's a way to explore thought experiments, without being too constrained by the possibilities of the present, while also not being able to be as arbitrary as in fantasy and similar genres.
Frederik Pohl said "A good science fiction story should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam."
Chiang's stories are good SF stories in this vein -- even the stories with magic. He considers the consequences of his What-If hypotheticals in depth, whether they are plausible according to known physics or operate on fantasy suppositions.
Consider his story [1] "Liking What You See: A Documentary." It's about a world in which people can have their perceptions of human beauty suppressed as an anti-discrimination measure. In some authors' voices this would be a strident sermon about a dystopian Equality Gone Too Far, or in others, about the new Utopia that arises when people are judged on their actions instead of their appearance. But Chiang doesn't preach to any choir. He plausibly represents how people would react to this hypothetical technological development without putting his thumb on the scale to tell readers how to feel about it.
Most ideas are not as clearly bad as the Torment Nexus [2], nor as clearly beneficial as the polio vaccine. I love that Chiang can write about ideas that might as well be a pitch for a Black Mirror episode but with much more consideration than Black Mirror would treat it. His slow writing pace probably helps too.
[1] https://waldyrious.neocities.org/ted_chiang/liking-what-you-...
[2] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/torment-nexus
Chiang's stories are good SF stories in this vein -- even the stories with magic. He considers the consequences of his What-If hypotheticals in depth, whether they are plausible according to known physics or operate on fantasy suppositions.
Consider his story [1] "Liking What You See: A Documentary." It's about a world in which people can have their perceptions of human beauty suppressed as an anti-discrimination measure. In some authors' voices this would be a strident sermon about a dystopian Equality Gone Too Far, or in others, about the new Utopia that arises when people are judged on their actions instead of their appearance. But Chiang doesn't preach to any choir. He plausibly represents how people would react to this hypothetical technological development without putting his thumb on the scale to tell readers how to feel about it.
Most ideas are not as clearly bad as the Torment Nexus [2], nor as clearly beneficial as the polio vaccine. I love that Chiang can write about ideas that might as well be a pitch for a Black Mirror episode but with much more consideration than Black Mirror would treat it. His slow writing pace probably helps too.
[1] https://waldyrious.neocities.org/ted_chiang/liking-what-you-...
[2] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/torment-nexus
I wish he would write more often, especially if he decides to tackle non-fiction using his distinct prose style. His creativity, combined with factual writing, could make for a deep/transformative read.
For someone who loves Ted Chiang, what adjacent writers would people recommend? I tried Borges, and I like him, he just seems less accessible and intentionally opaque at points.
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. Only barely sci-fi, but shares the same lyrical precision as Ted Chiang. Somehow it's the first thing that came to mind.
I'd also recommend short stories by Kafka. Not just his most famous ones like Metamorphosis (which is fairly long), but his very short stories are quite intense and have a similar sort of "weight".
I'd also recommend short stories by Kafka. Not just his most famous ones like Metamorphosis (which is fairly long), but his very short stories are quite intense and have a similar sort of "weight".
I found Axiomatic by Greg Egan to have a similar vibe.
Slightly off topic, but I now refuse to read any web site that does "malicious compliance" with cookies.
If my only options are "consent" or manually going down a very long list unchecking everything, and don't forget to click on the little "vendors" link because there's an even longer list in there too... Then I give up.
This isnt even compliant (you have to offer a way to reject easily). I don't know why they even bother; it's already illegal, and is just annoying.
Bye!
If my only options are "consent" or manually going down a very long list unchecking everything, and don't forget to click on the little "vendors" link because there's an even longer list in there too... Then I give up.
This isnt even compliant (you have to offer a way to reject easily). I don't know why they even bother; it's already illegal, and is just annoying.
Bye!
IMO, discussion of website function ought to be always on-topic on HN.
My solution is simply to open every website (that I don't specifically want to be logged-in to) in incognito mode, accept all cookies, and close all the windows when I'm done.
My solution is simply to open every website (that I don't specifically want to be logged-in to) in incognito mode, accept all cookies, and close all the windows when I'm done.
Ah, nice solution to prevent the cookies persisting. But I'd rather simply not give them my attention, if they're going to treat their audience with such contempt.
"Anxiety Is the Dizziness of Freedom" is one of the best stories I have read about quantum physics. I highly recommend it. I can't wait for it to become a movie.
I dearly hope it becomes a movie.
It reminded me of Naval Ravikant idea, except Ravikant was talking about money and Chiang wasn't:
"In 1,000 parallel universes, you want to be wealthy in 999 of them. You don’t want to be wealthy in the 50 of them where you got lucky. We want to factor luck out of it." (https://nav.al/rich)
It reminded me of Naval Ravikant idea, except Ravikant was talking about money and Chiang wasn't:
"In 1,000 parallel universes, you want to be wealthy in 999 of them. You don’t want to be wealthy in the 50 of them where you got lucky. We want to factor luck out of it." (https://nav.al/rich)
Absolutely love 'Anxiety Is the Dizziness of Freedom' by him
Reading this story inspired me to work through Joe Polchinski’s classic paper on the “Everett phone” [1]. The paper partially answers a question I’ve long had about Quantum Mechanics, what is so special about linearity? In a nutshell, the paper demonstrates that even the tiniest bit of nonlinearity (at least of a certain sort) would allow for communication between branches of the wavefunction, like in the Chiang story. Super deep stuff that, in my opinion, physics hasn’t even fully come to terms with.
[1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Everett-Wheeler_telephone
[1] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Everett-Wheeler_telephone
+1. Possibly my favorite story ever.
Division by Zero (short story) Is my favourite of his.
Since all of Chiang's stories are short stories or novellas, they've very approachable. You're not committing to a full novel, you can easily read these stories in a single sitting.
Ted Chiang is one of my favorite writers. I don't think I've read a single story of his that I didn't find interesting, and a lot of the ideas raise profound deeply engaging questions.