20 KiB
"Story Of", a new Alicorn short story based on the movie Arrival / the original Ted Chiang story
-
Author: u/Artaxerxes3rd *
-
Score: 39
-
Created: 2017-01-29T21:13:55
Post:
Comments:
u/MagicWeasel [+18] Cheela Astronaut (an hour later)
It's a sweet little read, and although the tone is borrowed from the short story, it's very clearly based on the movie because Things Don't Work That Way in the story. It has all the problems of the movie, and adds more (e.g. now Louise can remember futures that never happened; if reverse causality is cheap in the movie, this is absurd!)
u/callmebrotherg [+6] now posting as /u/callmesalticidae (an hour later)
Same thoughts over here but, dang it, this story makes me happy anyway.
u/MagicWeasel [+15] Cheela Astronaut (an hour later)
I agree it's a happy little story but it's a less rational story based on a less rational movie about a rational story, so it was a bit of a bait and switch to see it posted here!
(Not that I'm complaining, anything Ted Chiang adjacent makes me extremely happy)
u/aeschenkarnos [+17] (2 hours later)
It's a fix fic, a well-done fix fic, and it did bring tears to my eyes and a lump in my throat, but it still doesn't work. "Arrival" is a one-track-timeline setting. There is no such thing as choice, under its rules.
u/None [+15] (5 hours later)
[deleted]
u/Roxolan [+3] Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager (5 hours later)
the failure to appreciate this
Can you explain further? I did not have that impression.
u/None [+15] (a day later)
[deleted]
u/DaystarEld [+8] Pokémon Professor (a day later)
Thank you for writing this up. I didn't read the original story, but was highly frustrated by the ending of Arrival despite enjoying it for the most part. Walking out of the theater at the end was reminiscent of walking out of Interstellar.
u/MagicWeasel [+6] Cheela Astronaut (2 days later)
I'd also like to give my thanks for writing this up. It perfectly describes how the story feels, in detail, and how that was not "respected" by the movie, and how this short story takes it further off the rails, so to speak.
u/MagicWeasel [+10] Cheela Astronaut (7 hours later)
She is able to "remember" the general's phone number from the future, which is explicitly stated not to be possible in the story. The story further emphasizes this by having Hannah die in an accident, so could theoretically be prevented, and yet Louise chooses not to (because it's not really a choice she is able to make).
u/CeruleanTresses [+6] (7 hours later)
"Story Of Your Life" is a one-track-timeline setting, yes, but there's nothing in "Arrival" to contradict the fic.
u/FeepingCreature [+4] GCV Literally The Entire Culture (5 hours later)
What we're reading is not reality, what we're reading is the proof of contradiction. A misshapen future; a circle that won't close.
u/scruiser [+3] CYOA (5 hours later)
I disagree with the complaints. In the original story, from the perspective of the main character, it seemed like a single timeline, and thus predestination and such exists. But did we ever see the main character test and push these limits? In the movie, there wasn't really time to show such, and thus we never saw for sure what the limits are. I haven't read the short story yet, but I don't think she pushed her limits in the story either. Thus, I find this fix-fic acceptably rational.
u/MagicWeasel [+12] Cheela Astronaut (5 hours later)
In the short story, it's made very explicit that she cannot push her limits any more than I can jump into the air and fly, ignoring gravity. The entire point is that learning the future means you are doomed to fulfill it. I would heartily recommend the story. It's short enough to read inside an hour and easily available on the internet.
That said I do recommend buying the collection ("Story of your life and others") as Chiang writes amazing, rational science fiction. There's a story in that collection about the consequences of a world where angels visiting is a regular occurrance. The ending is extremely emotionally impactful.
u/timoni [+5] (10 hours later)
I love all of his short stories, but Hell Is the Absence of God is just the killer.
u/MagicWeasel [+2] Cheela Astronaut (10 hours later)
So amazingly good. The story notes at the end of the book really crystallized it for me!
u/Dragonheart91 [+2] (4 hours later)
I'm not sure I understand what made the change happen? The movie seemed to make it clear that humans have no free will or power of choice.
u/Roxolan [+4] Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager (5 hours later)
In this fix-fic universe, Heptapod grants the power to very vividly imagine possible futures, instead of a window into the one true and unalterable future.
u/Dragonheart91 [+7] (5 hours later)
That sounds like it kinda ruins the whole schtick.
u/CeruleanTresses [+7] (7 hours later)
The movie already ruined it, really. Since a major plot point involves Louise using her knowledge of the future to influence the present, it can't be true (in the movie universe) that humans have no free will. The movie also framed Louise's decision to have her doomed child as an actual choice she made, rather than as her helplessly enacting the events she already remembers. I don't think there's anything about the movie that would rule out what happens in the fic.
u/scruiser [+5] CYOA (10 hours later)
I think ruined is a strong term... the movie made it ambiguous how much free will humans have. Changed the overall message, yes, ruined... I really liked the movie.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (7 days later)
You can have deterministic loops if you write the entire universe at once, why you'd bother I don't know but at no point is any information from a non existent future introduced
No free will needed
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (7 days later)
Sure, that could happen, but I think it's made clear in the movie that it's not a deterministic loop. The aliens describe the future-perception ability as a "tool" they're gifting to humanity in return for our help with some future crisis. It's definitely framed as something Louise can employ to gain foreknowledge and actively take advantage of it.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (7 days later)
I don't think it is framed as that. It was just a gift so that they would do a favour in the future. It just happened to be a significant gift that changes your view point
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (7 days later)
They called it a "tool." A tool by definition has utility. A change in viewpoint isn't a tool unless it can be used for something. It was made clear in the movie that the aliens' gift was useful to humans--it wasn't just a shift in perspective like it was in the original story.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (7 days later)
I'm not saying it wasn't useful I'm saying that it having utility doesn't mean it will be required in the aid process in terms of using future knowledge from a timeline that stops existing
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (7 days later)
I don't think that's relevant to the question of whether humans in the Arrival-verse have free will. It's a tool that can be used to take advantage of future knowledge, regardless of whether it will be used to help the aliens thousands of years later.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (7 days later)
They can't have free will since the other entities couldn't have future knowledge
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (7 days later)
In the movie they're clearly framed as having free will. The future knowledge is a "tool." Louise's choice to have her doomed child is an actual choice. This is in contrast to the book, where being aware of the future didn't permit acting upon that knowledge in any way.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (7 days later)
I don't agree at all there's no point in the movie where they convey her thoughts ala the actress going through her parts bit in the story.
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (7 days later)
That doesn't happen in the movie because, in the movie, she's not just playing a part. In the original story, Louise is going through the motions, aware of the future but unable to act on that knowledge. In the movie, her knowledge of the future is a tool, and she has free will.
But if you're trying to say we don't see into her thoughts at all, that's absolutely false. Louise narrates the entire movie, just as she narrates the original story. Those are her thoughts. In her narration--her thoughts--she describes making a deliberate choice to have her child in spite of knowing that the child was doomed.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (7 days later)
But that doesn't mean that she has free will anymore than me replying to you has free will. If what you're saying is true then the movie completely lacks any demonstration of the ability to change the future
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (8 days later)
The movie doesn't include anyone changing a future they foresaw, true, but in every other respect Louise is portrayed as having free will. There is nothing in the movie to contradict her having free will, and substantial circumstantial evidence to support that she does. It's only in the original story that Louise explicitly lacks free will.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
Being able to predict the future means she doesn't have free will even if she still feels like she does unlike the books
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (8 days later)
I really don't know what you're basing that on. The movie frames her as having free will, as being able to make choices in the present based on her awareness of the future.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
Human existence frames humans as having free will
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (8 days later)
I really don't understand what you're trying to say. In the movie, the decision to have the child is clearly an actual decision, made by free will. The significance of the decision is that Louise could have chosen otherwise, but decided to embark on that journey even though she knew how it would end. The whole ending is framed around Louise's decision and what it says about her.
I didn't like it, but that's how the movie went. Arguing that she actually didn't have free will is reading something into the movie that wasn't there.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
And I'm saying that just because she feels like she has free will does not mean she has it regardless of how it is framed because literally all movies show humans as having free will that's why it is called an illusion. You still haven't offered any explanation of how it works if it isn't the case. Until then
I am not moved from my original statement. Deterministic loops are completely possible
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (8 days later)
I already agreed with you that deterministic loops are possible. The movie could have been written with the same events but different internal narration in order to convey that Louise lacked free will. But it wasn't. It was written the way it actually was.
There's zero indication that your "deterministic loops" interpretation is actually happening in the movie, and nearly every possible indication to the contrary. The movie also could have been taking place entirely in Louise's imagination, but there's no evidence of that, so it's not a justifiable interpretation. The only way to see this movie as being about deterministic loops is to project your own extra details on top of it. If you just take the actual movie as it was actually written, you can clearly see that Louise is making choices and that those choices are of narrative significance. It's completely obvious that the folks involved in the production did not have deterministic loops in mind.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
That's true of almost all movies portraying humanity. I can't think of many movies that are shown lacking free will.
All choices in all movies are narratively significant but it doesn't mean those movies have free will either. And most of those movies don't have 100% accurate future senses either. Yet those movies can be explained with determinism too.
Until the movie shows a clip of a future that hasn't happened the only explanation is that the illusion of free will is maintained and that's a difference between the book and movie.
Your explanation requires information not present and then has to justify how the information interacts while my explanation treats this movie just like all others
Also I'd just reiterate it makes no sense that she choose to see a vision of a future daughter she loved. If she had choice why didn't she see the future son if they fucked the next day instead etc etc
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (8 days later)
It sounds like you just think there isn't any free will, period, in reality or in any work of fiction ever. Which, fine, but in the context of this movie the characters are clearly intended to have free will. It's a story about a woman gaining an extraordinary tool and deciding how to use it. It's not a story about deterministic loops. Your "analysis" isn't interesting because it has nothing to do with the actual content of the movie; it's just a possibility you could raise about literally anything, much like "it could all be a dream/a simulation."
(She didn't choose to see a vision of the daughter, she chose to have the daughter. Presumably the daughter-future was the "default" outcome if she had no knowledge of the future, and she ended up choosing to go along that path anyway.)
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
Then as I've said repeatedly you must explain how seeing the absolute future and choice works
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (8 days later)
The movie doesn't establish the futures Louise sees as absolute and immutable. That's an attribute you're adding to them without evidence.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
There is no evidence of a mutable universe.
Either way you must still explain why she saw that future and not the one of her son
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (8 days later)
No, I don't have to explain that. It's not my job to make the movie make sense. Take it up with the scriptwriters.
If you want to argue that the movie contains flaws or inconsistencies, feel feel; I'm not claiming otherwise. I am not a fan of the movie. But I think it's dead obvious from watching it that the writers framed Louise's decision as a genuine one that she freely made, and that Louise having the freedom to make that choice was critical to the theme of the narrative. There was that whole scene about how the father left her because he thought she made "the wrong choice," and that whole internal monologue about prioritizing the journey over the destination. The story the creators of that movie were trying to tell was one about a woman freely choosing to have a child she knew would die young.
I don't know how you can have seen the movie and still argue otherwise. Do you really think the creators were trying to tell the story of a woman who thinks she's choosing to have a child, but actually it's just fate and she never had a choie? Because if that were the case, it would be pretty strange that the movie neglects to even address that possibility at any point, and instead continually harps on the theme that she made a meaningful choice.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
Right so I'm proposing an explanation that fits with what the movie has explained and you're saying that I've to reject this explanation even though there is no alternative.
Why on earth would I do that?
Also like I've said a million times all movies have choice being important regardless of reality so that's not convincing at all
Also again she could have waited one night and had the same journey with another kid who didn't have that disease
u/CeruleanTresses [+1] (8 days later)
Again, the explanation you're proposing is no different than proposing "The movie was all a dream" or "The movie takes place in a simulation." It could theoretically work, there's nothing that makes it impossible, but to insist on that explanation is to miss the entire point of the story. You're trying to force the narrative to fit with your understanding of reality, instead of taking the reality of the story for what it is.
Also again she could have waited one night and had the same journey with another kid who didn't have that disease
No, she couldn't have. That is--she could have had a different kid, but by definition it wouldn't have been the same kid or the same journey, so she chose otherwise. That was the entire conflict of the fanfiction this post links to, if you recall.
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
No but since she experienced the memories anyway she'd still have had the journey.
Anyway as I said since all movies portray choice yet all are not there's no reason to think this movie isn't if real life isn't. It's just the natural state of affairs. So if we were in a dream then yes it would be similar
u/CeruleanTresses [+2] (8 days later)
We're just talking in circles.
u/RMcD94 [+2] (8 days later)
Agree
u/RMcD94 [+1] (8 days later)
Also how could the aliens see in 3000 years if the future is mutable doesn't make any sense