[Erfael]

Shall we begin?


First off, I thought it was quite refreshing to have a short story collection as BoTM. It broke up the novel monotony very nicely, though the SF books are usually quick reads (unlike some of what goes on in that OTHER book club).


The stories themselves. I think I have to agree with the Octavia Butler quote on the front of the US version. The biggest problem with these stories is that there are so few of them. I've looked around the web quite about for info on Ted Chiang and can find no mention of an "other" job. What does he do besides write? And if writing is his only job, how does he survive with so little output?

I found almost all of the stories to be very interesting in some way. Though 2 weeks down the line now not many of them are still working on me. The one that probably has me still thinking more than any of the others is "Liking What You See: A Documentary." I felt that that one had the most to say about our society's current state. I also found it fairly interesting that that's the one he liked the least. It was put up for a Hugo and he retracted it because it wasn't the story he set out to tell. He had to meet his publishing deadline and rushed it out the door in a different form than he originally imagined, so refused to be considered for the award.

The other stories all had interesting premises that sort of made me go "hmm..." but didn't realy keep working on me. I find that what I usually like about the short story format is the ability to ask big questions in such a small space, something that he didn't seem to do to the degree that I would have liked.

That's not to say they're without substance at all. Each of them had some sort of "punchline" that did require a little thought. Perhaps his subject matter and the things that I prefer to mull over just didn't coincide with the exception of the final story.

Look forward to hearing what you all have to say. Erf.

[Archren]

I have to agree with you that "Liking What you See" was one of my favorites. I liked most of these stories immensely, and was incredibly impressed. My impression is that his day job involves working with computers (programmer?) in Seattle, so he's not just living off writing income.

The quality of the prose impressed me on all the stories, btw.

OK, the one problem I had: the title story, "Stories of Your Life" really bugged me. As a physicist by training, the main plot point involved such a fundamental (although tempting) misunderstanding of LaPlacian principles, that I couldn't swallow the rest of the story. I wanted to like the emotional struggles of a woman seeing her daughter's future, and the linguistics plot was really cool, but I couldn't get past that misuse of physics. It was brilliantly written, but almost 9 months later it still sticks with me as a story I wanted to love but couldn't.

Another thing, did other people enjoy the ressurection of Golem technology in that one story? I thought that was a great device.

[Erfael]

Archren, I thought all of the tech/twists on science that he used were very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on his misrepresentation for someone who has been away from physics for some time?

Your post reminded me of something else I really enjoyed: He really seems to like playing around with different ways to tell a story or express an idea. Every one of the stories was written in a completely different style, which I found very interesting and well-done. He clearly spends a lot of time on getting things just the way he wants them, and that level of polish shows.

[FicusFan]

I guess I will be the odd one out and say: I just don't get it. I had heard people raving about him and after reading his stuff I have no idea why.

The little bits at the end where he explained why and how he wrote the stories were more interesting than most of the stories. I don't even think most of them were SF, and just about all of them had some religious theme to them - which I found to be too much with them all in the same book. I also found that outlook to be strange in SF when you are expected to be rational and scientific, as opposed to operating on faith.

I liked the Stories of Your Life because of the odd sequencing, and circularity of it. I also thought it was a real SF story with aliens, linguistics, and physics.

I also liked the last one about lookism, and thought the ideas of freedom of choice versus equality was intersting as was the use of tehnology to force us to behave morally.

I read the book towards the end of April and I don't remember much about the details. I will have to bring my book with me when I post next time.

[Soon Lee]

I for one was very impressed by this book.

Chiang has a unique perspective and his stories are meticulously crafted. I've read that he is a 'Technical Writer' in his day job and that the reason his output is so sparse is that he spends a lot of what spare time he has refining his ideas - so it's unlikely that we'll see a full-length novel from him; a pity.

That said, I cannot recall reading a stronger single author anthology. Highlights for me were Stories of Your Life and Understand, but none of the other stories dissappointed.

I am surprised to see that not everyone liked it as much; friends I've lent my copy to have all loved it - to the extent of getting their own copies. Mind you, the fact that we're all 'science geeks' may have something to do with it. I guess tastes differ.

My copy of Story of Your Life and Others sits proudly alongside Gardner Dozois' Year's Best Science Fiction Anthologies.

[Archren]

Archren, I thought all of the tech/twists on science that he used were very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on his misrepresentation for someone who has been away from physics for some time?


Let me get back to you on this one: I'm going to need to sit down and think about the best way of explaining it. It's hard to give a hand-waving explanation in a medium with no hands! :D

[Archren]

OK, I think I've got it:

It's like saying that a bullet "knows" its target once you pull the trigger. It doesn't. It follows its own path of least energy given its initial conditions (the math on this is complex but really elegant) and the "target" ends up being whatever happens to be in the way.

Basically the fallacy that Chiang has fallen prey to is thinking that the path is dependant upon the end result (the target) while in reality it is dependant upon the initial conditions.

I hope that helps and isn't simply more confusing. :o

[Erfael]

OK, I think I've got it:

It's like saying that a bullet "knows" its target once you pull the trigger. It doesn't. It follows its own path of least energy given its initial conditions (the math on this is complex but really elegant) and the "target" ends up being whatever happens to be in the way.

Basically the fallacy that Chiang has fallen prey to is thinking that the path is dependant upon the end result (the target) while in reality it is dependant upon the initial conditions.

I hope that helps and isn't simply more confusing. :o

Okay. I understand that. But I think what he's trying to do is make that work from the perspective of a race that looks at time as a whole instead of consequent events.

I think he's trying to say that as a linear-time view, the description you gave is what we humans have come up with. A race that views time as another dimension in their calculations will perhaps come up with a system that shows that an object will travel towards its destination in such a way as to take the least amount of time, that being just another type of distance.

Does that make any sense?

[Archren]

Erfael, I hear what you are saying. You're probably right in that that is probably what he intended. I was basing my argument off the rationale given in the story. The problem with what you're saying is that it would cause reversals of entropy that would be hugely problemaic... but this is SF isn't it? "Problemaic science" is our middle name! :D :cool:

[Soon Lee]

It's a problem with trying to shoehorn existing theory for the purposes of story.

Me, I find many SF based on molecular biology difficult; it's hard to suspend disbelief when you *know* that the underlying premise is *WRONG*.

So for me, not understanding the theoretical basis behind the let me enjoy 'Stories of Your Life'.