Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Understand (1991)

ktxr.rs

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: Understand (1991)

#11

Post by Barrin92 »

disillusioned wrote: post #5

Ted Chiang has the incredible ability to paint extraordinarily compelling speculative fictional worlds in such a condensed package, and in a way that ties in a philosophical component while still hewing towards the "concludes in a way that is surprising yet always inevitable." While my favorite is probably Story of Your Life, Understand is damn near my second favorite, or rather probably was before I got to Exhalatio…

What to me stands out about Chiang is that at the core of his stories he is always deeply humanistic. I think that actually shows in Arrival, which unlike a lot of Villeneuve's adaptions is not emotionally cold and I think that's largely due to the source material.

Re: Understand (1991)

#12

Post by tetrisgm »

This is one of my favorite sci-fi short stories, period. Up there would be the one that inspired Arrival (I don't recall the name), and The Last Question.

This one was great, because it's not clear until the very end whether the character is going through increasing levels of paranoia, or dealing with an adversary. The way the dénouement is stitched together (literally) was such a shock. I love it.

Re: Understand (1991)

#13

Post by tragomaskhalos »

My favourite Ted Chiangs are those where he takes a piece of assumed knowledge or mythology from an earlier era and builds a compelling world where it is scientific reality - homunculus theory, the golem, the sky as a physical firmament, creation 6,000 years ago.

Re: Understand (1991)

#14

Post by brianpan »

ftxbro wrote: post #8

when i see ted chiang i think of his blurry jpeg LLM take in the new yorker. i'm not a fan of that take. i think it was one of the worst LLM takes, competing with the stochastic parrot take. i heard he wrote some amazing science fiction stories though i should read them some time.

What don't you like about the article? A lot of people don't understand the limitations of ChatGPT and I think it's worth talking about. I like "blurry jpeg" a lot better than "hallucination".

Re: Understand (1991)

#15

Post by Veraticus »

A superb writer. My favorite story of his is Hell is the Absence of God, which I think is one of the few science fiction stories to actually engage with religion in a meaningful way.

Re: Understand (1991)

#17

Post by thesz »

>wielding one's body is a mental activity. While my strength hasn't increased, my coordination is now well above average...

First part is true and it brings up the question why Professor Xavier did not controlled his body with his telepathic powers?

The second part is not true. If one can coordinate to fire more muscle fibers at once, one can exert more power.

I also do not like that two superintelligent beings are fighting. It is such a bad trope. From what I know, these of intelligence quotient above 160 usually are interested in their work and life and rarely exhibit any, let me say, non-normal behavior.

Re: Understand (1991)

#18

Post by Slow_Hand »

Wonderful story.

I can recall reading this for the first time two years ago. I opened the book and started reading at 11:00p as I was winding down for the evening, thinking that I'd spend 30 minutes reading before I got too tired to keep my eyes open and turn in for the night.

I very quickly got sucked in and found myself LEANING into the story. Within 45 minutes I was energized and sitting upright in my bed. I was fully alert and HAD to keep going. It was invigorating. After I completed the story I stayed awake for another 2 hours. Coasting on the inertia of this story. I was wired and inspired.

Who needs drugs when you've got masterful storytelling like this?

Re: Understand (1991)

#20

Post by capableweb »

ftxbro wrote: post #8

when i see ted chiang i think of his blurry jpeg LLM take in the new yorker. i'm not a fan of that take. i think it was one of the worst LLM takes, competing with the stochastic parrot take. i heard he wrote some amazing science fiction stories though i should read them some time.

It is very possible (and I'd wager even common) to be a master in some things and suck at others. If you find a good author, it's OK not to agree with what they say or do while still thinking they write good books.
Post reply on HN