(Source: thenation.com)
(Source: thenation.com)
This week, I read a short story called The Story of Your Life, which is one of eight included in a collection called Stories of Your Life: And Others, by Ted Chiang. I can’t quite remember how I heard about this book, but I do recall that it was generally well reviewed and tends to come up in many “even if you don’t like science fiction, you should read…” conversations online. Having been in my reading queue for some time, it became #1 this week. So far, I’m very much absorbed by it.
The story is told from the point of view of a woman (we eventually learn her name is Louise, but I had to look back to make sure) who speaks/writes with a strange tense that seems to straddle the past and future—saying things like, “Right now, your dad and I have been married for about two years, living on Ellis Avenue; when we move you you’ll still be too young to remember the house, but we’ll show you pictures of it, tell you stories about it.” She’s talking about the past, and the past’s future, which is, presumably, still the past. It takes some getting used to, but the odd tense becomes central to the story.
Louise tells the story of her involvement in learning the language of an…wait for it!…alien species who arrive unannounced and remain in orbit, using “windows” somehow sent down to Earth (we never learn how) that enable two-way visual communication on a large scale. (Think massive, wall-sized Skype windows.) A recognized expert in linguistics, the government has brought her in to help communicate with the aliens—seven-legged, radially symmetric beings, generally biologically different from humans in a radical way. Their vocalizations earn them the nicknames, “Flapper” and “Raspberry.”
Louise bounces back and forth between the story of learning the alien language and recounting her now deceased daughter’s childhood. We learn many things about both—how she decodes the language, how she raises her daughter alone, and then, over time, how the two stories converge. Her discovery about how the alien language works is central to understanding why this story exists. The alien written language is “semasiographic,” which means it “conveys meaning without an reference to speech.” A good example of this is the “no smoking” symbol that simply uses a circle bisected by a diagonal line. No words, no reference to spoken sounds. This insight helps her to understand the alien mindset, which becomes increasingly understood as very much unlike ours. They don’t have a concept of cause and effect. To them, there is little difference between what happens now and what happens later. Their spoken sentences don’t rely upon sequence—rearranging their words doesn’t change the meaning to them—and their written language is monolithically symbolic. The more complex the thought, the bigger and more complex the symbol, but it’s always just one symbol. As she learns to write like them, Louise begins to think like them. The tense-weirdness that stuck out so much at the beginning of the story makes more sense.
Eventually, we also learn that the scientist with whom she worked on the alien language project was the father of Louise’s child (I started to suspect this probably later than the average person would… not to quick sometimes), that they divorced at some point, and that some time after that, their daughter died in a rock climbing accident as a young adult. It also finally becomes clear that the entire marriage and child rearing years are all after the alien encounter. That seems trivial, but at the beginning of the story, her language made the sequence seem to be be opposite—that the alien story came later. Again, her sympathetic “tetrapod consciousness” explains this.
What’s fascinating is that the encounter is completely anticlimactic. The aliens, who had been clear that their purpose was only to observe, just abruptly leave one day. Aside from their language, the humans learned nothing new from the heptapods. The story, playing with tense the entire time, sets us up to learn the lesson that a full-life seems inclined to teach—that things don’t tend to go the way we expect them to. Typically, an alien encounter in the science fiction genre leads to significant world change: enlightenment, new technology, transformation, the opening up of possibilities and the expansion of our universe. Chiang provides an alien contact scenario that is just as likely as any fantasy we’ve conjured. Perhaps it wouldn’t change anything. Perhaps they would come, look around a little and leave. And that would be it. Why not? Why do we expect that they’d come with the intent of changing everything for us? Why do some even hope for this?
I’m looking forward to reading more from Chiang. I like the way he pushes the boundaries of the science fiction genre (that’s what it should be all about, really) and reframes my expectations of what might/will/should happen.
(Source: quietbabylon.com)
I just posted this over at my Newfangled blog…
Why We Need to Learn How to Play
I recently finished reading Kevin Kelly’s latest book, What Technology Wants, and have since been reflecting upon his point of view on what technology is and how it shapes our culture. There’s a ton of material available on the book at this point, most of which covers the central idea that technology is so interwoven or embedded into human existence that it’s progression towards the future is almost deterministic. Kelly’s title comes from the idea that technology has “wants,” or demands its current existence makes on us.
But one idea that has stayed with me since the beginning of the book is something that Kelly mentions as he describes the slow progress of human civilization early in the book. He writes (it’s a long quote so I’ve set the most critical piece in bold):
“A typical tribe of hunters-gathers had few very young children and no old people. This demographic may explain a common impression visitors had upon meeting intact historical hunter-gatherer tribes. They would remark that ‘everyone looked extremely healthy and robust.’ That’s in part because most everyone was in the prime of life, between 15 and 35. We might have the same reaction visiting a trendy urban neighborhood with the same youthful demographic. Tribal life was a lifestyle for and of young adults.
A major effect of this short forager life span was the crippling absence of grandparents. Given that women would only start bearing children at 17 or so and die by their thirties, it would be common for children to lose their parents before the children were teenagers. A short life span is rotten for the individual. But a short life span is also extremely detrimental for a society as well. Without grandparents, it becomes exceedingly difficult to transmit knowledge—and knowledge of tool using—over time. Grandparents are the conduits of culture, and without them culture stagnates.
Imagine a society that not only lacked grandparents but also lacked language—as the pre-Sapiens did. How would learning be transmitted over generations? Your own parents would die before you were an adult, and in any case, they would not communicate to you anything beyond what they could show you while you were immature. You would certainly not learn anything from anyone outside your immediate circle of peers. Innovation and cultural learning would cease to flow.”
While this kind of anthropological evolutionary reflection isn’t exactly new (there are plenty of good, popular books in that vein, like Guns, Germs and Steel and Pandora’s Seed), I found Kelly’s point, in that it supported a reading of technology and humanity’s symbiotic relationship, compelling. If the point seems soft when considering a small tribe with the family structure we know today (I actually think that without Kelly’s point, we’d probably think of it that way anyhow), consider what today’s society would look like without grandparents. The difference would be radical…
I’ve been thinking quite a lot about the ways in which we think about ourselves and how those conceptions can often be wrong, to the point of sometimes being delusional.
Just as we interpret almost everything we encounter and think about on the basis of a story that we have come to believe is true about ourselves, I think we do the same thing in building a story about the universe. Maybe they’re actually the same story. But my sense is that this story is very incomplete. To whatever extent we are able to stay within the lines of that story, we’re potentially being willfully ignorant of the information all around us that challenges its explanatory scope and power. It’s far easier to reject all the information we receive that hints to vast swaths of the unknown than to expand our story to include it, especially given the absence of concrete answers. For the faithful, what is to be done with information that is, on face value, legitimate and rational, yet challenges the explanations that tenets of the faith provide? What of the information all around us that calls for explanation, yet is not acknowledged at all by the story behind the faith? And maybe most imporantly for me, how do we hold on to our faith yet remain curious and open to how life naturally presses on its boundaries?
Here’s the album art I made for my mix, RETROANTHROFABRICATION.
A bunch of us at Newfangled did a mix exchange today. I made this one for Dave Mello. Here’s the tracklist (I scraped all the tracks from YouTube):
1. Group Autogenics 1, The Books
2. Faults, Seefeel
3. Bend Over, Wagon Chris
4. Joy (an Exit for Darth Vader), Four Tet
5. Crazy Answering Machine, ?
6. Powwow Hemiplegia, ?
7. Temple of Doom, Kid Koala
8. Ghosts 1-8, Nine Inch Nails
9. Below Me Reds, Proem
10. The Crow, DJ Food
11. Kora Interlude, Toumani Diabate
12. Lightning Strike!, ?
13. Same Dream China, Gold Panda
14. Yeah, A New York Street Drummer
15. The Real News of the Last Century, Buckminster Fuller
16. 8-bit Shinshu Fields, Okami
17. ilanders, Autechre
18. This Year, Terror Danjah
19. r ess, Autechre
20. A Dance, A Zulu Tribe
21. Roswell Radio Broadcast
22. Sa Mo Jung, TOKiMONSTA
23. Pneumonia , Bjork
24. 1980 Emergency Broadcast System
Visual Thinking for Content Creators
The third engagement style—and maybe the most fun of them all—is visual thinking. I’ve already covered talking and listening in my last two posts, and with this one, I think you’ll have three strong new ways to develop new ideas for web content.
Realizing that I was a primarily visual thinker was a significant turning point in my career. Believe it or not, I only realized it last year. Yes, I went to art school and, yes, I have done visually creative things most of my life, but I always assumed that everyone saw images the way I did. But after talking to enough of my friends, colleagues and clients, I realized that wasn’t true. Some people aren’t visual thinkers. Some people think verbally, and some of those people may have a much easier time with writing than I do. But once I realized that, I had a bit of an epiphany: No wonder so many design professionals struggle with writing—they force themselves to start with words rather than the images their mind has already created!
Nicholas Carr, on why Clay Shirky is mistaken in blaming today’s sense of information overload on “filter failure.”
I’ve been uncomfortable with the “filter failure” idea for at least the couple of years since that quote made the rounds, but haven’t been able to articulate why. I’d suspected that perhaps, yes, it is a result of filter failure—possibly the lack of a filter to end all filters, the one that would replace the 10 other filters we’re already relying upon to make sense of it all for us. But Carr is right: Information overload begets filters, which in turn, begets an increasing awareness on our part of the far-too-many sources of interesting material available to us. Unfortunately, there is no filter we can rely upon other than our own discipline to not follow every link our filters deliver to us. From that point of view, the filters, which we’ve thought of as a solution to our addiction, are beginning to look more like enablers or perhaps another form of the drug we thought they’d save us from. If information is our crack, perhaps filters are the methadone.
(Source: roughtype.com)
(Source: kk.org)
Another mystery.
My latest article for Newfangled is up:
How to Do More (with Less) with Your Website
Just after the end of the recession—in September, 2009—I wrote an article titled Doing More with Less about the various ways that you could continue to improve your website without spending much. Given what was happening in our economy, the topic seemed pertinent, if not downright obvious. After all, just because money was tight didn’t mean that online business could shut down entirely. We needed to find ways to move forward that were within our means. But at that time, I had no idea that the recession had actually officially ended in June. I, along with the rest of America, had to wait until September, 2010—over a year later—to find that out from the National Bureau of Economic Research that the recession was over!
Today, we’ve been clear of the recession for over a year and a half, and yet budgetary concerns have not gone away entirely. Our experience with the recession was chastening, and after an extended period of austerity, it doesn’t seem like we’re going to be returning to our days of big spending just yet. In fact, recent surveys in our industry show that one of the biggest challenges that agencies face in 2011 is an expectation to do more for their clients with less. On that note, the Creative Industry Outlook report released by FunctionFox for 2011 showed that 58% of respondents expected their firms to maintain their current size in the coming 12 months, yet 60% expect an increase in revenues compared with 2010. That sounds like the majority are expecting to do more this coming year, but not necessarily with more.
But even if you don’t share that outlook, my guess is that you’d still be interested in finding low-cost ways to get more value out of your website. Who wouldn’t? So, with that, I’d like to share with you five different ways that you can do more with less with your website…
|#