02.03.2013 Views

Story of Your Life TED CHIANG

Story of Your Life TED CHIANG

Story of Your Life TED CHIANG

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

future, I would never act contrary to that future, including telling others what I know: those who know the<br />

future don't talk about it. Those who've read the Book <strong>of</strong> Ages never admit to it.<br />

I turned on the VCR and slotted a cassette <strong>of</strong> a session from the Fort Worth looking glass. A diplomatic<br />

negotiator was having a discussion with the heptapods there, with Burghart acting as translator.<br />

The negotiator was describing humans' moral beliefs, trying to lay some groundwork for the concept <strong>of</strong><br />

altruism. I knew the heptapods were familiar with the conversation's eventual outcome, but they still<br />

participated enthusiastically.<br />

If I could have described this to someone who didn't already know, she might ask, if the heptapods<br />

already knew everything that they would ever say or hear, what was the point <strong>of</strong> their using language at<br />

all? A reasonable question. But language wasn't only for communication: it was also a form <strong>of</strong> action.<br />

According to speech act theory, statements like “You're under arrest,” “I christen this vessel,” or “I<br />

promise” were all performative: a speaker could perform the action only by uttering the words. For such<br />

acts, knowing what would be said didn't change anything. Everyone at a wedding anticipated the words “I<br />

now pronounce you husband and wife,” but until the minister actually said them, the ceremony didn't<br />

count. With performative language, saying equaled doing.<br />

For the heptapods, all language was performative. Instead <strong>of</strong> using language to inform, they used<br />

language to actualize. Sure, heptapods already knew what would be said in any conversation; but in order<br />

for their knowledge to be true, the conversation would have to take place.<br />

“First Goldilocks tried the papa bear's bowl <strong>of</strong> porridge, but it was full <strong>of</strong> brussels sprouts, which she<br />

hated.”<br />

You'll laugh. “No, that's wrong!” We'll be sitting side by side on the s<strong>of</strong>a, the skinny, overpriced hardcover<br />

spread open on our laps.<br />

I'll keep reading. “Then Goldilocks tried the mama bear's bowl <strong>of</strong> porridge, but it was full <strong>of</strong> spinach, which<br />

she also hated.”<br />

You'll put your hand on the page <strong>of</strong> the book to stop me. “You have to read it the right way!”<br />

“I'm reading just what it says here,” I'll say, all innocence.<br />

“No you're not. That's not how the story goes.”<br />

“Well if you already know how the story goes, why do you need me to read it to you?”<br />

“Cause I wanna hear it!”<br />

The air conditioning in Weber's <strong>of</strong>fice almost compensated for having to talk to the man.<br />

“They're willing to engage in a type <strong>of</strong> exchange,” I explained, “but it's not trade. We simply give them<br />

something, and they give us something in return. Neither party tells the other what they're giving<br />

beforehand.”<br />

Colonel Weber's brow furrowed just slightly. “You mean they're willing to exchange gifts?”

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!