spoilers ahead I felt like the character conflict arcs were contrived and ultimately the idea of learning a language makes you a pre-cog fell flat for me. In science fiction, the big idea goes ‘woo!’ or the characters go ‘woo!’ but in the case of Arrival, nothing really went ‘woo!’
But maybe I’m wrong - what was I missing about Arrival?
Philip K. Dick is famous for saying ‘reality is that in which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.’ Languages, perceptions, are still materially beliefs and changing beliefs doesn’t change reality. I wanted to see HOW the language allowed you to perceive time and it never got there.
I don’t think some pseudo science jargon about tachyons in her delta waves would have enhanced the story. The how isn’t important, what matters is the way it changes her life and how she deals with it. It’s an exploration of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis but given more of an emotional tinge. I also loved the design of the aliens and the way they living outside linear time affected their culture and personalities.
Its not. It doesnt try to give a hard science explanation, it gives an explanation of perspective that offers actual insight. Ted Chiang doesn’t write hard science fiction, but it’s very well thought out science fiction, imo.
Interestingly enough the short story on which Arrival is based on, Story of Your Life, goes a bit into this. I’m not going to spoil it because it’s super cool.
It’s not about perception changing reality it’s the other way around. The movie is a meditation on the Sapir Worf hypothesis, that the structure of language literary changes how you perceive the world.
This is clearly not scientifically true. Sure we can argue to what extent linguistic relativity is true, but to say it isn’t true at all? That’s a pretty hot take.