|
You have to keep in mind that linguistics as we know it is defined as "the study of human language". I feel like Mieville was aware of the problem you guys are pointed out and did his best to make it work. He mentioned "Telepathy is impossible" in relation to other things, but I feel like this was mentioned more so that you knew Language wasn't reliant on telepathy. He also said a few times that the ambassadors weren't really speaking Language. My feeling on this is that our understanding of the human brain is objectively quite weak, and how much we could infer about hypothetically intelligent alien brains is far enough out of our current reality that you can't really dismiss the premise so easily. Our knowledge of linguistics is mostly formed from observing human language, neurolinguistics is a field I'm not too well-versed in, but as far as I'm aware it has mostly been helpful to use in conjunction with the whole "observing human language" strategy. For instance looking at the development of a baby's brain compared to certain aspects of its language development. I don't find it to be such an "offensive" idea that the Hosts could only understand conscious beings. It could make sense depending on how their brains work. Yes it would be stupid for a human, but we can't suppose how an alien brain would work. The way that the human brain processes speech makes it act almost like a filter. Being unable to hear two different sounds in a foreign language is a result of your brain filtering the sound that your ears take in and turning it into something you are more familiar with and something that you process as language. Only through training can you tell your brain to stop filtering sounds into your native language. It's not a gigantic leap to me to think that maybe the Hosts' brains have a similar filter mechanism where they can a) somehow deduce based on an aspect of speech that humans wouldn't be able to perceive whether or not the speaker is a single consciousness (or at least a trick of one like an ambassador) and b) automatically filter based on this whether the brain perceives this as speech sounds or just noise. There are some issues with this such as how could a brain really tell if a speaker was conscious? As far as we know it's not possible, but I don't know that we can just rule it out as impossible based on what we know of the human brain and human speech. For me, the most unlikely part was how the Hosts were able to understand recordings. I felt like there would be no possible distinction between hearing a computer say something or hearing a recording. Whatever the computer character's name was, what was to stop her from having a recorded database of things that the ambassadors had said and then play them Stephen Hawking style as she picks and chooses? I haven't had a lot of time to think this over, but it seems that it would have to be one way or the other: either they can't even understand recordings, or they can also understand computers that produce Language provided it used recordings of Ambassadors. Possibly the fact that to quantify anything in Language you have to refer to it specifically (i.e. no "this" and "that") would make it impossible for a computer with stored recordings to communicate effectively. It might be able to say "Hello", but not "Tell that person to come here please", thus making Ambassadors still needed. Basically, if you can make the leap that there would be SOMETHING in the Host's brain that was very picky about what it processed as language, the whole thing can hold up pretty well. Keep in mind that Language for them was instinct (unlike human language where we have an instinct to learn a language, but we have to still acquire it). This would make Language much more a part of their biology and defends the idea that their brains would be much more critical of what is and is not Language. Overall I think the book was really good. Compare it to most other Sci-Fi and there is less plot hole stuff you could poke and tear apart as infeasible. To even get at why it's not feasible you have to think a lot about it and if you're able to just tell yourself "Yeah... maybe we don't really know this for sure" you can really enjoy the book still. The ideas presented by the book are interesting enough that you can overlook a little bit of "but how could that be possible?" type of doubts. Like energy sharks swimming around in the immer or whatever that energy thing was that came out of the miab, I almost feel like he added that in there to create a certain sense of unreality so that the leap you had to make with the specifics of Language wasn't so big. If you create an atmosphere of "this isn't totally 100% aligned with reality" then you have a little more license with everything to break from what is scientifically feasible. None of where he broke from reality was completely stupid or straight up nonsensical (like the whole plot of the new Star Wars movie), if you just kind of "squint" a little bit, Embassytown can be believable. angel opportunity fucked around with this message at 10:30 on May 19, 2011 |
#
?
May 19, 2011 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
^^^ your last paragraph has the crux of the matter. It's a story first and foremost. the weird ideas are in service of the plot; the plot isn't purely in service of the ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
systran posted:Basically, if you can make the leap that there would be SOMETHING in the Host's brain that was very picky about what it processed as language, the whole thing can hold up pretty well. Keep in mind that Language for them was instinct (unlike human language where we have an instinct to learn a language, but we have to still acquire it). This would make Language much more a part of their biology and defends the idea that their brains would be much more critical of what is and is not Language. IIRC when the hosts grow into their second or third stage they automatically know Language which suggests to me at least that something biological clicks in their brain giving them access to Language compared to a human who has to be taught how to speak etc edit: VVV yeah i was adding a bit about when they learn to speak 
qwako fucked around with this message at 16:55 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Qwako... that's what I was saying with that quote... like you quoted what I said and just rephrased the point I was making, so no disagreement there.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
systran posted:I don't find it to be such an "offensive" idea that the Hosts could only understand conscious beings. Her first guess as to what was going on with Language was I think was a position similar to yours, that there was some cultural/social marker that told the Hosts that intelligent speech was happening, which humans couldn't or didn't reproduce. Then she got to the infodump about 50 pages in and came to the same conclusion I did: the Host's Language, as depicted, requires some sort of telepathy that acts across species. Her complaint was that that kind of telepathy makes thought into nothing more than an epiphenomenon of Language, or vice versa, at which point you're making an apologia for Eliminative Materialism. For myself, I thought it was a fun read and definitely agree that Avice is his best protagonist yet, but I was a little disappointed in the way Language was portrayed; I don't feel that it hangs together under close inspection. Fake edit: she also wants to know what you think about Everett's work on Pirahán.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Miéville is at least a little bit interested in eliminative materialism, so that wouldn't be too surprising.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
TouretteDog posted:Her complaint was that that kind of telepathy makes thought into nothing more than an epiphenomenon of Language, or vice versa, at which point you're making an apologia for Eliminative Materialism. This doesn't follow; you're confusing eliminative materialism with antirepresentationalism. Eliminative materialism is the thesis that folk psychological terms like 'mind', 'belief', 'desire', 'consciousness' and so on don't refer to anything in reality and therefore cannot be reduced to a physical subtrate but have to be eliminated altogether as theoretical terms from any completed science of the mind. Example: thermodynamics is a theory that can be reduced to statistical mechanics (with the appropriate bridge laws governing the translation of concepts like entropy); 'heat' reduces to 'molecular kinetic energy'. They refer to the same chunk of reality, but putting things in terms of molecular kinetic energy provides more explanatory power. Compare this to phlogiston; this concept had to be eliminated because it didn't correspond to anything in reality. The chemistry that replaced it employed terms that referred in such a way that a translation from phlogiston was simply impossible. What happens in Embassytown is different. The language Mieville has created for the Ariekei presupposes minds that cannot represent (that is, imagine a case that is different from how things actually are in reality); they can't do the very thing that orthodox cognitive science considers the 'mark of the mental'. If you can represent, you have a mind. If you can't, you don't. But it's slightly more subtle than that -- Language can only speak the truth because the representations are not in the minds of the speakers but outside, in the world, where things can only ever be one way. The things (like The Rock That Was Broken and Is Now Made Whole or whatever it was) are their own 'representations', which means they're not representations at all and you have an externalist antirepresentationalist account of mind. Of course it doesn't entirely work (sounds are not rocks, you're never going to get around that) and hasn't been worked out correctly because if it had been the entire plot wouldn't have been possible, but that doesn't make it not interesting to read about. As I said before, this is the closest thing to the Myth of Jones that exists in fiction, which is awesome. reflir fucked around with this message at 23:36 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
reflir posted:This doesn't follow; you're confusing eliminative materialism with antirepresentationalism. Here is/was my thinking (largely based off of equal parts my own ignorance, reading the SEP entry on Rorty, and conversations with my wife): the Host's language sort of sets up this mandatory reflection between the outside world and their speech, with their "mind" -- such as it is -- playing the role of the mirror. They don't have thoughts as internal objects that stand for external ones, their 'minds' are nothing but shifting pointers to the external, and that shifting bears no relationship to anything that we think of as 'thinking'. If that's the case, then the Hosts literally can't have any internal stance, thought, or belief; their Language only points to things in their head that are themselves contentless and only point to things in the world. This seems to entail EM's conclusions about their internal states (or lack thereof). Or have I completely missed the point of either EM or antirepresentationalism again? But all that said, I'm happy to concede both the point and my own relative ignorance on the topic; I haven't read any philosophy but pop philosophy since my undergrad days. As a random aside, I actually think I've enjoyed the conversations this has provoked as much as the book itself.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Was anyone else at the Cambridge, MA reading/signing last night? He was, as has been suggested, a very engaging and funny speaker. Although the only other event of this kind that I've been to was with William Gibson, who is also a great writer, but strangely boring when reading out-loud. I have not started reading Embassytown yet because I want to finish The Scar first.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
Portable Staplefrog posted:Was anyone else at the Cambridge, MA reading/signing last night? He was, as has been suggested, a very engaging and funny speaker. Although the only other event of this kind that I've been to was with William Gibson, who is also a great writer, but strangely boring when reading out-loud. I just saw him give a reading/signing in Portland, OR over the weekend. One of the things he specifically mentioned during the question/answer section was some of the criticism Embassytown drew for having an unrealistic system of language/cognition among the Hosts. His argument, more or less, was that he doesn't think Language needs to hold up under close analysis; what he works towards is a system that's plausible enough so that readers can suspend their disbelief while reading. On one hand, I feel like he's right; willing suspension of disbelief is necessary to appreciate any science fiction, and I really don't feel like the world needs another Tolkien. On the other hand, though, I also feel like Embassytown was quite susceptible to fridge logic -- I enjoyed it well enough while I was reading it, but now that I've finished it I definitely have some gripes about a few of the major premises.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 13:19
|
|
|
Did anyone else go to the event in Brooklyn last night?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
I got these when he was in Seattle (I sent him a fan letter).  
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 09:40
|
|
|
tokidoki posted:I got these when he was in Seattle (I sent him a fan letter). lets be honest now. Your scream wasn't restrained or tactful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
I *just* missed him doing a signing next door to me in Toronto, but managed to pick up a signed copy of Embassytown after the fact. I've only read a little bit of it but it's already blowing my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:lets be honest now. Your scream wasn't restrained or tactful. Not in the slightest 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
What a dreamboat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Sorry. Didn't know I'm not allowed to get excited about receiving a response from a favorite author.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
Embassytown was probably my favorite of his books so far. I particularly enjoyed the civilization-brain concept that he implies though the book, and makes explicit nearing the end. I personally don't think the language concept as a whole was as unbelievable as people make out. The hosts were observing something the humans had no easy detection mechanism for, and the humans did not seem so advanced that it would be impossible. The hosts not being able to recognize things as conscious could be explained as a protection mechanism to prevent malformed thoughts entering the society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 03:30
|
|
|
Embassytown seems very much like a development of and a focusing on certain elements from Iron Council, and as such it's likely my second favorite of his books.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Here's a cool limited edition cover: I want to see a larger version :O
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Here's a cool limited edition cover: Yuck. I don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
Turpitude posted:I just finished King Rat and I can't recommend it enough. It's a light, fun, fast read with all of Mieville's trademark weirdness and a lot of unforgettable characters. I would say it makes a perfect starting point for anyone who wants to get into Mieville. I love Sci-fi, with (Philip K. Dick being my favorite author), but to be honest I read Mieville's "Perdido Street Station,"or at least the first 50 pages and did not like it at all. Maybe I should try and "King Rat," first for my first book from Mieville? I love wierd sci-fi like PKD and his later stuff, but for some reason I was not into "Perdido Street Station." Maybe I would enjoy his other stuff more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
IMO if you like sci-fi but didn't like Perdido Street Station then you might like King Rat even less. The ratio of sci-fi to weird is a lot higher in Perdido Stree Station than in King Rat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
pkd3001 posted:I love Sci-fi, with (Philip K. Dick being my favorite author), but to be honest I read Mieville's "Perdido Street Station,"or at least the first 50 pages and did not like it at all. Maybe I should try and "King Rat," first for my first book from Mieville? I love wierd sci-fi like PKD and his later stuff, but for some reason I was not into "Perdido Street Station." Maybe I would enjoy his other stuff more. PSS does a complete 180 after page 90 or so. The first act is exclusively to set up the stage for the action and in fact I think the fact he takes such a long time to describe the place where the action takes place is why I love his books so much. My favorite Mieville "character" remains New Crobuzon itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
pkd3001 posted:I love Sci-fi, with (Philip K. Dick being my favorite author), but to be honest I read Mieville's "Perdido Street Station,"or at least the first 50 pages and did not like it at all. Maybe I should try and "King Rat," first for my first book from Mieville? I love wierd sci-fi like PKD and his later stuff, but for some reason I was not into "Perdido Street Station." Maybe I would enjoy his other stuff more. Just go for The Scar. PSS is incredibly dense and I found it hard to get through the first time. The Scar has much better pacing to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
PSS is indeed very dense, but stopping reading a 1000 page book after only 50 is like walking out of the cinema before the opening credits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
Mrs. Badcrumble posted:Did anyone else go to the event in Brooklyn last night? So this was like almost two weeks ago, but I went. It was a fun reading in an interesting space. He's very adept at answering awkward, meandering audience member questions. However, the venue forgot to hire DJs or something so there was no dancing as promised. China would've danced, too. Boo. The specialty cocktail was a dark n' stormy made with Kraken rum. Nice touch. The turn-out was decent for Brooklyn and a not cheap ticketed event. They would've pulled more numbers at B&N Union Square but the publicist promised WORD China as a thank you for selling their books at NY Comic-Con. Lev Grossman moderates about 80% of NY sci-fi readings. Good gig for him, I guess. I never read The Magicians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
Hm, just found this thread. I like Iain Banks, another British bloke (Scottish actually), would I like China Miéville? I hardly read SciFi apart from Banks. What should I read first? I hope this question is not too stupid. Thanks.
lllllllllllllllllll fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jun 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
nixar55 posted:So this was like almost two weeks ago, but I went. It was a fun reading in an interesting space. He's very adept at answering awkward, meandering audience member questions. However, the venue forgot to hire DJs or something so there was no dancing as promised. China would've danced, too. Boo. The specialty cocktail was a dark n' stormy made with Kraken rum. Nice touch. I asked the question about octopuses; I wasn't meandering!!!! but he didn't really answer it because there wasn't enough time to give a good answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:Hm, just found this thread. I like Iain Banks, another British bloke (Scottish actually), would I like China Miéville? Yes, yes you would. Start with Perdido Street Station and go from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Mrs. Badcrumble posted:I asked the question about octopuses; I wasn't meandering!!!! but he didn't really answer it because there wasn't enough time to give a good answer. Aw, it wasn't your question I was referring to! It was more the first one. China really like octopodes! Did you see his new tattoo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
nixar55 posted:Aw, it wasn't your question I was referring to! It was more the first one. Yep - it's bigger than I had expected it to be. I need to write to him about my question, now that I think of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:PSS does a complete 180 after page 90 or so. The first act is exclusively to set up the stage for the action and in fact I think the fact he takes such a long time to describe the place where the action takes place is why I love his books so much. Thanks for the advice. I am reading "Solaris," currently actually. After I am done with Solaris though, I might check it out again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Just go for The Scar. PSS is incredibly dense and I found it hard to get through the first time. The Scar has much better pacing to me. Thanks for advice, I am reading "Solaris," actually right now, but I might give him a try again after I am done with Solaris. Well, thanks, for the tip.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 09:28
|
|
|
pkd3001 posted:Thanks for advice, I am reading "Solaris," actually right now, but I might give him a try again after I am done with Solaris. Well, thanks, for the tip. I just finished Solaris and immediately started reading Perdido Street Station yesterday. loving weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Roybot posted:I just finished Solaris and immediately started reading Perdido Street Station yesterday. loving weird. Oh, wow. Did you like Solaris? I really like Philip K. Dick and enjoyed the George Clooney movie that was an adaptation of it, so I thought I would give it a try. I also like reading philosophy and I am trying to finish "Man's Search for Meaning," by Viktor Frankl, so it might take me a little while to finish Solaris but it seems like a very philosophical novel. One of the things that bothers me sometimes is that people think all sci-fi, is just this "space opera," Star Wars stuff. There are many really philosophically rich sci-fi novels and movies though. Not to knock Star Wars, because I like Star Wars, but I think sometimes people miss out on the deeper stuff like Philip K. Dick and Solaris.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 09:42
|
|
|
pkd3001 posted:Oh, wow. Did you like Solaris? I really like Philip K. Dick and enjoyed the George Clooney movie that was an adaptation of it, so I thought I would give it a try. I also like reading philosophy and I am trying to finish "Man's Search for Meaning," by Viktor Frankl, so it might take me a little while to finish Solaris but it seems like a very philosophical novel. One of the things that bothers me sometimes is that people think all sci-fi, is just this "space opera," Star Wars stuff. There are many really philosophically rich sci-fi novels and movies though. Not to knock Star Wars, because I like Star Wars, but I think sometimes people miss out on the deeper stuff like Philip K. Dick and Solaris. Agreed! In this vein, I can't recommend Mieville's 'Embassytown' enough, it's some of the cleverest sci-fi I've read in years. I would compare it closely to PKD and Iain Banks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
Turpitude posted:Agreed! In this vein, I can't recommend Mieville's 'Embassytown' enough, it's some of the cleverest sci-fi I've read in years. I would compare it closely to PKD and Iain Banks. Thanks for the tip. I have a lot on my reading list, but it might be one of the books I get to soon, hopefully. Thanks though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Here's a spoiler comment about Embassytown Late quote, but oh my god this was depressing. Although he set you up nicely for it with The hosts not understanding her. After that you're pretty much resigned to it on some level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Benagain posted:Late quote, but oh my god this was depressing. Although he set you up nicely for it with The hosts not understanding her. After that you're pretty much resigned to it on some level. Some thoughts on his other stuff: Its nice to have another high concept piece from him, TC&TC was great and this was pretty good, hope he does some more (question was iron council high concept and I missed the point?). The Scar was great fun, the most enjoyable of his books, read it more than once, also the first I read. I really liked PSS, some parts more than others, but enough that I'll read it again. Iron Council I think I maybe missed the point or something, didn't like it, didn't feel like I understood it. Kraken sucked, the police woman was cringe worthy. Un lun dun, just started, not feeling it atm, but thats been common to his other books so I'll carry on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 23:05
|
|
