Fantastic Metropolis

Rani Graff: You withdrew “Liking What You See: A Documentary” from the Hugo nomination. Why?

Ted Chiang: The story that was published isn’t the story I wanted it to be. When my editor and I originally set a deadline for a new story for the collection, he told me to make up a date, and he’d give me an extension if I wanted one. I made up a date; later, I told him I needed an extension. He refused. So I was forced to turn in a story I wasn’t happy with.

This doesn’t mean that I’m ashamed of “Liking What You See”; I’m not. And as with many writers, I can look back on any of my stories and imagine how it could have been done better. But with those other stories, at least I know that, at the time I submitted them for publication, I had done the best I could. That’s not the case with “Liking What You See.” I had a different story in mind, one which I think would have been better. And I didn’t think it’d be appropriate for me to accept a nomination for a story that I wanted to do differently.

Rani Graff: What is your notion of Human evolution, and where do you think it will lead us? Where would you like it to go?

Ted Chiang: Culture has been shaping human evolution for a long time; the classic example is how the spread of slash-and-burn agriculture led to an increase in malaria-bearing mosquitoes, which led to an increased occurrence of the sickle-cell gene which imparts partial resistance to malaria. What this example illustrates is that our effect on human evolution won’t necessarily reflect our intentions; no one expected agricultural technique to have an effect on the prevalence of sickle-cell anemia. I think that, no matter what anyone tries to do with genetic engineering, the ultimate effect of our actions on human evolution will only be apparent in retrospect.

As for where I would like it to go, I think an important thing to remember about evolution is that it doesn’t optimize individual happiness. Evolution is concerned only with reproductive success, and you can have a lot of children without being happy. So I don’t want the human genome to move in any specific direction. I just hope that a better understanding of our evolutionary history, and how genetics affects human behavior, will help us create a social environment that lets us be happier.

Rani Graff: You seem to create unique worlds in every new story that you write, fully detailed and everything. Were you ever tempted to write a story that is set in a world already created in one of your previous works?

Ted Chiang: I have sometimes thought about further exploring the universe of “Seventy-Two Letters,” but so far I haven’t come up with a story idea that satisfies me.

Rani Graff: Looking back at all your stories to date, do you find any common themes?

Ted Chiang: I don’t know of a single common theme that runs through all my stories, but perhaps what I most often wind up exploring is the relationship between the world as it is and the world as we perceive it to be. To understand the world we have to rely on the data provided by our senses and the concepts generated by our reasoning; you could say that my stories are attempts to examine the strengths and limitations of those resources.

Rani Graff: Will we ever read a novel written by you?

Ted Chiang: Maybe, if I ever get an idea for one, but if I don’t, I won’t mind. I have no aspirations of ever making a living writing fiction, so I’m content to just write a short story once in a while.

Rani Graff: Tell me something we don’t know about Ted Chiang.

Ted Chiang: I’m left-handed.

---

This interview appeared for the first time in Hebrew at the בלי פ?ניקה website.