It's OK to notice the issues, but if you want to read in this genre you kind of have to get used to just noting them and moving on. Asking an author to write something that can hold up completely has three problems. Nobody could write a non-trivial completely self-consistent story that deviates from reality that much, nobody would be willing to read the resulting story that proves it out because it would require a lot of words to prove that, and in many cases it may not even be possible to be self-consistent in the first place. (Witness the problem we have just coming up with one physics that is consistent with itself and the real world, let alone creating non-trivial new ones from scratch.) It would not be a net benefit to not write those stories.
Most sci-fi or fantasy works have some "gimme" that you just have to
accept, because it furthers the story. Fine, anti-gravity, time travel
or whatever exists. Nobody's expected to explain how it works.
What makes for lazy writing is introducing some world changing concept
that you base your entire story on, and then just conveniently leaving
it out in the very next scene for dramatic effect. That goes beyond having a
gimme, you're just assuming your audience is dumb at that point.
I think the book "Story of Your Life" is just fine. It's consistent with its premise. As my comment
indicates it's the lazy movie adoption I have a problem with.
They depart from the book by making the character capable of changing
the future based on her prescience, she's no longer just a puppet
playing out future events. She's got a choice. Okey, fine, let's run
But then she can see a future where here young daughter dies from some
incurable disease at a young age, but decides to have her anyway. Her
partner then leaves her because she went through with that without
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the universe of the movie when
they had that conversation. He was probably yelling at her that they
could have just spent a couple of thousand dollars on sperm sorting &
IVF and say had a boy instead of instead of having their young
daughter die at an early age from some statistically improbable disease.
My apologies then; while I stand by the general content of my message I would not have replied to your post with that had I caught that detail.