XPost: alt.usage.english, rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books   
   From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   on 7/25/2013, Steve Hayes supposed :   
   > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:37:58 +0800, Robert Bannister    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> I would have thought that most people who read SF&F are aware that FTL,   
   >> time travel, telepathy, etc. do not work and cannot work. Back when I   
   >> was twelve, these were all thought to be possibilities. Moreover,   
   >> although only a few really knew the details of real science at the time,   
   >> it was possible to understand the broad ideas, and Asimov and others   
   >> spent a lot of time explaining them. Modern science is way beyond the   
   >> imagination of those not involved.   
      
   Hmmm.  I'm not sure that Stephen Hawking is that hard to read, at least   
   in _A Brief History of Time_ and _The Universe in a Nutshell_.  I've   
   only dabbled in George Gamow, but his books made an impression on the   
   public, especially the public that was buying science fiction.   
      
   >   
   > Perhaps you could say that there is a difference between SF that focuses on   
   > the technology as such, and that for which it is a mere literary device for   
   > moving people to an unfamiliar environment.   
      
   There's a handful of stories that can do both.   
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
   Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence   
   went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his   
   precious heavy water.   
   _The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)