XPost: alt.usage.english, rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books
From: snidely.too@gmail.com
Robert Bannister explained :
> On 12/09/13 2:36 PM, Snidely wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This is a revival of a very old thread.
Ah, come on. 2-3 months? That's just the blink of an eye.
And if you hadn't posted to it so often, I wouldn't have had trouble
keeping up with it.
/dps "studying path-like spaces"
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
