XPost: alt.usage.english, rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books
From: peter@pmoylan.org.invalid
On 13/09/13 18:21, John Holmes wrote:
>
> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> news:b9f50lFtmkvU5@mid.individual.net...
>> 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.
>
> It's not a thread, it's a wormhole in space-time, and this is the other
> end of it.
>
As not for whom the worm turns.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
