Discussion:
[OT] "Real" sci- fi vs. soft sci-fi. Where do you stand?
Add Reply
occam
2018-06-11 07:36:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)

"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."

(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)

Full article:
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
Peter Moylan
2018-06-11 08:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of
leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.

Traditionally, SF readers have been tolerant of just two improbable
technologies: faster-than-light travel, and time travel. We accept the
first because without it we wouldn't have many plausible stories that
require interstellar travel. We accept the second because, done well, it
has given us some eminently readable stories.

(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-06-11 09:31:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
Science Fiction that dealt with only pushing the boundaries of technology were called techno-thrillers though the term hasgone out of fashion
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of
leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Traditionally, SF readers have been tolerant of just two improbable
technologies: faster-than-light travel, and time travel. We accept the
first because without it we wouldn't have many plausible stories that
require interstellar travel. We accept the second because, done well, it
has given us some eminently readable stories.
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-11 10:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of
leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Is there not a classic SF story (can't remember the author offhand)
where scientists are shown evidence of anti-gravity discoveries by
a rival country which, after they çatch up and invent their own
anti-gravity devices, is revealed to be a total fake designed purely
to bypass the natural resistance of physicists to belief in the
'impossible'.
Post by Peter Moylan
Traditionally, SF readers have been tolerant of just two improbable
technologies: faster-than-light travel, and time travel. We accept the
first because without it we wouldn't have many plausible stories that
require interstellar travel. We accept the second because, done well, it
has given us some eminently readable stories.
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
Don't be absurd. Just two, my patootie! The list is virtually endless.
Don't impose your tolerance levels on readers in general.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 11:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of
leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Is there not a classic SF story (can't remember the author offhand)
where scientists are shown evidence of anti-gravity discoveries by
a rival country which, after they çatch up and invent their own
anti-gravity devices, is revealed to be a total fake designed purely
to bypass the natural resistance of physicists to belief in the
'impossible'.
Post by Peter Moylan
Traditionally, SF readers have been tolerant of just two improbable
technologies: faster-than-light travel, and time travel. We accept the
first because without it we wouldn't have many plausible stories that
require interstellar travel. We accept the second because, done well, it
has given us some eminently readable stories.
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
Don't be absurd. Just two, my patootie! The list is virtually endless.
Don't impose your tolerance levels on readers in general.
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.

Given the "positronic brain," and so "robots," Campbell basically came up
with the Three Laws.
Richard Tobin
2018-06-11 11:52:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
But he was wrong. That's just one style of sci-fi.

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 12:48:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
But he was wrong. That's just one style of sci-fi.
It's what there was in 1935ish. He was _the_ editor. Writers wanted to be
in _his_ magazine, and he knew what he was doing.
bill van
2018-06-11 18:09:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
But he was wrong. That's just one style of sci-fi.
It's what there was in 1935ish. He was _the_ editor. Writers wanted to be
in _his_ magazine, and he knew what he was doing.
Campbell was the editor of note when modern SF was being invented. That
doesn't mean we have to stick with his rules and definitions forever.
Writers can write what they want. Publishers can publish what they
want. Readers can read what they want. Critics can call it what they
want. There are no enforceable rules.

bill
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-11 18:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
But he was wrong. That's just one style of sci-fi.
It's what there was in 1935ish. He was _the_ editor. Writers wanted to be
in _his_ magazine, and he knew what he was doing.
Campbell was the editor of note when modern SF was being invented. That
doesn't mean we have to stick with his rules and definitions forever.
Writers can write what they want. Publishers can publish what they
want. Readers can read what they want. Critics can call it what they
want. There are no enforceable rules.
No, but there's always a self-appointed, censorious elite devoted to
trying. Somebody really ought to write a story about them!
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 19:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
But he was wrong. That's just one style of sci-fi.
It's what there was in 1935ish. He was _the_ editor. Writers wanted to be
in _his_ magazine, and he knew what he was doing.
Campbell was the editor of note when modern SF was being invented. That
doesn't mean we have to stick with his rules and definitions forever.
Writers can write what they want. Publishers can publish what they
want. Readers can read what they want. Critics can call it what they
want. There are no enforceable rules.
I stopped reading SF when Heinlein got -- well, verbose, and when
"Neuromancer" got promoted as The Next Big Thing. Though I did keep on
with LeGuin.
bill van
2018-06-11 22:46:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
But he was wrong. That's just one style of sci-fi.
It's what there was in 1935ish. He was _the_ editor. Writers wanted to be
in _his_ magazine, and he knew what he was doing.
Campbell was the editor of note when modern SF was being invented. That
doesn't mean we have to stick with his rules and definitions forever.
Writers can write what they want. Publishers can publish what they
want. Readers can read what they want. Critics can call it what they
want. There are no enforceable rules.
I stopped reading SF when Heinlein got -- well, verbose, and when
"Neuromancer" got promoted as The Next Big Thing. Though I did keep on
with LeGuin.
Heinlein certainly jumped the shark in his later books, but that was my
reason to stop reading Heinlein, not everyone else. I reviewed SF books
for my newspaper for a time, and was swamped by the volume; I then
stopped reading SF entirely for a decade or so. I still have all the
LeGuin I ever read, and two or more books by Aldiss, Blish, Bear,
Bester, Dick, Herbert, Pohl, Silverberg, Wolfe and (for laughs)
Zelazny. I read more fantasy than SF these days, especially Gaiman's
light and dark entertainments.

bill
Snidely
2018-06-13 09:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
bill van is guilty of <pfmu3k$4nt$***@dont-email.me> as of 6/11/2018
3:46:12 PM
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
But he was wrong. That's just one style of sci-fi.
It's what there was in 1935ish. He was _the_ editor. Writers wanted to be
in _his_ magazine, and he knew what he was doing.
Campbell was the editor of note when modern SF was being invented. That
doesn't mean we have to stick with his rules and definitions forever.
Writers can write what they want. Publishers can publish what they
want. Readers can read what they want. Critics can call it what they
want. There are no enforceable rules.
I stopped reading SF when Heinlein got -- well, verbose, and when
"Neuromancer" got promoted as The Next Big Thing. Though I did keep on
with LeGuin.
Heinlein certainly jumped the shark in his later books, but that was my
reason to stop reading Heinlein, not everyone else. I reviewed SF books for
my newspaper for a time, and was swamped by the volume; I then stopped
reading SF entirely for a decade or so. I still have all the LeGuin I ever
read, and two or more books by Aldiss, Blish, Bear, Bester, Dick, Herbert,
Pohl, Silverberg, Wolfe and (for laughs) Zelazny.
The early Amber stories were good. I was already familiar with
Zelazny, I think through short stories.

I pretty much started with Heinlein's YA stuff, back in 5th grade
(pointed to it by a teacher), back when real space craft held 1, 2, or
maybe 3 people.

But ... somewhere in that timeframe I read some Silverberg (short
stories in _Godling, Go Home!_) not realizing that I was reading Scien
Fiction.

It was much later that I read _Bill The Galactic Hero_. I've poked at
stainless steel rats, but Bill was the fun book.
Post by bill van
I read more fantasy than SF
these days, especially Gaiman's light and dark entertainments.
Still getting there.
Post by bill van
bill
I tend to need more breaks from Fantasy than from Science Fiction,
probably because it's like running around without suspenders and having
loosened the belt. Hmm, there may be a better image; watch this space >
<.

I do have somewhat eclectic tastes: Avram Davidson and Kate Wilhelm
were in there and then all that Well of the Worlds, and later on a few
of the Bad Pun series about Xanth. Flix and Pip. The Road books by
John DeLancie (or DeLancey or DeLaney ... Amazon didn't help me, nor
did WP).

Current reads are the Ancillary books by Ann Leckie, _Medusa Uploaded
by Emily Devenport [1], and a book in a gold and red dustjacket by a
British author (circa 2016). Oh, and a recently "annual" anthology is
in the stack [2].

Oh, and I use the terms "Science Fiction", SciFi, and SF rather
interchangeably, so clearly my head isn't attached properly. I do use
Space Opera more specifically, thank my Lucky Starrs. Also, "hard SF"
(or a variation on that theme) for books where the science isn't just
stage dressing, but almost a character in itself. Asimov, Clarke, and
Heinlein were early examples. I think Simak was softer, and I don't
remember my Kornbluth.

[1] "Devenport" rings an SF bell for me, but I don't recognize the
novel titles in Emily's WP entry.
[2] Stacks ... the books I haven't read yet, and which will go in
storage when I have to move.

/dps
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-06-11 17:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of
leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Is there not a classic SF story (can't remember the author offhand)
where scientists are shown evidence of anti-gravity discoveries by
a rival country which, after they çatch up and invent their own
anti-gravity devices, is revealed to be a total fake designed purely
to bypass the natural resistance of physicists to belief in the
'impossible'.
Post by Peter Moylan
Traditionally, SF readers have been tolerant of just two improbable
technologies: faster-than-light travel, and time travel. We accept the
first because without it we wouldn't have many plausible stories that
require interstellar travel. We accept the second because, done well, it
has given us some eminently readable stories.
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
Don't be absurd. Just two, my patootie! The list is virtually endless.
Don't impose your tolerance levels on readers in general.
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
Given the "positronic brain," and so
'Positronic brain' is one of the dumbest ideas of science fiction. It has only techno babble to go for it. What positions could contribute that electrons can't baffles me. They are just way harder to handle.

"robots," Campbell basically came up
Post by Peter T. Daniels
with the Three Laws.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 19:27:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Traditionally, SF readers have been tolerant of just two improbable
technologies: faster-than-light travel, and time travel. We accept the
first because without it we wouldn't have many plausible stories that
require interstellar travel. We accept the second because, done well, it
has given us some eminently readable stories.
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
Don't be absurd. Just two, my patootie! The list is virtually endless.
Don't impose your tolerance levels on readers in general.
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
Given the "positronic brain," and so
'Positronic brain' is one of the dumbest ideas of science fiction. It has only techno babble to go for it. What positions could contribute that electrons can't baffles me. They are just way harder to handle.
Had physicists even invented positrons when the teen-age Asimov invented
the term?
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"robots," Campbell basically came up
with the Three Laws.
Richard Tobin
2018-06-11 19:52:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
'Positronic brain' is one of the dumbest ideas of science fiction. It
has only techno babble to go for it. What positions could contribute
that electrons can't baffles me. They are just way harder to handle.
Had physicists even invented positrons when the teen-age Asimov invented
the term?
Yes.

Unless he made up the term in the few weeks between his becoming a
teenager on January 2 1933 and the use of the term in the Los Angeles
Times on February 21.

[I expect a follow-up from Mark Brader.]

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 20:45:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
'Positronic brain' is one of the dumbest ideas of science fiction. It
has only techno babble to go for it. What positions could contribute
that electrons can't baffles me. They are just way harder to handle.
Had physicists even invented positrons when the teen-age Asimov invented
the term?
Yes.
Unless he made up the term in the few weeks between his becoming a
teenager on January 2 1933 and the use of the term in the Los Angeles
Times on February 21.
[I expect a follow-up from Mark Brader.]
I doubt that his dad's candy store in Brooklyn carried the L.A. Times.

Not sure whether you have a term for "candy store." Nowadays in NYC they
are "bodegas." In my day, they sold nickel candy, tobacco products ("cigar
stores" were bigger and more specialized), newspapers, magazines, and
comic books. His father didn't approve of his reading the SF mags with
their lurid covers, but he couldn't stop him.
RH Draney
2018-06-11 22:33:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not sure whether you have a term for "candy store." Nowadays in NYC they
are "bodegas." In my day, they sold nickel candy, tobacco products ("cigar
stores" were bigger and more specialized), newspapers, magazines, and
comic books. His father didn't approve of his reading the SF mags with
their lurid covers, but he couldn't stop him.
ObAUE: cognate with "boutique", innit?...r
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 22:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not sure whether you have a term for "candy store." Nowadays in NYC they
are "bodegas." In my day, they sold nickel candy, tobacco products ("cigar
stores" were bigger and more specialized), newspapers, magazines, and
comic books. His father didn't approve of his reading the SF mags with
their lurid covers, but he couldn't stop him.
ObAUE: cognate with "boutique", innit?...r
'Tis. I did not know that.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ross
2018-06-11 23:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not sure whether you have a term for "candy store." Nowadays in NYC they
are "bodegas." In my day, they sold nickel candy, tobacco products ("cigar
stores" were bigger and more specialized), newspapers, magazines, and
comic books. His father didn't approve of his reading the SF mags with
their lurid covers, but he couldn't stop him.
ObAUE: cognate with "boutique", innit?...r
'Tis. I did not know that.
--
Jerry Friedman
I've always assumed they were cognate, but never bothered to
look up the etymology. Turns out they're both ultimately from
Gk apothe:ke: 'storehouse', hence cognate with "apothecary". Nice.
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 23:51:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not sure whether you have a term for "candy store." Nowadays in NYC they
are "bodegas." In my day, they sold nickel candy, tobacco products ("cigar
stores" were bigger and more specialized), newspapers, magazines, and
comic books. His father didn't approve of his reading the SF mags with
their lurid covers, but he couldn't stop him.
ObAUE: cognate with "boutique", innit?...r
'Tis. I did not know that.
--
Jerry Friedman
I've always assumed they were cognate, but never bothered to
look up the etymology. Turns out they're both ultimately from
Gk apothe:ke: 'storehouse', hence cognate with "apothecary". Nice.
It's been pointed out that "bodega" from "apotheca" shows how all three
voiceless stops in Latin, when between vowels, became voiced in Spanish.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ross
2018-06-12 03:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not sure whether you have a term for "candy store." Nowadays in NYC they
are "bodegas." In my day, they sold nickel candy, tobacco products ("cigar
stores" were bigger and more specialized), newspapers, magazines, and
comic books. His father didn't approve of his reading the SF mags with
their lurid covers, but he couldn't stop him.
ObAUE: cognate with "boutique", innit?...r
'Tis. I did not know that.
--
Jerry Friedman
I've always assumed they were cognate, but never bothered to
look up the etymology. Turns out they're both ultimately from
Gk apothe:ke: 'storehouse', hence cognate with "apothecary". Nice.
Also in the scrap-heap of my memory was Italian bottega, in the form
of a literary journal of the 1950s called Botteghe Oscure ["dark shops"].
Named after the Roman street in which it was published, via delle Botteghe Oscure, whose Latin form was Ad Apothecas Obscuras.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-12 02:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not sure whether you have a term for "candy store." Nowadays in NYC they
are "bodegas." In my day, they sold nickel candy, tobacco products ("cigar
stores" were bigger and more specialized), newspapers, magazines, and
comic books. His father didn't approve of his reading the SF mags with
their lurid covers, but he couldn't stop him.
ObAUE: cognate with "boutique", innit?...r
Se non e vero, e ben trovato.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-11 21:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
'Positronic brain' is one of the dumbest ideas of science fiction. It
has only techno babble to go for it. What positions could contribute
that electrons can't baffles me. They are just way harder to handle.
Had physicists even invented positrons when the teen-age Asimov invented
the term?
Yes.
Unless he made up the term in the few weeks between his becoming a
teenager on January 2 1933 and the use of the term in the Los Angeles
Times on February 21.
[I expect a follow-up from Mark Brader.]
-- Richard
Apparently the term "positron" wasn't invented by the particle's
discoverer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron#Experimental_clues_and_discovery

Carl David Anderson discovered the positron on August 2, 1932, for
which he won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1936. Anderson did not
coin the term positron, but allowed it at the suggestion of the
Physical Review journal editor to which he submitted his discovery
paper in late 1932.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-12 09:45:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
'Positronic brain' is one of the dumbest ideas of science fiction. It
has only techno babble to go for it. What positions could contribute
that electrons can't baffles me. They are just way harder to handle.
Had physicists even invented positrons when the teen-age Asimov invented
the term?
Yes.
Unless he made up the term in the few weeks between his becoming a
teenager on January 2 1933 and the use of the term in the Los Angeles
Times on February 21.
It seems to be unclear who coined the name 'positron'.
Dirac predicted it in 1928, (at first thinking it might be the proton)
After Oppenheimer told him that really couldn't be true
Dirac talked about the anti-electron.
Anderson discovered it in August 1932, published in 1933.
The Positive Electron, Phys. Rev. 43, 491 - 15 March 1933
The abstract mentions positrons,
and someone at the LA Times may have seen it..
Anderson may not have been the first,

Jan
Peter Moylan
2018-06-12 00:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:47:04 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing
just one parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
Given the "positronic brain," and so
'Positronic brain' is one of the dumbest ideas of science fiction. It
has only techno babble to go for it. What positions could contribute
that electrons can't baffles me. They are just way harder to handle.
The modern view is that positrons are just like electrons, except for
the different charge. Things were different back in the 1930s, where
"positron" was a newly introduced concept that was a bit of a mystery to
everyone.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
GordonD
2018-06-12 10:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are
several sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here
there is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which
he constructs of a metal which does away with the law of
gravitation. Ça c’est très joli…. But show me this metal. Let him
produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked
to compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way
of leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles,
even now.
Is there not a classic SF story (can't remember the author offhand)
where scientists are shown evidence of anti-gravity discoveries by a
rival country which, after they çatch up and invent their own
anti-gravity devices, is revealed to be a total fake designed purely
to bypass the natural resistance of physicists to belief in the
'impossible'.
Harry Harrison wrote one about people selling toy spaceships which
appear to float when you push a button. In fact there's an invisible
thread - except that the thread isn't strong enough to support the mass
of the spaceship if you don't push the button first. The supposedly fake
circuitry inside is a genuine anti-gravity generator, except that the
inventors can't make it work on anything heavier than a toy spaceship.
They hope that someone will be intrigued enough to investigate further
and come up with a larger device with practical uses.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-12 11:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are
several sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here
there is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which
he constructs of a metal which does away with the law of
gravitation. Ça c’est très joli…. But show me this metal. Let him
produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked
to compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way
of leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles,
even now.
Is there not a classic SF story (can't remember the author offhand)
where scientists are shown evidence of anti-gravity discoveries by a
rival country which, after they çatch up and invent their own
anti-gravity devices, is revealed to be a total fake designed purely
to bypass the natural resistance of physicists to belief in the
'impossible'.
Harry Harrison wrote one about people selling toy spaceships which
appear to float when you push a button. In fact there's an invisible
thread - except that the thread isn't strong enough to support the mass
of the spaceship if you don't push the button first. The supposedly fake
circuitry inside is a genuine anti-gravity generator, except that the
inventors can't make it work on anything heavier than a toy spaceship.
They hope that someone will be intrigued enough to investigate further
and come up with a larger device with practical uses.
--
I've managed to track it down now. It's Noise Level by Raymond F. Jones,
based on a plot idea from the science fiction editor of Astounding, John
W. Campbell.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-06-13 18:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:48:49 GMT, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by occam
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are
several sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here
there is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which
he constructs of a metal which does away with the law of
gravitation. Ça c’est trÚs joli
. But show
me this metal. Let him
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked
to compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ours
elv
es/
Post by Peter Moylan
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way
of leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles,
even now.
Is there not a classic SF story (can't remember the author offhand)
where scientists are shown evidence of anti-gravity discoveries by
a rival country which, after they çatch up and invent their own
anti-gravity devices, is revealed to be a total fake designed
purely to bypass the natural resistance of physicists to belief in
the 'impossible'.
Harry Harrison wrote one about people selling toy spaceships which
appear to float when you push a button. In fact there's an invisible
thread - except that the thread isn't strong enough to support the
mass of the spaceship if you don't push the button first. The
supposedly fake circuitry inside is a genuine anti-gravity generator,
except that the inventors can't make it work on anything heavier than
a toy spaceship. They hope that someone will be intrigued enough to
investigate further and come up with a larger device with practical
uses.
--
I've managed to track it down now. It's Noise Level by Raymond F.
Jones, based on a plot idea from the science fiction editor of
Astounding, John W. Campbell.
I feel the sf newsgroup just through this portal might be interested
(xposted)
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Keith F. Lynch
2018-06-14 02:57:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by GordonD
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce
"science" that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but
it has to be plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the
boundaries of credibility.
Less so in those days before General Relativity.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by GordonD
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of leaving
the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
True. But only for values of "uncomfortable" that equal "instantly
lethal." Compared to being in such a cannonball, for a jet to fly at
full speed into the side of a skyscraper would be a gentle way for its
passengers to arrive downtown.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by GordonD
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Is there not a classic SF story (can't remember the author
offhand) where scientists are shown evidence of anti-gravity
discoveries by a rival country which, after they \303\247atch up
and invent their own anti-gravity devices, is revealed to be a
total fake designed purely to bypass the natural resistance of
physicists to belief in the 'impossible'.
Harry Harrison wrote one about people selling toy spaceships
which appear to float when you push a button. In fact there's an
invisible thread - except that the thread isn't strong enough to
support the mass of the spaceship if you don't push the button
first. The supposedly fake circuitry inside is a genuine
anti-gravity generator, except that the inventors can't make it
work on anything heavier than a toy spaceship. They hope that
someone will be intrigued enough to investigate further and come
up with a larger device with practical uses.
I've managed to track it down now. It's Noise Level by Raymond F.
Jones, based on a plot idea from the science fiction editor of
Astounding, John W. Campbell.
I feel the sf newsgroup just through this portal might be interested
(xposted)
To track it down you need only have read this newsgroup (rasff).
I identified that story here less than two weeks ago.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
s***@gmail.com
2018-06-14 04:23:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are
several sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here
there is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which
he constructs of a metal which does away with the law of
gravitation. Ça c’est très joli…. But show me this metal. Let him
produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked
to compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way
of leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles,
even now.
Is there not a classic SF story (can't remember the author offhand)
where scientists are shown evidence of anti-gravity discoveries by a
rival country which, after they çatch up and invent their own
anti-gravity devices, is revealed to be a total fake designed purely
to bypass the natural resistance of physicists to belief in the
'impossible'.
Harry Harrison wrote one about people selling toy spaceships which
appear to float when you push a button. In fact there's an invisible
thread - except that the thread isn't strong enough to support the mass
of the spaceship if you don't push the button first. The supposedly fake
circuitry inside is a genuine anti-gravity generator, except that the
inventors can't make it work on anything heavier than a toy spaceship.
They hope that someone will be intrigued enough to investigate further
and come up with a larger device with practical uses.
There must a be a minefield full of such stories. The one I remember started as a bar bet: "Our engineers are better than your engineers".

/dps
RH Draney
2018-06-11 12:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 12:49:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Cf. Asimov's "The Ugly Little Boy."
occam
2018-06-11 12:50:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 12:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
It's unreadable, like most of Wells's fiction. And most of what else he so
prolifically churned out.

If it weren't for crossword puzzles, I wouldn't know about the Eloi.

"The Country of the Blind" is ok.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-11 13:01:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
It's unreadable, like most of Wells's fiction. And most of what else he so
prolifically churned out.
If it weren't for crossword puzzles, I wouldn't know about the Eloi.
"The Country of the Blind" is ok.
To describe works read by millions and cited by many critics as amongst
the most important and influential ever written as 'unreadable' is
exceptionally hubristic even by your standards.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 16:24:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
It's unreadable, like most of Wells's fiction. And most of what else he so
prolifically churned out.
If it weren't for crossword puzzles, I wouldn't know about the Eloi.
"The Country of the Blind" is ok.
To describe works read by millions and cited by many critics as amongst
the most important and influential ever written as 'unreadable' is
exceptionally hubristic even by your standards.
Which critics are those? How did you count the millions?

Are those the same critics who count *Ulysses* (if not *Finegans Wake*) as
"among[] the most important and influential ever written" despite the small
amount of readership it has had (as opposed to copies sold)?

Wells's _ideas_ were influential. What of his prose has been influential?
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-06-14 11:54:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
It's unreadable, like most of Wells's fiction. And most of what else he so
prolifically churned out.
It's good social commentary
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If it weren't for crossword puzzles, I wouldn't know about the Eloi.
"The Country of the Blind" is ok.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-14 13:44:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
It's unreadable, like most of Wells's fiction. And most of what else he so
prolifically churned out.
It's good social commentary
As I said somewhere above, Wells was celebrated for his ideas, not for
his prose. Neither has worn well over the century.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If it weren't for crossword puzzles, I wouldn't know about the Eloi.
"The Country of the Blind" is ok.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-14 14:29:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
It's unreadable, like most of Wells's fiction. And most of what else he so
prolifically churned out.
It's good social commentary
As I said somewhere above, Wells was celebrated for his ideas, not for
his prose. Neither has worn well over the century.
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and Spielberg's film
of War of the Worlds both start with direct quotation from the book
(Spielberg changing the century from 19th to 21st, of course).
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-14 16:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
It's unreadable, like most of Wells's fiction. And most of what else he so
prolifically churned out.
It's good social commentary
As I said somewhere above, Wells was celebrated for his ideas, not for
his prose. Neither has worn well over the century.
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and Spielberg's film
of War of the Worlds both start with direct quotation from the book
(Spielberg changing the century from 19th to 21st, of course).
Care to share those quotes?

'Fraid I haven't heard of either one. For a Spielberg movie not to have
become instantly "iconic," it must have been pretty disappointing. (Cf.
"Hook*.)
Richard Tobin
2018-06-14 17:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and Spielberg's film
of War of the Worlds both start with direct quotation from the book
(Spielberg changing the century from 19th to 21st, of course).
Care to share those quotes?
'Fraid I haven't heard of either one. For a Spielberg movie not to have
become instantly "iconic," it must have been pretty disappointing. (Cf.
"Hook*.)
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.

https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics

-- Richard
Peter Young
2018-06-14 18:24:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and Spielberg's film
of War of the Worlds both start with direct quotation from the book
(Spielberg changing the century from 19th to 21st, of course).
Care to share those quotes?
'Fraid I haven't heard of either one. For a Spielberg movie not to have
become instantly "iconic," it must have been pretty disappointing. (Cf.
"Hook*.)
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.
https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics
That counts me as one, rather than one of the million.

Peter,
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Richard Tobin
2018-06-15 00:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Tobin
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.
https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics
That counts me as one, rather than one of the million.
It was a joke, which rather fell flat. The most famous line in the
song (it's similar to one in the original book) is "the chances of
anything coming from Mars are a million to one, he said".

I suspect many people who have never heard of Jeff Wayne would
recognise parts of the music, or the Richard Burton narration.

There are numerous copies of it on the web, for example

https://www.mixcloud.com/ivan220973/jeff-wayne-musical-version-of-the-war-of-the-worlds-full-album/

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-15 02:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Tobin
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.
https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics
That counts me as one, rather than one of the million.
It was a joke, which rather fell flat. The most famous line in the
song (it's similar to one in the original book) is "the chances of
anything coming from Mars are a million to one, he said".
I suspect many people who have never heard of Jeff Wayne would
recognise parts of the music, or the Richard Burton narration.
There are numerous copies of it on the web, for example
https://www.mixcloud.com/ivan220973/jeff-wayne-musical-version-of-the-war-of-the-worlds-full-album/
So, it's some sort of rock opera album, like *Tommy* or *Jesus Christ
Superstar*? The former became a rather entertaining Ken Russell movie,
the latter a rather dismal movie by whatsizname (Josh Mostel as Herod
walking on water across his swimming pool, IIRC).
RH Draney
2018-06-15 10:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
So, it's some sort of rock opera album, like *Tommy* or *Jesus Christ
Superstar*? The former became a rather entertaining Ken Russell movie,
the latter a rather dismal movie by whatsizname (Josh Mostel as Herod
walking on water across his swimming pool, IIRC).
Mostel was perfectly cast to play the spoiled brat...I had my doubts,
given that performance, about Alice Cooper in the recent TV version, but
as the essence of the character is to strut and preen before
disappearing altogether, it worked beautifully....r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-15 11:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
So, it's some sort of rock opera album, like *Tommy* or *Jesus Christ
Superstar*? The former became a rather entertaining Ken Russell movie,
the latter a rather dismal movie by whatsizname (Josh Mostel as Herod
walking on water across his swimming pool, IIRC).
Mostel was perfectly cast to play the spoiled brat...I had my doubts,
given that performance, about Alice Cooper in the recent TV version, but
as the essence of the character is to strut and preen before
disappearing altogether, it worked beautifully....r
I was watching something else for the beginning but switched to it at some
half-hour or other, and John Legend was emoting something fierce (he'd
probably never done any TV acting before), so I didn't stick around for
any more of it.

Richard Strauss's Herod in *Salome* is preferable. There's a perfectly
awful "biblical" epic of the same name, with Laughton as Herod and Judith
Anderson doing absolutely nothing as Herodias (apparently they really did
have to be in whatever the producers decided to put them in).
David Kleinecke
2018-06-14 18:26:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and Spielberg's film
of War of the Worlds both start with direct quotation from the book
(Spielberg changing the century from 19th to 21st, of course).
Care to share those quotes?
'Fraid I haven't heard of either one. For a Spielberg movie not to have
become instantly "iconic," it must have been pretty disappointing. (Cf.
"Hook*.)
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.
https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics
I'd never even heard of Jeff Wayne.
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-14 19:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and Spielberg's film
of War of the Worlds both start with direct quotation from the book
(Spielberg changing the century from 19th to 21st, of course).
Care to share those quotes?
'Fraid I haven't heard of either one. For a Spielberg movie not to have
become instantly "iconic," it must have been pretty disappointing. (Cf.
"Hook*.)
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.
https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics
I'd never even heard of Jeff Wayne.
There's not much other reason to have heard of him for most people.
I've heard his /War of the Worlds/ (which contains a sweet pop song,
"Forever Autumn"), but I can never remember his name.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2018-06-15 12:36:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and
Spielberg's film of War of the Worlds both start with direct
quotation from the book (Spielberg changing the century from
19th to 21st, of course).
Care to share those quotes?
'Fraid I haven't heard of either one. For a Spielberg movie
not to have become instantly "iconic," it must have been
pretty disappointing. (Cf. "Hook*.)
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.
https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics
I'd never even heard of Jeff Wayne.
There's not much other reason to have heard of him for most people.
I've heard his /War of the Worlds/ (which contains a sweet pop song,
"Forever Autumn"), but I can never remember his name.
It is good. While refreshing my memory, I noticed that the instruments
kept playing "dies irae, dies illa".

Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-06-14 18:55:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and Spielberg's film
of War of the Worlds both start with direct quotation from the book
(Spielberg changing the century from 19th to 21st, of course).
Care to share those quotes?
'Fraid I haven't heard of either one. For a Spielberg movie not to have
become instantly "iconic," it must have been pretty disappointing. (Cf.
"Hook*.)
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.
https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics
A good example for the hopeless task of explaining to Harrison the
difference between "see" and "watch": I've no idea if I've heard the
work in question, but I've certainly never listened to it.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-14 19:39:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Strange then that Jeff Wayne's musical version and Spielberg's film
of War of the Worlds both start with direct quotation from the book
(Spielberg changing the century from 19th to 21st, of course).
Care to share those quotes?
'Fraid I haven't heard of either one. For a Spielberg movie not to have
become instantly "iconic," it must have been pretty disappointing. (Cf.
"Hook*.)
The chances of anyone not having heard the Jeff Wayne version are
a million to one.
https://genius.com/Jeff-wayne-the-eve-of-the-war-lyrics
I guess that makes me one in a million. Unless you've messed around with
the negatives, covert negatives, and ratio to suggest that it is indeed
unknown.
Peter Moylan
2018-06-11 14:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in
everyone's "must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider
the original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by
the H.G. Wells as not worthy?
It seems that everyone's list is different.

The Wells story is, I suppose, a "must read" in that it became part of
our culture, something that any literate person should know about; but I
don't call it outstanding.

The three that I had in mind are
Heinlein, By His Bootstraps
Asimov, The End of Eternity
Silverberg, Up the Line

Note that these are very different from one another, both in style and
plot development. They aren't three variations on a theme, they are
three different themes.

I don't like Heinlein's "All You Zombies" as much, because I see it as a
reworking of an idea he'd already used, albeit with a great deal more
elaboration.

I should add that I've liked a number of other time travel stories. The
above three are simply some that particularly impressed me.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
HVS
2018-06-11 14:46:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in
everyone's "must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider
the original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by
the H.G. Wells as not worthy?
It seems that everyone's list is different.
The Wells story is, I suppose, a "must read" in that it became part of
our culture, something that any literate person should know about; but I
don't call it outstanding.
The three that I had in mind are
Heinlein, By His Bootstraps
Asimov, The End of Eternity
Silverberg, Up the Line
Note that these are very different from one another, both in style and
plot development. They aren't three variations on a theme, they are
three different themes.
Apart from the Wells book, the story that would pop into my mind if I was
asked to name the first time-travel tale that I can think of would be Cyril
Kornbluth's "The Little Black Bag".

It's not a particularly ground-breaking story, but I read it when I was
about 12 (mid 1960s), and that sort of thing tends to stay with you.

(I also liked "The Ninth Symphony of Ludwig van Beethoven and Other Lost
Songs" by Carter Scholz, which was published in the mid 1970s -- so I can't
plead the "age excuse" for it. In serious SF circles that probably
exhibits a lamentable lack of discrimination, but there ya' go...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 17:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in
everyone's "must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider
the original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by
the H.G. Wells as not worthy?
It seems that everyone's list is different.
The Wells story is, I suppose, a "must read" in that it became part of
our culture, something that any literate person should know about; but I
don't call it outstanding.
The three that I had in mind are
Heinlein, By His Bootstraps
Asimov, The End of Eternity
Silverberg, Up the Line
Note that these are very different from one another, both in style and
plot development. They aren't three variations on a theme, they are
three different themes.
I don't like Heinlein's "All You Zombies" as much, because I see it as a
reworking of an idea he'd already used, albeit with a great deal more
elaboration.
And greatly to its benefit, to my taste, partly because he simplified
out some irrelevant stuff. Also I found it much more moving.
Post by Peter Moylan
I should add that I've liked a number of other time travel stories. The
above three are simply some that particularly impressed me.
I agree with PTD on "The Ugly Little Boy".
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
2018-06-11 16:43:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
Well worth reading, I'd say, but it's not strictly a time-travel
story...it's an "adventures in a strange world" story that happens to
use time travel to put its hero into that world....r
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 17:07:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
Well worth reading, I'd say, but it's not strictly a time-travel
story...it's an "adventures in a strange world" story that happens to
use time travel to put its hero into that world....r
And says that that world is our future.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2018-06-12 00:40:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
Well worth reading, I'd say, but it's not strictly a time-travel
story...it's an "adventures in a strange world" story that happens to
use time travel to put its hero into that world....r
It was mostly a vehicle to express some ideas about the English class
divide.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
occam
2018-06-13 07:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by occam
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
Robert Heinlein is a fine writer. But does that mean you consider the
original time travel book of all time - the 'Time Machine' - by the H.G.
Wells as not worthy?
Well worth reading, I'd say, but it's not strictly a time-travel
story...it's an "adventures in a strange world" story that happens to
use time travel to put its hero into that world....r
Hmm... it has a time travel machine, with some hocus-pocus description
of how it functions (dials, levers), so it is very much a time-travel
story.

'Erewhon' on the other hand (by Samuel Butler) is not a time-travel
story but fits exactly your description of "adventures in a strange
world". There are many forms of exploring alternate worlds (fantasy,
LSD, dream) than a time machine.

P.S. Wiki attributes the coining of the term 'Time Machine' to H.G.
Wells.
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 17:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
What's the third one, /The Door into Summer/?
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
2018-06-11 22:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
(I can think of three time travel stories that belong in everyone's
"must read" list.)
As can I...and they're all by RAH....r
What's the third one, /The Door into Summer/?
Damn, you're good!...r
Mark Brader
2018-06-13 19:05:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation... But show me
this metal. Let him produce it."
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility.
Wells's side has the better argument.

First, we're talking about what was credible in 1900, not 2018.
Nobody then had any theories about how gravity might actually exert
its force, but new types of radiation such as X-rays had been recently
discovered, so maybe gravity worked somehow by some other new type
of radiation. And if there were substances that could block X-rays,
i.e. heavy metals, what's so impossible about a newly discovered
substance having the property that it blocks gravitational rays?
A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of leaving
the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Not if you make it long enough, which would be a leetle difficult.

The speed required for a ballistic projectile launched to the Moon
is near enough the same as the Earth's escape velocity -- 25,000 mph.
Accelerating from 0 to 25,000 mph in the 900-foot length of the cannon
requires an acceleration of (25,000 mph)^2 / (2 * 900 feet), which is
over 23,200 gees. (And that's a calculation that Isaac Newton could
have done.) Yes, you could fire a solid projectile to the Moon with
such a cannon -- but not a living person.

Even if an acceleration as high as 20 gees was considered acceptable
(and NASA would say it isn't), the cannon would need to be almost
200 miles long. For a more practical 10 gees, 400 miles.
--
Mark Brader | "You wake me up early in the morning to tell me
Toronto | I am right? Please wait until I am wrong."
***@vex.net | -- John von Neumann, on being phoned at 10 am

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-14 01:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by occam
I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation... But show me
this metal. Let him produce it."
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility.
Wells's side has the better argument.
First, we're talking about what was credible in 1900, not 2018.
Nobody then had any theories about how gravity might actually exert
its force, but new types of radiation such as X-rays had been recently
discovered, so maybe gravity worked somehow by some other new type
of radiation. And if there were substances that could block X-rays,
i.e. heavy metals, what's so impossible about a newly discovered
substance having the property that it blocks gravitational rays?
A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of leaving
the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Not if you make it long enough, which would be a leetle difficult.
The speed required for a ballistic projectile launched to the Moon
is near enough the same as the Earth's escape velocity -- 25,000 mph.
Accelerating from 0 to 25,000 mph in the 900-foot length of the cannon
requires an acceleration of (25,000 mph)^2 / (2 * 900 feet), which is
over 23,200 gees. (And that's a calculation that Isaac Newton could
have done.) Yes, you could fire a solid projectile to the Moon with
such a cannon -- but not a living person.
Even if an acceleration as high as 20 gees was considered acceptable
(and NASA would say it isn't), the cannon would need to be almost
200 miles long. For a more practical 10 gees, 400 miles.
They had some stuff to cushion them, but still.

Also, they /felt/ the pull of the Earth's gravity till they were at the
"neutral point" between the Earth and the Moon, and air resistance was
supposed to be negligible because of the short /time/ the projectile
spent in the atmosphere.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-14 08:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by occam
I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation... But show me
this metal. Let him produce it."
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility.
Wells's side has the better argument.
First, we're talking about what was credible in 1900, not 2018.
Nobody then had any theories about how gravity might actually exert
its force, but new types of radiation such as X-rays had been recently
discovered, so maybe gravity worked somehow by some other new type
of radiation. And if there were substances that could block X-rays,
i.e. heavy metals, what's so impossible about a newly discovered
substance having the property that it blocks gravitational rays?
A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of leaving
the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Not if you make it long enough, which would be a leetle difficult.
The speed required for a ballistic projectile launched to the Moon
is near enough the same as the Earth's escape velocity -- 25,000 mph.
Accelerating from 0 to 25,000 mph in the 900-foot length of the cannon
requires an acceleration of (25,000 mph)^2 / (2 * 900 feet), which is
over 23,200 gees. (And that's a calculation that Isaac Newton could
have done.) Yes, you could fire a solid projectile to the Moon with
such a cannon -- but not a living person.
Even if an acceleration as high as 20 gees was considered acceptable
(and NASA would say it isn't), the cannon would need to be almost
200 miles long. For a more practical 10 gees, 400 miles.
They had some stuff to cushion them, but still.
About 1500 km of cushion would be fine.
Conversely, that is the length an electromagnetic catapult should have,
it is to launch humans.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Also, they /felt/ the pull of the Earth's gravity till they were at the
"neutral point" between the Earth and the Moon, and air resistance was
supposed to be negligible because of the short /time/ the projectile
spent in the atmosphere.
Verne didn't understand Newtonian mechanics only halfway.
OTOH the dead dog does stay in the same orbit, correctly.
Air resistance is wrong to.
To get through the atmosphere without too much speed loss
the thing should have been much longer than wide.
say telephone pole shaped.

Anyway, the claim that Jules Verne's moonshot
is just credible extension of existing technology is nonsense,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2018-06-14 11:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
With a rail gun it is possible
Arindam Banerjee
2018-06-14 23:51:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by occam
I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation... But show me
this metal. Let him produce it."
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility.
Wells's side has the better argument.
First, we're talking about what was credible in 1900, not 2018.
Nobody then had any theories about how gravity might actually exert
its force, but new types of radiation such as X-rays had been recently
discovered, so maybe gravity worked somehow by some other new type
of radiation. And if there were substances that could block X-rays,
i.e. heavy metals, what's so impossible about a newly discovered
substance having the property that it blocks gravitational rays?
A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of leaving
the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Not if you make it long enough, which would be a leetle difficult.
The speed required for a ballistic projectile launched to the Moon
is near enough the same as the Earth's escape velocity -- 25,000 mph.
Accelerating from 0 to 25,000 mph in the 900-foot length of the cannon
requires an acceleration of (25,000 mph)^2 / (2 * 900 feet), which is
over 23,200 gees. (And that's a calculation that Isaac Newton could
have done.) Yes, you could fire a solid projectile to the Moon with
such a cannon -- but not a living person.
Even if an acceleration as high as 20 gees was considered acceptable
(and NASA would say it isn't), the cannon would need to be almost
200 miles long. For a more practical 10 gees, 400 miles.
--
Mark Brader | "You wake me up early in the morning to tell me
Toronto | I am right? Please wait until I am wrong."
My text in this article is in the public domain.
To send a 400Kg object to the Moon, you need a 1Km long rail gun (of my new, low voltage design) using 25 million average amperes of current on the rails.

Just worked that out.

Quite doable.

The exit velocity should be about 55,000m/s which is a lot of acceleration. What will happen if some lifeform is put in it? I don't think it will get harmed, going by the experience of the high rise lifts that use internal force linear motors for great acceleration, as opposed to the kind of pull-up external force stuff that Einstein bunglingly used to justify the notions of GR.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-14 21:15:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c'est très
joli-. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
I'm on Verne's side. SF writers are allowed to introduce "science"
that's in advance of what we know or can do now, but it has to be
plausible. An antigravity metal is pushing the boundaries of
credibility. A super-powerful cannon might be an uncomfortable way of
leaving the earth, but it doesn't violate any known principles, even now.
Cannon are limited to the rate of expansion of the gases.
A few km/s are th'e best you can hope for.
Practically, the 'Paris kanonne' or Gerald Bull's HARP project
are the best you can do.
Verne's is techno-bable. It just sounds plausible.
Post by Peter Moylan
Traditionally, SF readers have been tolerant of just two improbable
technologies: faster-than-light travel, and time travel. We accept the
first because without it we wouldn't have many plausible stories that
require interstellar travel. We accept the second because, done well, it
has given us some eminently readable stories.
A third is quite impossible material properties,
such as found for example in Larry Niven's books,

Jan
au76666
2018-06-11 09:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
Well, for a start, I stand where no real SF reader calls science fiction
"sci-fi". It is called SF. Check with Isaac Asimov.
--
Dieter Britz
Peter Moylan
2018-06-11 14:22:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by au76666
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are
several sci-fi readers in AUE.)
Well, for a start, I stand where no real SF reader calls science
fiction "sci-fi". It is called SF. Check with Isaac Asimov.
+1. I feel strongly about this.

Skiffy is a spin-off from SF, aimed at people who value big-screen
special effects, and literary values be damned.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Tobin
2018-06-11 17:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by au76666
Well, for a start, I stand where no real SF reader calls science fiction
"sci-fi". It is called SF. Check with Isaac Asimov.
-1

Why should we care what "real" science fiction readers call it? Or
Isaac Asimov?

-- Richard
Joy Beeson
2018-06-14 06:34:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Why should we care what "real" science fiction readers call it? Or
Isaac Asimov?
Because "sci fi" is too useful for meaning "sci fi" to allow it to
slop into meaning SF in general.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Snidely
2018-06-15 07:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Richard Tobin
Why should we care what "real" science fiction readers call it? Or
Isaac Asimov?
Because "sci fi" is too useful for meaning "sci fi" to allow it to
slop into meaning SF in general.
I may not be sufficiently sensitized to the difference.

/dps
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-06-15 08:10:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Richard Tobin
Why should we care what "real" science fiction readers call it? Or
Isaac Asimov?
Because "sci fi" is too useful for meaning "sci fi" to allow it to
slop into meaning SF in general.
I may not be sufficiently sensitized to the difference.
Nor am I. For me "SF in general" is San Francisco.
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 17:16:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by au76666
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
Well, for a start, I stand where no real SF reader calls science fiction
"sci-fi". It is called SF. Check with Isaac Asimov.
Unfortunately, that's somewhere in the last century. I call it SF or
sf, but lots of good writers call it sci-fi.
--
Jerry Friedman
occam
2018-06-14 11:10:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by au76666
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
Well, for a start, I stand where no real SF reader calls science fiction
"sci-fi". It is called SF. Check with Isaac Asimov.
Have a look at this.
https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/SF

'SF' clearly stands for a lot more than Science Fiction. SF for San
Francisco, I'd hazard a guess, is better known to far greater number of
people than sci-fi fans. Sci-fi stands only for science fiction - less
ambiguous. (I tried to contact Isaac, his agent told me he was
unavailable.)
Mack A. Damia
2018-06-11 16:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
Time travel from another perspective portending different worlds:

(Quote)

When it arrived, he carried it to the floor of the little vestibule
behind the port. Gnut was there, as if waiting. In his arms he held
the slender body of the second Klaatu. Tenderly he passed him out to
Cliff, who took him without a word, as if all this had been arranged.
It seemed to be the parting.

Of all the things Cliff had wanted to say to Klaatu, one remained
imperatively present in his mind. Now, as the green metal robot stood
framed in the great green ship, he seized his chance.

"Gnut," he said earnestly, holding carefully the limp body in his
arms, "you must do one thing for me. Listen carefully. I want you to
tell your master – the master yet to come – that what happened to the
first Klaatu was an accident, for which all Earth is immeasurably
sorry. Will you do that?"

"I have known it," the robot answered gently.

"But will you promise to tell your master – just those words – as soon
as he is arrived?"

"You misunderstand," said Gnut, still gently, and quietly spoke four
more words. As Cliff heard them a mist passed over his eyes and his
body went numb.

As he recovered and his eyes came back to focus he saw the great ship
disappear. It just suddenly was not there anymore. He fell back a step
or two. In his ears, like great bells, rang Gnut's last words. Never,
never was he to disclose them til the day he came to die.

"You misunderstand," the mighty robot had said. "I am the master."


(From the novel, *Farewell to the Master* by Harry Bates)
David Kleinecke
2018-06-11 17:34:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
(Quote)
When it arrived, he carried it to the floor of the little vestibule
behind the port. Gnut was there, as if waiting. In his arms he held
the slender body of the second Klaatu. Tenderly he passed him out to
Cliff, who took him without a word, as if all this had been arranged.
It seemed to be the parting.
Of all the things Cliff had wanted to say to Klaatu, one remained
imperatively present in his mind. Now, as the green metal robot stood
framed in the great green ship, he seized his chance.
"Gnut," he said earnestly, holding carefully the limp body in his
arms, "you must do one thing for me. Listen carefully. I want you to
tell your master – the master yet to come – that what happened to the
first Klaatu was an accident, for which all Earth is immeasurably
sorry. Will you do that?"
"I have known it," the robot answered gently.
"But will you promise to tell your master – just those words – as soon
as he is arrived?"
"You misunderstand," said Gnut, still gently, and quietly spoke four
more words. As Cliff heard them a mist passed over his eyes and his
body went numb.
As he recovered and his eyes came back to focus he saw the great ship
disappear. It just suddenly was not there anymore. He fell back a step
or two. In his ears, like great bells, rang Gnut's last words. Never,
never was he to disclose them til the day he came to die.
"You misunderstand," the mighty robot had said. "I am the master."
(From the novel, *Farewell to the Master* by Harry Bates)
If you want time-travel per se consider the Van Vogt
story (Recruiting Station) - where the protagonist gets
into his past by waiting out the cycle of time and
coming at today from the past - probably is tops. VV
says, IIRC. quadrillions of years.

Written before everybody accepted a big bang.
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 17:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
Why is one sentence in French? Seems weird.

I'm on Wells's side. You want FTL, or time travel, or antigravity,
or psionics, or a planet where life emerged independently from our
life but we can eat them and they can eat us, or ditto for sex and
children, or people can jump from our universe to a parallel one,
or the ancestors of humans were brought here from another planet but
other Earth organisms evolved here, or pond microorganisms can have
human intelligence, or beings made of electromagnetic radiation are
Jesus' representatives on the planets, or whatever, I'm happy as long
as it's a good story.
--
Jerry Friedman
occam
2018-06-11 18:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
Why is one sentence in French? Seems weird.
Because Verne was French, and he was thinking in French and making a
great effort to answer in English?

I find that expletives and expressions of wonderment are better in one's
own language.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I'm on Wells's side. You want FTL, or time travel, or antigravity,
or psionics, or a planet where life emerged independently from our
life but we can eat them and they can eat us, or ditto for sex and
children, or people can jump from our universe to a parallel one,
or the ancestors of humans were brought here from another planet but
other Earth organisms evolved here, or pond microorganisms can have
human intelligence, or beings made of electromagnetic radiation are
Jesus' representatives on the planets, or whatever, I'm happy as long
as it's a good story.
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 23:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
Why is one sentence in French? Seems weird.
Because Verne was French, and he was thinking in French and making a
great effort to answer in English?
If so, his English was excellent, or the interviewer improved it.
Post by occam
I find that expletives and expressions of wonderment are better in one's
own language.
...

The original article is at

https://books.google.com/books?id=AJlFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA589

It's not explicit, but I get the feeling the interview was in French and
the interviewer left some things untranslated to remind readers of that,
or because those things would lose a certain Gallic flair, not to
mention nuance and je ne sais quoi.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-14 21:15:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c'est très
joli-. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
Why is one sentence in French? Seems weird.
Because Verne was French, and he was thinking in French and making a
great effort to answer in English?
I find that expletives and expressions of wonderment are better in one's
own language.
Even the ability of Verne to easily read English is questionable,

Jan
Arindam Banerjee
2018-06-12 10:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
(The only reason I post this here is because I know there are several
sci-fi readers in AUE.)
"I go to the moon in a cannonball discharged from a cannon. Here there
is no invention. He goes to Mars [sic] in an airship which he constructs
of a metal which does away with the law of gravitation. Ça c’est très
joli…. But show me this metal. Let him produce it."
(Quote from Jules Verne about the work of H.G: Wells, when asked to
compare his work with that of Wells'.)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/01/terraforming-ourselves/
There is the Verne class science fiction, which is eminently worthwhile from the engineering point of view.

Then there is the Wells class of pseudo-science fantasy passing for science fiction, which while good reading is useless for engineering.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Loading...