Re: SF then & now (Was Re: Original Sin)

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 13:44:16 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)"

    George Murphy wrote:

    > Walter Hicks wrote:
    > >
    > > George Murphy wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > I don't agree with Walt about Wells as a SF writer. I think much of his SF was
    > > > pretty good, though much is rather dated by now.
    > >
    > > Being a real SF buff, it is hard for me to think of Wells' so called science fiction as
    > > being anything other than fantasy. There was precious little real science in his writings
    >
    > I think it would have looked different 100 years ago.

    I may be old, but I'm not that old --- so speak for yourself, George.

    O.K. I revise my comment to: "Wells wrote fantasy that is hopelessly out of date with respect
    to any real science."

    Perhaps that is why I never liked it.

    Appeased?

    Probably not :)

    Walt

    .
    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic
    If you have already found the truth
    without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    ===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 13:44:21 EDT