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

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 16:42:32 EDT

  • Next message: SHEILA WILSON: "Re: Original Sin/Atonement"

    Walter Hicks wrote:
    >
    > 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 O.K. I revise my comment to: "Wells wrote fantasy that is hopelessly out of date with respect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 -
            I don't need to be appeased - this time at least. As you said, this is largely
    a matter of taste, concerning which, as the old saying goes, there's no disputing.

            I continued this thread with a new name because I think SF deserves more
    attention in science-theology discussions than it gets. SF films & TV play a major role
    in the popular understanding of science (mostly bad) & can serve as a vehicle for
    promoting views about religion, both positive & negative.

            I understand & to some extent agree with your point about Wells' use of science.
    He was much freer to make up essentially "fantasy" stuff than, e.g., Jules Verne. When
    Verne wanted to get people to the moon he used a huge cannon, a method which in reality
    would encounter big practical problems. But there's no fundamental theoretical reason
    why you couldn't get a projectile to the moon that way. (People are another matter -
    they'd be a thin red jelly before getting out of the barrel.) Wells, on the other hand,
    used "Cavorite," an anti-gravity screen, which is theoretically absurd. (Energy
    conservation: To could climb into the sphere of Cavorite you'd have to be strong
    enough to jump to the moon directly & wouldn't need anti-gravity.) Verne's comment on
    Wells' idea was more mundane: "Very nice, but let him show me this metal.

            I don't have a strong preference for "hard" vs "soft" SF & think both have their
    place. Introducing things that would go beyond our present theories (like FTL drives)
    is OK - in moderation. But multiplication of such things begins to put it in the
    fantasy realm. Even worse is blatant contradiction of things we do know - like
    Cavorite.

                                                                    Shalom,
                                                                    George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 16:50:58 EDT