Wolfe physics

Michael Buice · 19 Aug 2003, 03:57 · from urth-v0308.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Michael Buice <mabuice at uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfe physics
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:57:13 -0500
Message-ID: <urth-v0308-3938 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0308/3938.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 10:10 PM, William Ansley wrote:
> (BTW, did you really mean to put the H in your IMHO? <g> I'm sure you=20
> didn't mean to imply that you and only you have the absolute grasp of=20
> physics necessary to judge if it is used properly in popular science=20
> writing and SF, but you came across that way in your last two posts.=20
> rather.)
>

	Sorry about that; to me the 'H' has always seems more or less=20
self-mocking, displaying an awareness that the speaker is as much of a=20
buffoon as the next person.  I do have strong opinions about how=20
science is both delivered to and perceived by the public but I did not=20
intend to present an insistence that all must without question accept=20
my opinion as truth.
	I Humbly apologize for any offense.

=09
> I'm with alga on this one. IMO the seams really show where Wolfe tried=20
> to sew the New and Long/Short Suns together. And I'm not really sure=20
> what the fact that Gene Wolfe is very good at presenting science from=20
> the point of view of a non-scientist has to do with his trying to=20
> combine too many disparate elements together, which I think he did,=20
> especially in Short Sun.

	I may have lost the thread of the conversation, but I thought the=20
discussion of inconsistencies stemmed from the 'One Ship' discussion=20
which had been (to me) well-argued out of existence.  The trouble under=20
discussion seemed to be the whole generation starship/FTL idea and=20
which type the Whorl could have been based on the available=20
technologies, etc.  Perhaps I'm the one whose sloppily sewing together=20
disparate threads. :)

	Perhaps we could continue in manner more useful to all thusly:

	What specific instances in the Sun books do people see as being=20
inconsistent as far as science and technology are concerned, in=20
particular with respect to differences between the major works?

Michael


--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net