Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tiew" data-source="post: 1604804" data-attributes="member: 12604">Hey Sir Whiskers, I'm going to have to defend Arthur C Clark. As a general statement his famous law is a bit meaningless. However taken in context, as comment on science fiction writting, it's a very concise summing up of the philosophy he held to.All but one (the worst one) of the Clarke short stories I've read have used technology very close to modern technology for his time. For instance, he had a story about satelite TV a couple of decades before the technology came into existence. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> I think to him part of the fun of science fiction was trying to imagine what it would be like after a few more steps of developement, or if we used technology we already had in a different way. I think he liked to be able to give a reasonable explanation for how the technology he made up worked. I think he saw this as the superior way of writting science fiction. I don't think his law should be taken as a general philosophical statement. It's more of a subtle dig at a style of science fiction writing, and a defense of his own style of writting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tiew, post: 1604804, member: 12604"] Hey Sir Whiskers, I'm going to have to defend Arthur C Clark. As a general statement his famous law is a bit meaningless. However taken in context, as comment on science fiction writting, it's a very concise summing up of the philosophy he held to. All but one (the worst one) of the Clarke short stories I've read have used technology very close to modern technology for his time. For instance, he had a story about satelite TV a couple of decades before the technology came into existence. :-) I think to him part of the fun of science fiction was trying to imagine what it would be like after a few more steps of developement, or if we used technology we already had in a different way. I think he liked to be able to give a reasonable explanation for how the technology he made up worked. I think he saw this as the superior way of writting science fiction. I don't think his law should be taken as a general philosophical statement. It's more of a subtle dig at a style of science fiction writing, and a defense of his own style of writting. [/QUOTE]

Verification