At different times, I corresponded with both James Blish and Poul Anderson about time travel. For the views that I expressed, see:
The Logic of Time Travel: Part I
The Logic of Time Travel: Part II
Both authors said that they would keep my letters on file for reference in case of writing anything further about time travel. In addition, Anderson accepted the explanation that I offered for the paradox in "Star of the Sea." However, this paradox differs from any of the others. The Tacitus Two text had not been carried into the past from a potential future by a time traveler but had simply been found in a Roman library. Therefore, the explanation that I offered (see Unstable Space-Time II) differed from my usual way of accounting for causality violation by referring to a second temporal dimension. Whether Anderson would have accepted the latter, I am less sure.
What the Time Patrollers say about causality violation is counter-intuitive and some of it is definitely contradictory. When time allows, I will elucidate this further.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
I reread your "Unstable Space-Time II" blog piece and I see now how I erred a bit in what I said about your correspondence with Poul Anderson.
Alas, I never thought of writing a letter to Poul Anderson commenting on or about one of his Time Patrol stories and asking for his views. I most often corresponded about his Technic Civlization stories, alternate worlds, THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS, THE KING OF YS, etc.
Any COMPLETE COLLECTED WORKS OF POUL ANDERSON should include a volume or volumes bringing together his surviving letters replying to fans. And to preserve the context I would include the letters of Anderson's correspondents. Fortunately, I was careful to make copies of the letters I wrote to PA, so I could place his replies next to the appropriate letters written by me. I hope you did the same!
Sean
Post a Comment