(i) He lengthens and strengthens his power by periodically hopping forward to the following year. His loyal lieutenants also time travel forward:
"'...on a complicated pattern which always has one of them clearly in charge.'"
-Poul Anderson, There Will Be Time (New York, 1973), VIII, p. 77.
(ii) Leonce mentions "'...the earlier Wallis, on his inspection tour.'" (XIII, p. 142)
This implies that the earlier Wallis inspected later periods, then returned to the earlier period. We know that he met his very aged self at the end of Phase One, made one visit to Phase Two and had fleeting glimpses of Phase Three. Now it appears that he also made an inspection tour of Phase One.
When Leonce ingeniously rescues Havig, the current Wallis is present, having interrogated Havig and intending to interrogate him further, whereas the earlier Wallis on his inspection tour is not due for several years. Because no bad consequences have (yet) followed from Havig's unexplained escape, the Eyrie does not mention that escape to the earlier Wallis.
"'Why admit a failure?'" (ibid.)
There is another reason. The current Wallis did not know that Havig was going to escape, therefore the earlier Wallis cannot have been told. These time travelers have learned not to try to change the past.
But what would happen if a lot of time travelers did try to change the past? The premises of the novel become a bit shaky.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think I see what you mean: if a lot of these mutant time travelers TRIED to change the past, how plausible would it be to think that SOMETHING stopped ALL of them from changing the past?
This tends to increase my skepticism about whether time traveling is possible in reality. But I don't mind at all if some SF writers want to experiment with the idea. Masters like Poul Anderson can give us some very interesting stories exploring the theme and its consequences.
Sean
Sean,
That is my point. If 100 time travelers each set out to appear in front of the TV news reader on a different evening when it was known that they had not done so, would they all die from a heart attack before setting off? The laws of probability would have to change. Logical consistency is preserved by there being no time travel (at least no easy travel into the recent past) in the first place.
Paul.
Paul and Sean:
That's what I like about multiple worlds. Those hundred time travelers would each and every one of them appear on the TV news — creating a set of alternate universes where they had, singly or in various combinations, as well as the original universe where they hadn't.
As I mentioned somewhere else on this blog, I used this in the background for a story I'll never actually write, to explain why the time-traveling hero isn't on a crusade to prevent Naziism, or slavery, or some other evil. He knows it's an exercise in futility, and would just split off alternate realities: one where he didn't try, one where he achieved complete success, and heaven knows how many variants on partial success and differing kinds of failure, some of them possibly worse than the original universe. "Yeah, I killed Hitler. The guy who replaced him turned out to be every bit the strategic, tactical, and diplomatic genius Hitler thought himself to be, so the Nazis enslaved the whole world. Unlike with the Draka, nobody got away."
(I envisioned this character as being able to visit such alternate universes, as well as going backward or forward in time, so he sees these results, not just extrapolating them, and can enjoy vacations in some of the more-appealing ones.)
Kaor, Paul!
Not necessarily all of these 100 time travelers would have heart attacks (altho I can imagine some suffering such a fate). Some, like Jack Havig, might trip over some thing and break a leg, and so on. I agree with your logical consistency comment.
Sean
Kaor, DAVID!
I dunno, that sounds more like an ALTERNATE universe story, not a true time traveling tale. I'm reminded of Anderson's THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS, A MIDSUMMER TEMPEST, and his two OPERATION books. See esp. the preface to THREE HEARTS, where it's mentioned that if alternate worlds exist, that has to include every possible variant, good or bad, we can think of.
Why not write out the story? You might get it published!
Sean
Sean:
Alternate universes AND back-and-forth time travel; it makes the main character perhaps overly powerful. The main reason not to write it, though, is that I'm poor at characterization and dialogue. I might tell readers that two or more characters have formed a devoted friendship, but showing such feelings develop is always better, and making that development persuasive is beyond my abilities.
We want time travel to get us into our past, not into an alternative one.
Kaor, DAVID and Paul!
David: I see your point about the difficulty you might have writing this hypothetical story. It reminds me of why I became dissatisfied with Asimov's SF. He could TELL us two men were good friends--but not show us HOW that felt. Even so, keep writing it in mind!
Paul: But I find alternate universe stories more plausible than time traveling tales. Not least because serious scientists have given the alternate world hypothesis a good hard look.
Sean
Post a Comment