(i) Would it be possible to apply modern knowledge to good effect in an earlier period?
(ii) Would it be possible to change the course of past events?
Obviously, (i) could lead to (ii) but not necessarily. These questions enable us to tread a path through several sf works.
A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain answers yes to (i) and is ambiguous on (ii). The technological changes made in the Arthurian period do not survive but might they have done?
The Time Machine by HG Wells addresses neither question because it is only about travel to the future.
Lest Darkness Fall by L. Sprague de Camp answers yes to both.
Bring The Jubilee by Ward Moore does not address (i) but answers yes to (ii).
"By His Bootstraps" by Robert Heinlein is about travel to the future but shows its traveler applying modern knowledge to good effect in a less sophisticated future society.
Poul Anderson's Time Patrol series answers yes to both.
Anderson's "The Little Monster" answers yes to (i) and does not address (ii).
Anderson's "The Man Who Came Early" answers no to (i) and does not address (ii).
Comprehensive or what?
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think Anderson's "The Little Monster" does say "yes" to both questions. Because, without knowing it, Jerry Parker did teach the Pithecanthropines he rescued how to use fire. A thing those "dawn men" had no prior knowledge of.
And I thought of Ward Moore's story as showing us a mutable timeline.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If "The Little Monster" does involve a paradox, then it is circular causality, not causality violation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I see that now.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment