the 390 pages of Poul Anderson's The Earth Book Of Stormgate;
the 746 pages of Stieg Larsson's The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets' Nest.
Each is part of a larger work.
Larsson's technology is up to date for the early twenty-first century. Anderson's is futuristic but reads like a plausible extrapolation. His characters take their tech for granted as we take ours.
Lisbeth Salander hacks computers. Coya Conyon uses Luna Astrocenter computers to track a supernova.
Coya defies her grandfather. Lisbeth has defied her father. But, apart from that, the two relationships are entirely different. Read them and see what I mean.
By implication, any contemporary novel has some kind of future ahead of it but to refer to any particular future events would be to go outside the parameters of contemporary fiction writing. Anderson's Technic History has the Chaos in the early twenty-first century. Larsson's Millennium Trilogy has only the world events that had happened at the time of writing.
7 comments:
I might add that trying to predict the future is a game for fools -- the future histories of early science fiction writers make that clear! We're even worse at it than professional futurists, and they're bad enough.
Which is why I always put near-future stuff in -alternate- histories. That way they can't be discredited by events!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
At least Anderson was right, so far, about the Chaos of the first four decades of the 21st century in which he set "The Saturn Game." A time of anarchy in which I see no signs of it abating.
I would even go so far as to argue we should date the Chaos as beginning with the Sarajevo Assassination.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: in fact, 1914 was the end of an unusually prolonged period of stability. The period 1815-1914 didn't have any really large-scale wars in Europe; mostly they were short and sharp, which was a major reason a lot of people expected 1914 to start a short, sharp war.
But the 18th century had multiple prolonged wars, and so did the 17th.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, 1815-1914 was an unusually prolonged period of stability. So much so that many thought prolonged wars between great powers were things of the past. What people underestimated in 1914 was both the of the defensive, as on the Western Front, and how much stronger modern industry made all the belligerents.
There were prolonged wars in the 18th century, but, with a few exceptions, they tended to be limited wars fought for limited gains. One exception being Empress Elizabeth of Russia implacable determination to destroy Frederick the Great of Prussia. Only her death saved Frederick when he was at his last gasp!
Ad astra! Sean
THE SHIELD OF TIME makes the point that a long period of stability ended in 1914.
Paul: yes. And the basic reason was that the settlement of 1815 made Britain the dominant power, with a naval throttle-hold on Europe's communications with the rest of the world. The other great powers didn't object because Britain was the only industrialized (or industrializing) power at the time and they were focused on their immediate neighbors.
1914 was basically Germany being discontented with that settlement.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
By 1914 that was no longer the case, because all the other powers were industrialized or industrializing.
I don't see how a discontented Germany could upset the Vienna settlements of 1815 without that coming with costs and dangers outweighing the possible gains. If, assuming a few more years of peace, even Tsarist Russia would become too strong for Germany to realistically hope to defeat, what could Germany do?
Also, I think the naval race with the UK was a mistake by Germany, because the Reich could not hope to have a more powerful surface fleet vis a vis Great Britain. Esp. if the UK allied with France, which also had large navy. Unless Germany concentrated mostly on submarines--which might have been a devastating shock to Germany's rivals.
Hope this uploads.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment