An Undeserved Tribute?

Manse Everard says:

"'Wanda, I'll be in your debt to the bounds of infinity and the end of eternity.'" (The Shield Of Time, p. 416)

Did Poul Anderson intend to pay tribute to Isaac Asimov's time travel novel, The End Of Eternity? Indeed, did he do so twice? See here. (I will have to track down that Anderson short story with two Asimov titles in a single paragraph. I am fairly sure that it is "Holmgang" in the Psychotechnic History but right now entropy and lethargy are triumphing over energy and scholarship. And, of course, blog readers often know better...)

In any case, if a tribute was intended, then it is undeserved. See here. My advice to readers of science fiction is:

read Anderson's Time Patrol series instead of Asimov's The End Of Eternity;

read Anderson's History of Technic Civilization instead of Asimov's Robots, Empire and Foundation History.

I won't say read Anderson's Trygve Yamamura series instead of Asimov's Black Widowers series and detective novel(s?) because these are very different kinds of works, not directly comparable. But the Time Patrol and ...Eternity are text book examples of how to write and how not to write about changing the past, respectively.

A Recurrent Argument

Regular readers of this blog might have noticed that I have restated a particular argument about time travel several times. In its simplest form, the argument is as follows: if a time traveler departs into the past intending to prevent your birth, you need not fear that you will cease to exist a moment after his departure because, if your birth had been prevented in the past of this timeline, then you would not exist now. You would not somehow exist into adulthood, then cease to exist. There may be only one timeline or there may be one timeline in which you were born and exist and another timeline in which you were not born and do not exist but there cannot be a composite timeline in which you were not born but do exist but then cease to exist.

Why keep repeating an argument especially when, as yet, no one has disagreed with it? Because the argument always seems fresh and relevant, especially when reading or rereading Time Patrol stories. And these stories deserve our respect unlike, e.g., Isaac Asimov's The End Of Eternity. No doubt the blog will move on as it has from previous preoccupations or obsessions but, right now, SM Stirling's Time Patrol story, "A Slip In Time," is a major focus, to be followed by his second Draka novel, Under The Yoke.

Future Histories And Time Travel

HG Wells' The Time Machine uses time travel to present a dystopian future whereas the same author's The Shape Of Things To Come uses a fictitious historical text book to present a utopian future. Thus, these two works remain distinct and separate whereas:

Olaf Stapledon's fictitious history, Last And First Men, culminates in the Neptunian Last Men who mentally time travel to earlier periods;

Robert Heinlein's Future History culminates in Lazarus Long who (unfortunately) physically time travels to the early twentieth century;

Isaac Asimov's incoherent time travel novel, The End Of Eternity, (unfortunately) connects with his Robots and Empire future history.

Although Poul Anderson's future history series, the History of Technic Civiliation, and his time travel series, the Time Patrol, remain distinct and separate, the same author's time travel novel, There Will Be Time, connects with his Maurai future history. As ever, Anderson explores both possibilities.

Although Larry Niven's Known Space future history contains one story that implies time travel, Niven develops the latter concept in other works, including his Svetz series. As yet, SM Stirling has written alternative, not future, histories, and therefore has written about alternative timelines, not about time travel.