Re: (ReacTor) Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 01:43:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:06 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>

If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being
significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.
>

(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

>
Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)

>
I haven't determined whether the person who said that was joking or
simply clueless thinking he/she was reading a new story....

Uhhh ... doesn't the /prophetic/ nature of the story depend on its
being published before the event? The longer before the better?

All you need to do is look at the position of the Know-Nothing Party
of nearly 200 years ago to realize that Trump is nothing new [1]. A
resurgence, while not inevitable, was not inconceivable.

Not, of course, that Bradbury had Trump as such in mind. Just how the
US might differ if someone went off the path.

And RAH's Scudder could be seen as prophetic of Trump as well.

[1] The immigrants being opposed are not from the same places, but the
idea is the same.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"