Transcribe
Translate
Scienti Snaps, v. 1, issue 4, Fall 1938
Page 5
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
SCIENTI-SNAPS Page 5 achieve in fantastic literature? Must every little detail be scientifically correct? John W. Campbell, Jr. in an article to the SCIENCE FICTION CRITIC wrote something that struck me as being very humorous or terribly tragic. A friend of his (who I am sure is either a genius or a madman) is supposed to have filled several pages with calculations to find if it were possible for a powerless space-ship to be shot free of the earth’s atmosphere, follow an orbit, and return in 14 years. All because Raymond Z. Gallun used the innocent little number, 14, in “The Path”. Good heavens! Who in the solar system gives a darn? If, for the sake of a good story, Gallun desired to return his character in 14, 40, or 400 years, does it really matter? If you are one who so believes, turn to the works of two acknowledged masters in the field of the fantastic story. Do H.G. Wells or A. Merritt make of science a religion from which they cannot deviate? Do their works abound in complicated formulae or abstract gibberish of hyper spaces and super dimensions? Do not they lay the entire story on the shoulders of their characters? It is my contention that science, good, bad, or indifferent, does not make or break a story. I believe that the characters and events of any story are more important than incidental background. (However, please do not misunderstand me. I too despise uncalled for and foolish mistakes. For instance: I recently read a story in which space-travelers could not see beyond the ship because “the sun shone too brightly on the clouds!” There is no earthly excuse for statements such as this.) For every
Saving...
prev
next
SCIENTI-SNAPS Page 5 achieve in fantastic literature? Must every little detail be scientifically correct? John W. Campbell, Jr. in an article to the SCIENCE FICTION CRITIC wrote something that struck me as being very humorous or terribly tragic. A friend of his (who I am sure is either a genius or a madman) is supposed to have filled several pages with calculations to find if it were possible for a powerless space-ship to be shot free of the earth’s atmosphere, follow an orbit, and return in 14 years. All because Raymond Z. Gallun used the innocent little number, 14, in “The Path”. Good heavens! Who in the solar system gives a darn? If, for the sake of a good story, Gallun desired to return his character in 14, 40, or 400 years, does it really matter? If you are one who so believes, turn to the works of two acknowledged masters in the field of the fantastic story. Do H.G. Wells or A. Merritt make of science a religion from which they cannot deviate? Do their works abound in complicated formulae or abstract gibberish of hyper spaces and super dimensions? Do not they lay the entire story on the shoulders of their characters? It is my contention that science, good, bad, or indifferent, does not make or break a story. I believe that the characters and events of any story are more important than incidental background. (However, please do not misunderstand me. I too despise uncalled for and foolish mistakes. For instance: I recently read a story in which space-travelers could not see beyond the ship because “the sun shone too brightly on the clouds!” There is no earthly excuse for statements such as this.) For every
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
