On Dec 18, 12:10 pm, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 7:49 am, norrin <adweil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17, 7:47 am, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Worst of all, perhaps:
>
> > > World War Two
>
> > In 1920, the Great War had just ended.
>
> Which is why "World War Two" would be a really, really scary phrase.

Scary, but unlikely.

> > The Great Depression
> > was what happened in the 1880s.
>
> Cite?

I refer to the period of financial distress beginning when the
Franco-Prussian War ended in 1873 and ending with the
gold rush in the Klondike and South Africa in the 1890s.

> > An atomic bomb is nonsense,
>
> Radioactivity was well known. What was the first use of the phrase in
> science fiction, I wonder?

What they didn't know was, alpha rays are fragments
of the nucleus.

> > and so is impersonal intellegence.
>
> RUR came out in 1921. Not impersonal, but artificial. The script for
> Metropolis dates to 1924, and to get a little silly, Ozma of Oz,
> featuring Tik-Tok, to 1907.

The atomic theory of matter divides atoms into smaller
fragments. Artificial intelligence divides the mind into
smaller modules.

"norrin" <adweiland@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6c0d6f6-b165-4252-b9d3-cbd281e046e1@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 12:10 pm, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 7:49 am, norrin <adweil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 17, 7:47 am, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Worst of all, perhaps:
>>
>> > > World War Two
>>
>> > In 1920, the Great War had just ended.
>>
>> Which is why "World War Two" would be a really, really scary
>> phrase.
>
> Scary, but unlikely.

obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
called "World War *One*".

"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> writes:

>
> obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
> 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
> horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
> called "World War *One*".

Well, we are lucky that there has been only one reson so far.

On Dec 19, 12:47 pm, Peter Bruells <user...@rogue.de> wrote:
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
> > 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
> > horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
> > called "World War *One*".
>
> Well, we are lucky that there has been only one reson so far.

We could have decided the Napoleonic Wars were a world war, of course.
World War Zero, anyone?

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> On Dec 19, 12:47 pm, Peter Bruells <user...@rogue.de> wrote:
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
>>> 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
>>> horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
>>> called "World War *One*".
>>
>> Well, we are lucky that there has been only one reson so far.
>
> We could have decided the Napoleonic Wars were a world war, of course.
> World War Zero, anyone?

The Anglo-French war of the 1750s-60s would be World War Minus One then?
(The Seven Years War aka The French-Indian War in the US.)

--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.

Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
> obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
> 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
> horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
> called "World War *One*".

Nitpick: She asks why it's called "World War Eye." The present-day
person unthinkingly says it's a Roman numeral. She had been horrified
by the idea of a world war, and was of course even more horrified by
the obvious implication that it was the first of a series of them.

That's part of the reason why the two of them decide to settle down in
the 1880s rather than the present (1960s?). That makes no sense to
me. Personally, I'd rather have the world wars behind me than ahead
of me.

Some of this may be historical perspective on my part. From 2007,
*both* world wars were closer to the 1880s than to the present, so
they logically go with the 1880s, not with the present. Perhaps it
looked different in the 1960s.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:00:31 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:

>obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
>1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
>horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
>called "World War *One*".

Of course people might be thinking of all of the battles in South
America. And figure WWII would have more sub-Saharan battles than
WWI.

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:fkclq5$mj6$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
>> 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
>> horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would
>> be
>> called "World War *One*".
>
> Nitpick: She asks why it's called "World War Eye." The present-day
> person unthinkingly says it's a Roman numeral. She had been
> horrified
> by the idea of a world war, and was of course even more horrified by
> the obvious implication that it was the first of a series of them.
>
> That's part of the reason why the two of them decide to settle down
> in
> the 1880s rather than the present (1960s?).

The book was published in 1970, so presumably the late 60s.

On Dec 19, 6:59 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
> > 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
> > horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
> > called "World War *One*".
>
> Nitpick: She asks why it's called "World War Eye." The present-day
> person unthinkingly says it's a Roman numeral. She had been horrified
> by the idea of a world war, and was of course even more horrified by
> the obvious implication that it was the first of a series of them.
>
> That's part of the reason why the two of them decide to settle down in
> the 1880s rather than the present (1960s?). That makes no sense to
> me. Personally, I'd rather have the world wars behind me than ahead
> of me.
>
> Some of this may be historical perspective on my part. From 2007,
> *both* world wars were closer to the 1880s than to the present, so
> they logically go with the 1880s, not with the present. Perhaps it
> looked different in the 1960s.

Since the book was written in the 1970s, I'd say there probably was
some cultural influence of the times. After all, in the 1970s, it was
well known that World War III was right around the corner, and that
would just leave roaming bands of cannibals in the radioactive
deserts. Given the pessimism of the time, the late 19th century sould
look like a refuge.

I mean, look on the bright side: odds are the heroine would die in
childbirth well before W.W.I ;'/


Eric Tolle

On 2007-12-20 11:37:17 -0800, ErictheTolle@gmail.com said:

> On Dec 19, 6:59 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
>>> 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
>>> horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
>>> called "World War *One*".
>>
>> Nitpick: She asks why it's called "World War Eye." The present-day
>> person unthinkingly says it's a Roman numeral. She had been horrified
>> by the idea of a world war, and was of course even more horrified by
>> the obvious implication that it was the first of a series of them.
>>
>> That's part of the reason why the two of them decide to settle down in
>> the 1880s rather than the present (1960s?). That makes no sense to
>> me. Personally, I'd rather have the world wars behind me than ahead
>> of me.
>>
>> Some of this may be historical perspective on my part. From 2007,
>> *both* world wars were closer to the 1880s than to the present, so
>> they logically go with the 1880s, not with the present. Perhaps it
>> looked different in the 1960s.
>
> Since the book was written in the 1970s, I'd say there probably was
> some cultural influence of the times. After all, in the 1970s, it was
> well known that World War III was right around the corner, and that
> would just leave roaming bands of cannibals in the radioactive
> deserts. Given the pessimism of the time, the late 19th century sould
> look like a refuge.
>
> I mean, look on the bright side: odds are the heroine would die in
> childbirth well before W.W.I ;'/

Heck, if they go back to 1880 in the US, they're over 35 years from the
US entry into WWI, so even if they live to see it, they won't have to
take part. And their kids can go live in Galesburg, where the
nostalgic past reasserts itself by authorial fiat.

This is Finney, after all...

kdb

ErictheTolle@gmail.com wrote in
news:60a2117e-59d0-42bc-b09f-ad1ebce0262c@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.
com:

> Since the book was written in the 1970s, I'd say there probably
> was some cultural influence of the times. After all, in the
> 1970s, it was well known that World War III was right around the
> corner, and that would just leave roaming bands of cannibals in
> the radioactive deserts. Given the pessimism of the time, the
> late 19th century sould look like a refuge.

Until the terminators (of endearment) shows up.

--
Terry Austin

"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump

<ErictheTolle@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean, look on the bright side: odds are the heroine would die in
> childbirth well before W.W.I ;'/

And if she didn't, her son would be drafted and killed in that war.

What's not to look forward to in Finney's utopian 19th century?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:01:04 -0800, "James Gassaway" <dtravel@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 12:47 pm, Peter Bruells <user...@rogue.de> wrote:
>>> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler from the
>>>> 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it, and is even more
>>>> horrified when she realizes that there's only one reason it would be
>>>> called "World War *One*".
>>>
>>> Well, we are lucky that there has been only one reson so far.
>>
>> We could have decided the Napoleonic Wars were a world war, of course.
>> World War Zero, anyone?
>
>The Anglo-French war of the 1750s-60s would be World War Minus One then?
>(The Seven Years War aka The French-Indian War in the US.)

And the Hundred Years War a century before that?

Jasper

Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote in
news:662qm359fkctrj44ikkst7d5kbo4ilnsp0@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:01:04 -0800, "James Gassaway"
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 12:47 pm, Peter Bruells <user...@rogue.de> wrote:
>>>> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> writes:

>>>>> obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler
>>>>> from the 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it,
>>>>> and is even more horrified when she realizes that there's
>>>>> only one reason it would be called "World War *One*".

>>>> Well, we are lucky that there has been only one reson so far.

>>> We could have decided the Napoleonic Wars were a world war, of
>>> course. World War Zero, anyone?

>>The Anglo-French war of the 1750s-60s would be World War Minus
>>One then? (The Seven Years War aka The French-Indian War in the
>>US.)

> And the Hundred Years War a century before that?

The Seven Years' War included battles in Europe, America, and India.
Where was the Hundred Years War fought outside (western) Europe?

Mike

Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote in
> news:662qm359fkctrj44ikkst7d5kbo4ilnsp0@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:01:04 -0800, "James Gassaway"
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>>> On Dec 19, 12:47 pm, Peter Bruells <user...@rogue.de> wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>>>> obSF: Jack Finney's "Time and Again". The time-traveler
>>>>>> from the 1880s finds a book about WWI, is horrified by it,
>>>>>> and is even more horrified when she realizes that there's
>>>>>> only one reason it would be called "World War *One*".
>
>>>>> Well, we are lucky that there has been only one reson so far.
>
>>>> We could have decided the Napoleonic Wars were a world war, of
>>>> course. World War Zero, anyone?
>
>>> The Anglo-French war of the 1750s-60s would be World War Minus
>>> One then? (The Seven Years War aka The French-Indian War in the
>>> US.)
>
>> And the Hundred Years War a century before that?
>
> The Seven Years' War included battles in Europe, America, and India.
> Where was the Hundred Years War fought outside (western) Europe?
>
Was that particular Hundred Years War also more a matter of local nobles
fighting each other regardless of their limited national affiliations than
what we currently consider to be "true" war? (Admitting right here and up
front that my knowledge of this is very limited and incomplete. And that I
may be confusing various "Hundred Years Wars".)

--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.

On 22 Dec 2007 16:24:47 GMT, "Michael S. Schiffer"
<mschiffe@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

>> And the Hundred Years War a century before that?
>
>The Seven Years' War included battles in Europe, America, and India.
>Where was the Hundred Years War fought outside (western) Europe?

What percentage of the continents had battles in WWI?

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote in
news:srmrm3temh6a7dbph5d7afpoqf7kq0cv3v@4ax.com:

> On 22 Dec 2007 16:24:47 GMT, "Michael S. Schiffer"
><mschiffe@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:

>>> And the Hundred Years War a century before that?

>>The Seven Years' War included battles in Europe, America, and
>>India. Where was the Hundred Years War fought outside (western)
>>Europe?

> What percentage of the continents had battles in WWI?

About half (Europe, Africa-- several different theaters, and Asia--
both Middle East and East Asia) with the Zimmerman telegram
attempting to add a theater in North America. Plus of course there
were soldiers from every inhabited continent (or nearly every-- I'm
not entirely sure about South America) involved in the fighting in
Europe.

Mike

Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:srmrm3temh6a7dbph5d7afpoqf7kq0cv3v@4ax.com:
>
>> On 22 Dec 2007 16:24:47 GMT, "Michael S. Schiffer"
>> <mschiffe@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> And the Hundred Years War a century before that?
>
>>> The Seven Years' War included battles in Europe, America, and
>>> India. Where was the Hundred Years War fought outside (western)
>>> Europe?
>
>> What percentage of the continents had battles in WWI?
>
> About half (Europe, Africa-- several different theaters, and Asia--
> both Middle East and East Asia) with the Zimmerman telegram
> attempting to add a theater in North America. Plus of course there
> were soldiers from every inhabited continent (or nearly every-- I'm
> not entirely sure about South America) involved in the fighting in
> Europe.
>
How close do the U-Boats have to be to the coast of South America to make it
count?

--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.

On 2007-12-23, James Gassaway <dtravel@sonic.net>
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
> Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote in
>> news:srmrm3temh6a7dbph5d7afpoqf7kq0cv3v@4ax.com:
>>> What percentage of the continents had battles in WWI?
>>
>> About half (Europe, Africa-- several different theaters, and Asia--
>> both Middle East and East Asia) with the Zimmerman telegram
>> attempting to add a theater in North America. Plus of course there
>> were soldiers from every inhabited continent (or nearly every-- I'm
>> not entirely sure about South America) involved in the fighting in
>> Europe.
>
> How close do the U-Boats have to be to the coast of South America to make it
> count?

Does von Spee's action near the Falklands work for anyone?

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.

In article <slrnfmu4ms.u3d.quirk@chishio.swcp.com>,
Taki Kogoma <quirk@swcp.com> wrote:

> On 2007-12-23, James Gassaway <dtravel@sonic.net>
> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
> > Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
> >> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote in
> >> news:srmrm3temh6a7dbph5d7afpoqf7kq0cv3v@4ax.com:
> >>> What percentage of the continents had battles in WWI?
> >>
> >> About half (Europe, Africa-- several different theaters, and Asia--
> >> both Middle East and East Asia) with the Zimmerman telegram
> >> attempting to add a theater in North America. Plus of course there
> >> were soldiers from every inhabited continent (or nearly every-- I'm
> >> not entirely sure about South America) involved in the fighting in
> >> Europe.
> >
> > How close do the U-Boats have to be to the coast of South America to make
> > it
> > count?
>
> Does von Spee's action near the Falklands work for anyone?

The earlier battle off Chile's coast near Coronel, see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coronel>, would be a better
example (if I read the map correctly, much of the action took place
within 25 miles of the Chilean coast).

--
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>

On Dec 24, 3:01 pm, Taki Kogoma <qu...@swcp.com> wrote:
> On 2007-12-23, James Gassaway <dtra...@sonic.net>
> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
> >> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> >>news:srmrm3temh6a7dbph5d7afpoqf7kq0cv3v@4ax.com:
> >>> What percentage of the continents had battles in WWI?
>
> >> About half (Europe, Africa-- several different theaters, and Asia--
> >> both Middle East and East Asia) with the Zimmerman telegram
> >> attempting to add a theater in North America. Plus of course there
> >> were soldiers from every inhabited continent (or nearly every-- I'm
> >> not entirely sure about South America) involved in the fighting in
> >> Europe.
>
> > How close do the U-Boats have to be to the coast of South America to make it
> > count?
>
> Does von Spee's action near the Falklands work for anyone?
>

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/coronel.html

About 30m/50km off mainland Chile.

Note also skirmishes at (German) Samoa, and raider activity off
Australia and New Zealand.
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/MaraudersoftheSea1GermanA.html (the
story of the Seeadler is especially good).

Errol Cavit | Don't talk to me about the birth of a nation at
Gallipoli or the crucible of valour at the Somme. Talk instead of what
might have been without Gallipoli, without the trenches. Talk instead
of the knee-capping of a nation. Ted Reynolds, _My side of the River_,
1995