None of them predicted computers until they actually existed, for example. Theodore Sturgeon wrote a short story called "Killdozer" in 1944 where a machine goes on a rampage without an electronic control system. What is interesting to me is not that he failed to imagine computers, but that he imagined a killer machine without a human at the controls. Does it really matter that they create futuristic ideas but fail to predict the 'means'. It might not always matter.
He is known for Sturgeon's Law "Ninety percent of everything is crud."
Corollary 1: "The existence of immense quantities of trash in science fiction is admitted and is regrettable; but it is no more unnatural than the existence of trash anywhere."
Corollary 2: "The best science fiction is as good as the best fiction in any field."
LOL.
Space/Science » in reply to Hmmmmm, could be me
Can't argue with that, most sci-fi authors have been wrong about the future
The whole thread (28 posts)
- War in the Heavens.
- re: War in the Heavens.
- How do they afford all these battleships - isn't that kindof expensive? (n/t)
- Comparative costs
- So you've read SF by Alastair Reynolds? He writes about the possibility of xenocidal interstellar machines.
- Office of Home World Security
- Which begs the question of what exactly they are fighting over to make it worthwhile? (n/t)
- Comparative costs
- Not sure I agree with this guy