4 ms·
A couple of years ago I wrote a lengthy deconstruction of a Heinlein story[1], and had to note a number of unfortunate anachronisms that result from the basic f
by fernly 8y ago
A couple of years ago I wrote a lengthy deconstruction of a Heinlein story[1], and had to note a number of unfortunate anachronisms that result from the basic fact that this future world had no computers, none. Their absence shows up in so many subtle ways! So often you say, "wait, why don't they just look it up? ...check an app? ...ask Siri?" When Heinlein wrote that particular story there was no such thing as a graphics terminal, or a computer smaller than a refrigerator, and he didn't make the imaginative leap.
[1] http://thispageintentionally.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-close-reading-of-heinleins-menace.html http://thispageintentionally.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-close-re...
- hguant 8y agoIt's funny that you say this, because one of my favourite Heinlein stories entirely revolves around the tricks you can pull with a super computer. In _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, you see examples of deep fakes, real time statistical analysis, subversion of encryption/secure communications by getting the co-operation of central telecoms, all of which are things that are just now becoming possible with computers. To your point about graphics terminals and the like, you're correct that Heinlein didn't foresee the use of screens the way we use them, but then again, he also predicts that the best way to talk to an AI is to talk to it ("Ho there Mike" as opposed to "Ok Google"...).
- int_19h 8y agoAccess to Mike is a very limited resource in that book, though - it's not on the equivalent of the local Internet (indeed, there doesn't seem to be one). The only reason why the protagonists succeed with their plans is because they manage to secure that access without any of the opposition aware of it.