View Single Post
Old 06-08-2016, 12:32 PM   #3
fantasyfan
Wizard
fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fantasyfan ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
fantasyfan's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,377
Karma: 28116892
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ireland
Device: Kindle Oasis 3, iPad 9th gen. IPhone 11
When Bradbury first wrote this book, he assigned a specific year for each story beginning with 1999. In 1950 this didn't particularly bother him. But the "future" all too soon arrived. Thus, in 1997 he updated all the stories by 31 years. Some editions now give both event dates.

The reason for the dates is to give a sense of sequence (Bradbury desctribed TMC as a "half-cousin" to a novel). It also emphasizes how certain themes, attitudes, and problematic social and personal characteristics endure.

The problem of the future becoming the past has occurred with other writers. I read Clifford Simak's Ring Around the Sun when it was published in 1953. It was set in 1975. It still works well as a novel. TMC also transcends the problems of literally being "dated". I wonder, though if Bradbury should have avoided using specific years.
fantasyfan is offline   Reply With Quote