Quote:
Originally Posted by Critteranne
It's remembered today because John W. Campbell made Tom Godwin revise the story so that it had that ending. Reportedly, Godwin wrote it so that she lived. And for whatever reason, JWC decided he was going to use this story to go against the grain of the typical problem-solving story of the time. I don't know why he chose that story -- maybe because Heinlein or Asimov would have fought back if this was not the story they wanted to tell.  |
John W. Campbell's editing of that story is the best thing to ever happen to Tom Godwin. He is remembered today because of that story. With a different ending, it would have been forgotten.
Quote:
|
I also think that the story works best because that character is a young woman. That brought out the protective instincts in readers at the time it came out. But that can also be read different ways.
|
For sure. In the end, you do have to remember the time it was written. And from what I can see, Godwin wasn't the most subtle writer.
Quote:
|
One of the movie adaptations had them throw out ballast -- but there wasn't enough. Maybe on paper, that would have dragged the story out too long. As it is, some of the paragraphs of dialogue... Phew.
|
Yeah, it definately could have been better written. But the author seemed to take pains to show there is no ballast. This is a small collapsible vessel. It isn't exactly built with a bunch of expendable stuff.
And as I mentioned upthread:
- There was a time limit. The entire story takes plane in about an hour.
- Think of the story taking place in your car, in the middle of the freeway. Would you have the necessary tools on hand to dismantle your car to have the seat able to be thrown out?
Worrying about the math feels like someone looking for an excuse to pick on the story. There were similar complaints about how the setup of the suns in Nightfall would work