Aphelion

I don't care to attempt time-travel stories, myself. The kind of thinking needed for it isn't comfortable to me.

Articles from the past travel into the future with no effort whatsoever on anyone's part (though sometimes a little preservation helps). Go to a rummage sale and you can maybe find a '70's leisure suit. The pickup truck in my garage is ten years old.

But articles from the future NEVER make it back here to us. If they could, I might never have to buy food again. (Think about it.)

re Uzi and all that :
WILD WILD WEST the movie, using technology available and then some at that point in time.

Re smuggling modern weapons to the past:
Mozart in Mirror Shades.

It worked for me in both the movie and the short story. So yes why not, in fact it's a pretty good Idea, and if I'm not mistaken it's been done in a number of other novels movies and and such.

I'm going to preempt Bill here. The above is a fallacious argument, Rick. The examples you put forth are of stories where the anachronisms are deliberate parts of the story, not sloppy errors by uncaring writers.

I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF BEING SLOPPY OR UNCARING. Sorry for the shout; I just wanted to make that part abundantly clear (I've been in a few flame-wars). I know you do care, otherwise you likely wouldn't be hanging out with this bunch of curmudgeons. Still, Bill has a point. I'm unable to attribute the quote, but someone said, "The difference between fact and fiction is that fiction has to be believable."

Bill's problem is that his level of belief is measured against his knowledge base and scientifically trained analytical ability. When the rest of us don't exhibit equal scholarship, Bill's problem becomes our problem. Personally, I couldn't be happier; Bill's sometimes painfully-pointy critique is invaluable to our work as SCIENCE-fiction writers.

Take his advice. Just push the button and make it work.

Perfect, paper-white teeth in the Hatfields & McCoys -- THAT would stop me, right away. Gods, I wish they'd quit that.

And, Mark -- you do tend to get too defensive of other writers in regards to some of the critiques here. Please notice that we're really quite civilized; I can't recall a single incidence of ad hominem attack or personal insult in any critique I've read here. If some of us occasionally snark on aspects of the writing, it usually deserves it, and from what I hear, the world of publishing-for-money gets downright vicious compared to this site. We're friends, here; we can poke a little fun, and we should be able to take as well as we give.

Well, Mark, I have to say, you have more empathy for other people than anyone else here, and likely more than I've seen in anyone at all before. And you do help keep us civilized. To the extent we need it, we can always count on you to deliver. Maybe you'll be defending me one of these days; I don't know. But if that happens, it will be because of something I needed to see and didn't, because I have only my own perspective on the work, and that's one of the things I'm here for. I need outside perspective. We all do.

I have read it many, many times in private messages and e-mails from writers "here" taking a long breather from writing out of exasperation over never getting it right or because they feel (due to comments) they just don't have it in them or they are just not getting enough "positive" feedback.

If someone gives up writing because of some sharp criticism, or because they didn't get enough compliments to make them happy, then they need to find another hobby anyway. If a person has the drive within themselves to write, they may -- no, they will -- get hurt, but they'll get over it and get better at it, because they can't stop.

There's a worse thing than harsh criticism: silence. I can filter useful criticism from whatever package it's delivered in, but the times I really get bothered is when I put something up for comment and get nothing at all. I've had that happen, and it just leaves me wondering, was it so good they couldn't think of a thing to say to improve it? or is it so bad they couldn't think of a thing to say in its defense? To me, getting nothing is far worse than getting blistered.

So, my way of expressing empathy is to try to make some kind of comment, and if it comes out harsh, it's still meant to help. And, I believe that there are cases in which no amount of tip-toeing and sugar-coating can make bad news palatable to another writer, and I wouldn't want that treatment for myself. I'm not here to get my ego massaged, or to provide that service for others. It actually disturbs me somewhat that you might wish for us to censor ourselves. This is who we are. And you've seen me put the heat on people, but you've also seen me gush like puppy-love over stories that I like; you've seen me as well in the middle ground, as, "Maybe this could be changed so that that other thing would work better."

I've overcome the threat of silence by learning to write in order to get it out and let that be my satisfaction, instead of wanting or needing people to like my work.

Of course, I want people to like my work, but whether they do or not, I want to know why.

I would just identify in some way, maybe a signature opening statement or some way of letting writers know that you here to help, so their mind is set from the beginning that you are a colleague and potential friend.

Thanks. That is a good suggestion. I'll try to remember it.