Comments on: Strange Love http://www.robmacdougall.org/blog/2008/05/strange-love/ Rob MacDougall Dot Org Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:00:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Rob http://www.robmacdougall.org/blog/2008/05/strange-love/#comment-852 Rob Fri, 23 May 2008 20:11:42 +0000 http://www.robmacdougall.org/index.php/2008/05/strange-love/#comment-852 On this subject, Jess, you're like E.F. Hutton: when you quibble, people listen. I actually just got a nice email from Peter Smith - he says that the book (unlike the blog post) does go back to the 19th C and earlier. It's on my list to check out. On this subject, Jess, you’re like E.F. Hutton: when you quibble, people listen.

I actually just got a nice email from Peter Smith – he says that the book (unlike the blog post) does go back to the 19th C and earlier. It’s on my list to check out.

]]> By: Jess Nevins http://www.robmacdougall.org/blog/2008/05/strange-love/#comment-851 Jess Nevins Sun, 18 May 2008 23:18:13 +0000 http://www.robmacdougall.org/index.php/2008/05/strange-love/#comment-851 Um...he's not quite got it right, as far as 19th & 20th century reaction to super-weapons. You have only to look at the English public's reaction to news of what the Maxim gun was doing to see that this disquiet with super-weapons is by no means confined to the 20th century, nor is the glorification of those weapons a 20th century phenomenon. And Wells meant Moreau as a hero gone only slightly mad, not as a villain. Oh, sorry: [/quibble] Um…he’s not quite got it right, as far as 19th & 20th century reaction to super-weapons. You have only to look at the English public’s reaction to news of what the Maxim gun was doing to see that this disquiet with super-weapons is by no means confined to the 20th century, nor is the glorification of those weapons a 20th century phenomenon. And Wells meant Moreau as a hero gone only slightly mad, not as a villain.

Oh, sorry: [/quibble]

]]>