|Oh, to be a fly on the wall...
||[Sep. 3rd, 2015|11:50 am]
Charlotte Church writes in The Guardian about her opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic, and being attacked for using her 'celebrity' to promote her views.
This double focus, writing about the issue and about her right to write about the issue, gives the piece a slightly unfocussed feel, but the point at which I did a double take was her description of this drilling as "the stuff of nightmares, the sort of thing a 20th-century science-fiction writer would have posed as a trigger for the apocalypse." Did she really, I wonder, think: this is the stuff of science-fiction, but not modern science-fiction! no, it is the stuff of 20th-century science-fiction! I picture the scene in the Guardian office:
Editor:You say here, "the sort of thing John Wyndham would have posed as a trigger for the apocalypse" - but who is John Wyndham?
CC:Oh, he's a 20th-century science-fiction writer.
Editor: Really? Well, let's just say so, then...
I am constantly wrong-footed by what is, and what isn't, assumed to be common knowledge*.
*This general point stands, even if Charlotte Church was not, in fact, thinking of John Wyndham - but it is precisely his sort of scenario, isn't it?