This is going to sound monumentally egotistical, but at an early stage in my writing I became conscious of using wordplay that I knew wouldn’t translate well into another language. That came out of my obsession with the works of Vladimir Nabokov. So I stopped doing too much of that, which is difficult because wordplay comes fairly natural to me. And the problem with wordplay that’s too abstruse is this: if a reader doesn’t get it, then it was a waste of time to do it in the first place; if a reader does get it, it’s not really that much to get. I’ve analyzed the double entendres and multilingual puns in several of Nabokov’s books. That’s not what’s of most interest about him as a writer. What is interesting is his idiosyncratic persona and his obsession with death, harm, loss, and all those bad things which are at the core of literature in general but which, for a major big shot writer of the modern era, are especially pronounced in Nabokov.
Bill Tracer on 12 Jun 13In part 1 of this series, published here at Bubblews, www.bubblews.com/news/454618-time-travel-some-say-impossible-but-is-it-part-1 we introduced this debate, and discussed how as a consequence of Professor Einstein's Relativity Theory, approaching the speed of light creates the phenomenon of time dilation, which is effectively time travel forward into the future at an accelerated rate. This kind of forward time travel is however theoretically a one way trip, without any opportunity to return from that future to your originating "present time". We also dealt with the first, (weakest), of the major arguments used by time travel detractors to justify their unproven stand that time travel into the past is impossible. Here in part 2 we will move on to talking about another much stronger issue; the so-called paradox problem, often employed by those who declare backward time travel impossible. At first glance, this argument appears quite sound, but to really examine any subject properly one must do more than just glance at it.
