On 10 Nov 2003, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >Philip Hart <philiph at SLAC.Stanford.EDU> writes: > >> Incidentally, is Poul Anderson worth reading? >Generally speaking, very much so. His work runs from above-average >(for the period) to first-rate. Some of his later works continuing >earlier series may revert more to the standards of when the initial >part of the series was written. [snip] >Very much worth reading all around. He's written such a wide variety >of stuff that you'll probably find areas you don't much care for; if >so don't bang your head against the wall, try something else. As a particle physicist, you might get a chuckle out of Anderson's short work "Uncleftish Beholding". It's a bit of a linguistic exercise rather than an actual story; the entire text is basic science written in Anglo-Saxon or Germanic words and phrases where we would use terms from Latin or Greek derived roots. As you might guess, an "uncleft" is an "atom", and it goes on from there. -- "Nor are stuff and work unakin. Rather, they are groundwise the same, and one can be shifted into the other. The kinship between them is that work is like unto weight manifolded by the fourside of the haste of light." -- Poul Anderson, "Uncleftish Beholding"