(no subject)

[pantryslut]

1. Reading an SF book this week, I was struck by this question: why is there no dust in the future? I am talking about shiny post-industrial futures, of course, not post-apocalyptic futures, where there is plenty of dust. Thanks to G. for pointing out the distinction. G. has also already pointed up the handwave solution of self-replicating nanobots who feed themselves on dust particles. But still.

2. In regards to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, I am choosing the path of total denial and telling myself the Thelma and Louise version of her story. That is, clearly she faked her own death and has now run off to Mexico.

Comments

[uke.livejournal.com]

In re #1, if you assume there is no dust just because it's not mentioned, then nobody ever takes a crap either! etc. I must be missing something.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think you're missing something. It's not just an absence. When surfaces are lovingly described as smooth, shiny, sleek, without corners (to gather dust in), on and on and on and on...and then there is no dust mentioned, the absence is conspicuous. Just as if someone described a house, room by room by room, so that you could sketch the floorplan, wall to wall...but not only didn't mention a bathroom, but didn't leave any space for it. Then your analogy would be more on point.