Talk:Footfall

Not stub

The page seems large enough not to warrent being a stub any longer. --Kross 15:51, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Summarizing

This page needs considerable editing. I'll take a shot at it. Mostly this will consist of cutting irrelevant material.

Meanwhile, correcting one obvious factual error: the book very clearly states that the South and East land masses of Centaurus were in conflict. Both developed and demonstrated a biological weapon that destroyed food crops. Somehow this weapon was released and threatened the Fithp with extinction. Both sides allied and created the Message Bearer, then competed in an unspecified game of chance. The leaders of the winning side won the right to travel to "winterhome" (earth).

Presumably, the losers and the vast majority of the winning side remained behind and either averted the disaster or became extinct. Either possibility opens the door to a sequel, but at this point that's unlikely to ever be written. Wellspring (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a lot of trims, though I wasn't logged in at the time. I took out the subheadings, then combined and cut info. I'm sure the summary could be made shorter. 17:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Another novel

Footfall is also the title of the third novel in Christine Poulson's Cassandra James series [1] Gilgamesh007 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Characterizing Novel Basis

This article mentions that the authors based their portrayal of the USSR as based on "contemporary trends". This phrase suggests that the Soviet Union was actually on the path to supremacy in the real world, when in fact they were weakening. I feel that the phrase could be confusing historical opinion with historical fact. People at that time did portray the USSR as outpacing the United States in both quality and quantity, but this was a pop viewpoint as opposed to a hard science.--Woerkilt (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, at the time it was quite obvious the Soviet Union was weakening. Perhaps the "contemporary trends" was meant to refer to what had happened on the aliens' homeworld. The article at present only mentions contemporary trends in space dominance, and in 1985 the USSR's manned program was stronger. And in 2010 it's significant, with a forecast of being much stronger than the U.S. manned program in 2011 when the Space Shuttle stops flying (commercial space activities ignored). -- SEWilco (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The context of the sentence is the Soviet Union, not the aliens. It also refers to a general trend of the Soviet Union being a prevailing superpower. The weakness of the Soviet Union is not at all obvious in the literature I have from the early to mid-1980's. Authors such as Pournelle popularized the opposite. Footfall itself is a screaming endorsement of SDI, and a warning that it could be Soviets, not aliens, dropping those lasers and crowbars on our heads.

Rereading the sentence, it could be that the article is simply paraphrasing the authors, or that it is deliberately talking about the popular viewpoint. I understand that my claim that the Soviet Union was weakening is itself a statement to be supported, but I'm not advocating some chunk of debate dropped into the article. I think that the sentence simply ought to be sourced. Woerkilt (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cautionary tale?

Niven and Pournelle gave the Fithp the exact technologies they believed could have been developed in real life, had politics not interfered. They were able to use those technologies to cause massive damage to life and property. There seems to be an implicit threat there: "Space technology is simple. Any idiot who had it could do anything they wanted to anyone who didn't. Perhaps you should quit with the bureaucracy before someone not so short-sighted shows up and enslaves us?"Kalaong (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot resolution section - clarification

In the plot resolution section, the following sentence appears:

"He is opposed by his advisors, who feel that by allowing the Fithp to escape and regroup, he risks the whole of humanity; pressing the attack risks its foes."

Could someone clarify what the bolded portion is supposed to mean? I have no clue how to interpret it as it's currently written.--Witan (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward.. pressing, or continuing the attack risks killing off all the fithp on message bearer - given that message bearer has a fusion drive that is sublimating bits of itself and Michael is headed towards Message Bearer with who knows how many atomic bombs from Michael's drive, which Gillespie is likely to fire all of at closest approach, if Coffey doesn't call off Michael, Michael is going to destroy Message Bearer, risking humaniy's foes, the fithp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.142.67 (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)