THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/02/07 -- Vol. 25, No. 31, Whole Number 1426
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Web Pages of Interest
NPR Sunday Puzzle
Cause and Effect (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Toddler Air Rage (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
DRAKULA ISTANBUL'DA (DRACULA IN ISTANBUL) (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
CHILDREN OF MEN (letter of comment by Joseph T. Major)
Cookies, Warskiing, and Electronic Vagabonds (letter
of comment by Daniel Kimmel)
This Week's Reading (colons in titles, Robert Charles
Wilson, "The Dictionary of Received Ideas", THOMAS
AQUINAS IN 90 MINUTES, AUGUSTINE FOR ARMCHAIR
THEOLOGIANS, IMPLOSION, GREYBEARD) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Web Pages of Interest
General science fiction interest:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mysciencefictionlife/
Future novelists:
http://www.dbooth.net/internerd/novelist.cfm
(Many other pages at http://www.dbooth.net/internerd are
interesting as well.) [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: NPR Sunday Puzzle
As noted last week, Mark had a puzzle chosen for NPR's Sunday
Puzzle challenge for January 21. It went as follows:
Challenge from January 21: Name a famous film director,
whose last name has two syllables. Phonetically these
two syllables sound like words that are opposites of
each other. What are the words and who is the director?
Challenge from Mark Leeper of Old Bridge, New Jersey.
The answer is "Francois Truffaut". [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Cause and Effect (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The December 16 "Science News" reports the discovery that a
negative attitude is correlated to susceptibility to catching
cold. They feel that having a negative attitude weakens the body
and makes it less susceptible to colds. I don't know how much
consideration they have given to the possibility that it goes in
the opposite direction. Getting a lot of colds really wrecks
one's attitudes. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Toddler Air Rage (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The last time I flew on a plane I saw a little drama taking
place. Actually, as I now realize, it was the first act of what
could have been (and was elsewhere) a longer drama. Three rows
ahead and across the aisle a mother was trying to put here
daughter--maybe two or three years old--into a safety belt for
the flight. The daughter did not like the belt and was
resisting. Mommy waited until the last moment so her daughter
would not have to be belted into the seat for long. At this
point the daughter decided that she *really* did not want to have
to wear a seatbelt. She started crying and wiggling out of her
seat and throwing a tantrum in the aisle. A stewardess started
came to help, but that only made the little girl scream even
more. The stewardess told the mother that the little girl would
have to be in her seat. The plane was about to take off and the
regulations say the girl had to cooperate or they family would
have to leave the plane. I did not see what means of coercion
were used, but the child did get put into her seat and the
flight, already half an hour late for unrelated reasons, did take
off. At the time I discussed the issue with Evelyn and we more
or less said that if the child would not cooperate that the
parents really should take the child off the plane rather than
hold the flight up any more. That was in December.
In January what must have been a nearly identical incident ended
differently by a narrow margin. This time the incident made
national news. I assume it was a different family but on January
14 much the same thing happened with Julie and Gerald Kulesza and
their three- year-old Elly. AirTran ordered them off the plane
when it was clear that the plane would not take off until the
child was cooperative or removed. The Kuleszas were told they
would have to leave the plane and could not fly again for twenty-
four hours. Later AirTran apologized for the inconvenience and
offered the family a free flight in return for the inconvenience.
The Kuleszas angrily said they would never fly AirTran again.
The story somehow hit the news media and the Kulesza family
anxious to give AirTran a black eye ended up on "Good Morning,
America" to tell their tale of woe. They were, it is reported,
intending to get a groundswell of support for them and against
the airline. Something went terribly wrong, and they are still
waiting for all the support they were going to get from parenting
groups. Instead there was an unexpected groundswell of support
for AirTran. The show has at its site a poll of people to get
their opinion of the action and surprise of surprises, most
people believe the airline did the right thing. 62% in fact sided
with the airline. The Kuleszas were shocked. Aren't people
supposed to be supportive of parents with young children?
My theory of what happened is this. The vote was not really
fair. I think the people had a grudge against the Kulezsas and
families like them who let their children cry and be irritating
in the confining cylinder of an airplane fuselage. I think that
a lot of the voters have been in such an uncomfortable tight
space with a loud noisemaker like Elly and they did not like the
experience. I know we are all supposed to believe that all
children are just darling simply because they are children and
without respect to their behavior, but it is not really true.
You have a number of trends occurring at once that lead to this
situation. You have airplane seats in coach becoming less and
less comfortable as the airlines squeeze in as many passengers as
possible. And you have the baby boomers getting into their
fifties and sixties, and all the people in this population surge
are becoming the age when they are cantankerous and less
tolerant. Both are trends are real. But I am certain you are
also getting a lot of parents who are more permissive of
misbehavior of their children. And also some people are getting a
little tired of other people's undisciplined children.
Go back a few generations and parents were really embarrassed if
someone bearing their name inconvenienced someone else.
Particularly if the inconvenienced party was a stranger who would
get a bad impression of the family. Today the attitude may be
more that " What do I care what some stranger thinks of my
family?My own flesh and blood means more to me than any stranger
does. " Or they may be thinking, "I am making very large
sacrifices to raise my kid. I am going to rest and let other
people bear some of the burden for the next hour or so."
If people consider answering their cell phone in a movie theater
takes precedence over consideration for strangers, how much more
are they willing to tolerate bad behavior from their children?
At restaurants Evelyn and I have a code-sentence. We say, "This
place is becoming a family restaurant." What we mean is "a lot
of inconsiderate people are coming here who are letting their
children run amok."
Parents, this is a cold, hard fact of life, so you better
memorize it. You may love your little Scrumptious to death. And
your parents may love your little Scrumptious to death. And even
your friends may say they love your little Scrumptious to death.
And if you take Scrumptious in the carriage and walk him around
the park, you will probably find other people who will say they
just love your little Scrumptious to death (though it may not be
true). But when it comes to inconveniencing perfect strangers,
you will discover that most of them don't want to make allowances
for your little Scrumptious. Your child may be doing what comes
naturally, and that is just fine. That is what little children
do. Nobody would say the buck stops with this charming little
child. Parents, the buck stops with you. A planeload of people
already late are not likely to side with you if little
Scrumptious has a hissy fit against sitting in a seat. Your
family is a unit. If your family unit is causing disruption in a
restaurant or an airplane or a movie theater you have a
responsibility to the people being inconvenienced. Your family is
to blame and you should do something about it. Have some
consideration. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: DRAKULA ISTANBUL'DA (DRACULA IN ISTANBUL) (film review by
Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This has been a very rare film, but it seems to be
becoming more readily available. This is not a sequel to, but a
simplification of Bram Stoker's novel. It just replaces the
London backdrop with Istanbul and sets the story in the year of
its production, 1953. The film has some nice bits on a tight
budget, but turning the Mina character into an alluring stage
dancer somehow cheapens the story. Atif Kaptan makes what seems
a lack-luster Dracula, but perhaps if I knew Turkish it might
have been more impressive.
As someone who was interested early on in horror films and not
long after that in the long history of the horror film, I had a
large number of titles of films I wanted to see some day. Most I
was able to see as a teen or at least by my twenties. But there
are some lost horror films and some that are just too obscure to
ever find. I had considered the Edison version of FRANKENSTEIN
one such lost film, but I eventually got a chance to see and
review it (http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/248/24809).
Nearly as rare was the Turkish version of Dracula, Mehmet
Muhtar's DRAKULA ISTANBUL'DA or DRACULA IN ISTANBUL. This was a
1953 version--not a sequel--of the Bram Stoker story. In this
version Dracula comes to prey on Istanbul. At first that change
of setting seems strange, but NOSFERATU and DRACULA (HORROR OF
DRACULA) did bring Dracula to Germany. This was only the third
film version of the novel. Actually Dracula was only one of
several well-known figures who were brought to Istanbul in
Turkish films. There was TARZAN IN ISTANBUL (1952), THE
INVISIBLE MAN IN ISTANBUL (1955), THE UFOS IN ISTANBUL (1955) (if
a UFO can be considered a well-known figure), and in 1967 there
was the Turkish FANTOMAS: APPOINTMENT IN ISTANBUL.
One might think that setting the latter part of DRACULA in
Istanbul would create a problem. Bram Stoker's Dracula is all
caught up in the Christian tradition. The vampire is repelled by
the cross, by holy wafers, and by holy water. Well, actually the
problems had already been worked out. In 1928 Ali Riza Seyfi
wrote a novel KAZIKLI VOYVODA (or VLAD THE IMPALER) which was
mostly just a translation of DRACULA, though the action does not
move to England but to Istanbul. Seyfi had already worked out
how much of the vampirism translated to a mostly Muslim country.
The holy wafers and holy water were left out. Crosses became
portable copies of the Koran which repelled Dracula. Seyfi's
intent was to play up Bram Stoker's having Dracula the vampire be
the still-living remains of Vlad Tepes, also known as Vlad the
Impaler. After all, whom did the real historical figure Vlad
impale? It was Turkish invaders into his country. Turks have a
special historical reason to hate Dracula.
The film DRAKULA ISTANBUL'DA is based on both the Stoker novel
and the Seyfi novel. And because the two novels are so similar,
probably even Ümit Deniz, the writer of the film, did not know
what parts he was taking from either. The script is really a
much-shortened version of the story most people know well.
After the film was released in 1953 it disappeared for many
years, as films frequently did in those days. It was just an
unavailable film that people like me wished to see but never
really expected to see. I thought it was a lost film like LONDON
AFTER MIDNIGHT. Apparently eventually it did make it to Turkish
television and eventually could be seen in various ways in this
country. I saw it under less than ideal conditions. It was in
Turkish without subtitles and the aspect ratio was wrong. I do
not know Turkish. But seeing this film is like seeing an opera
on the stage. I may not know exactly what is being said at each
instant, but I know the story well enough to have a rough idea of
what was going on.
Is this film an accurate film adaptation of DRACULA? Well,
NOSFERATU and the 1931 version of DRACULA did not set the
fidelity bar very high. DRAKULA ISTANBUL'DA was the most accurate
adaptation up to its time. Five years later Terence Fisher would
make DRACULA (United States title: HORROR OF DRACULA) and I would
say the two are on a par for closeness to the novel. Neither was
exactly right and each was much simplified. Still, this book has
never been really well adapted to cinema. I would say the most
accurate versions made to date were COUNT DRACULA, the 1977
BBC/PBS version with Louis Jordan, and Francis Ford Coppola's
1992 DRACULA, though each took liberties. Orson Welles also did
a fairly accurate radio version for the premiere of his Mercury
Theater radio program. (Go to http://www.mercurytheatre.info/
for all his Mercury Theater programs online.)
DRAKULA ISTANBUL'DA updates its story and moves the story to
Istanbul. That is two strikes against it. It also removes an
entire insane asylum, Dr. Seward, Renfield, and a host of other
characters. Mina is no longer the delicate flower of a girl she
is in the book but a somewhat sensual stage dancer. She is less
innocent, so does not create so much concern for her situation.
There are two production numbers showing her on the stage, one
has her as a Latin hottie and the other as a tastefully covered
Turkish belly dancer. The musical production numbers in a horror
film may have been inspired by THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1943).
There are little economies throughout the production. My wife
pointed out how many scenes had Jonathan Harker in one hallway of
Dracula's castle and how easy that made camera setups. (By the
way, the character names are all Turkish and nothing like what
they are in the novel with the exception of Drakula. For example
Mina becomes Guzin. To save explaining I will use the names of
their antecedents in the novel.) Dracula has only one bride and
one servant. The latter is of dubious loyalty and seems more
sympathetic to Harker than to Dracula.
The score has odd touches including at bit of "April in Paris."
The composer, whoever he is, seems to be frequently at cross-
purposes with the director. Times when the film should be
creating an aura of fear, instead the score has an air that is
light and comical.
Visually the film is a mixed bag. Clearly it was made on a low
budget. But it has atmosphere. The credit sequences take a cue
from what might be Universal horror films. The American studio
would frequently some touch like smoke congealing into the
letters of the opening titles. For this film the opening credits
seem to roll out like a scroll on invisible paper across the
screen. Dracula has sleeping gas piped to some of the rooms of
his castle and in one room is comes out like smoke from the eyes
of a painting creating a bizarre image. Staking scenes take
place with most of the gory action off camera. Dracula's castle,
really an unconvincing drawing, is wrong for eastern European
castles. I think of them as having conical turrets like Castle
Bran does in Transylvania. The castle we see in the film has
open turrets like we would expect to see in a King Arthur movie
(or on the sorts of castles built by the Crusaders in Turkey).
Mina does not look particularly Turkish and she is played by
Annie Ball, which does not sound like a Turkish name.
Nevertheless Ms. Ball seems to have made a career in Turkish
films. Atif Kaptan who plays Dracula apparently had appeared in
other macabre roles. He is a slight letdown as the King of
Vampires. It might have been different if I could understand
what he was saying, but he just looks like a distinguished gray-
haired gentleman without particularly striking looks. Dracula
appears to have fangs that grow when he needs to use them. It
has been claimed that this was the first film to put fangs on a
vampire. Not true. NOSFERATU had fangs, but they were two front
teeth and not retractable. One effect that does not work well any
more is that Dracula appears in a flash. Basically it is the
effect that goes back to George Melies of just stopping the
camera, having the character walk into its view, and start
filming again. There is a nice scene of Dracula's face when he
is in the form of a bat.
In a sequence taken from Bram Stoker, Dracula crawls down the
wall of his castle, a disquieting scene. COUNT DRACULA (1977)
usually gets credit for having shown this sequence for the first
time. However, it appears earlier both in this film and in SCARS
OF DRACULA (1970). The film plays up his bat-like
characteristics. As a human he wears a cape that gives him a
bat-like look. Dracula can transform into a bat, but for some
reason he does not toward the end when he is being chased on
foot. This mistake leads to his downfall. The age-old vampire
is something of an esthete and he hypnotizes Mina to have her
dance for him. Also unorthodox for portrayals of Dracula is that
when he wants to disable an opponent and just socks him. I
suppose Buffy vampires kickbox, but for some reason I just do not
think of Dracula as ever having to deliver a roundhouse punch.
I decline to rate the film since I feel only somebody who knows
what the actors are saying should have that privilege. Overall,
I did not care for the updating. But I was willing to overlook
most of the film's other weaknesses. It had enough strengths to
make watching it, even under poor condition, a real pleasure. I
hope that now that the film has been re-discovered that some
entrepreneur will decide it is worth subtitling and putting on
DVD. Was it worth the wait to find this film? Well, probably
not. But now that it is becoming available it is worth seeking
out.
Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200588/combined
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: CHILDREN OF MEN (letter of comment by Joseph T. Major)
In response to Fred Lerner's letter of comment on CHILDREN OF MEN
in the 01/26/07 issue of the MT VOID, Joe Major writes, "There's
also GREYBEARD, by Brian Aldiss (1964), one of the worldwide
catastrophe and good grey English resignation to it all novels
that were popular then (i.e., just about everything J. G. Ballard
had done at novel length in the sixties). ISFDB doesn't list any
novel called just IMPLOSION or any novels by D. F. Jones other
than the 'Colossus' series. I wonder if D. F. Jones worked at
Bletchley Park?" [-jtm]
Well, we own a novel called IMPLOSION by D. F. Jones, Putnam's
(Book Club edition), 1967, described on the back flap as Jones's
second published novel, so unless it's fallen in from a parallel
timeline, the ISFDB is inaccurate. Wikipedia lists it, however.
[-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Cookies, Warskiing, and Electronic Vagabonds (letter of
comment by Daniel Kimmel)
In response to Mark's article on deconstructing cookies in the
01/26/07 issue of the MT VOID, Dan Kimmel writes:
Sugar wafer cookies
(1) bite off 1/2 inch inch (more like break off, using teeth --
don't actually crush the cookie)
(2) Turn cookie sideways inside mouth
(3) Delaminate or crush from side -- either way the icing is free
to reach its full potential [-dk]
In response to Evelyn's review of Howard Waldrop's "Warskiing" in
the same issue, he writes:
This makes a little more sense if you are aware that "Wardriving"
is driving around a neighborhood with a laptop (or other
more-portable device) looking for open wireless LAN connections.
[-dk]
[Yes, that helps. What's amazing is that Howard Waldrop, a man who
famously has no email, would know about it. -ecl]
And in response to Evelyn's article on electronic traveling in the
same issue, he writes:
Electronic vagabonds
(1) It never occured to me to go to a zoo without a camera.
(2) A couple of years back I deliberately chose a Palm (tm)
computer that had MP3 capability and a 1M-pixel camera. There
are probably more than one that meet this spec by now. The
camera does not replace my main camera (not even close). It's
for when I'm not expecting to need a camera but come across
something I want a picture of. I also loaded some electronic
books into it. However, this could not replace your pocket
computer, as you need the keyboard for your writing. [-dk]
[Regarding the camera, I carry around a $20 "keychain digital
camera" for that purpose. However, I will admit that having a
real digital camera with us when someone rear-ended our rental car
in Arizona was nice--Mark took pictures of the damage for our own
records, and they are much better than the small camera would have
given. -ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I have commented a couple of times on colons in titles. I think
David R. George III may hold some sort of a record with STAR
TREK: CRUCIBLE: SPOCK: THE FIRE AND THE ROSE.
I read in "Locus" that Robert Charles Wilson has turned in AXIS,
a sequel to SPIN. I am sure it is good, but it is a bit
depressing to see that after having resisted "sequelitis" for a
dozen novels, he has succumbed.
If you liked Ambrose Bierce's THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY, you will
probably also enjoy "The Dictionary of Received Ideas" by Gustave
Flaubert, translated by A. J. Krailsheimer (in BOUVARD AND
PECUCHET, ISBN 0-140-44320-7).
For the flavor, I will give you an example that appears in both,
"diplomacy":
Bierce: "The patriotic art of lying for one's country."
Flaubert: "A fine career, but best with difficulties and full of
mystery. Suitable only for aristocrats. A profession of vague
importance, though superior to trade. Diplomats are always
subtle and shrewd."
One thing I wonder about is the translation process.
Krailsheimer does indicate a couple of spots where he took
liberties. For example, he has "SPICE: plural of 'spouse'; an
old joke but still good for a laugh," with a note "[chacal/shakos
in French]." "Chacal" is "jackal", but I cannot find "shakos" in
my dictionary. I could not understand how "DIANA: Goddess of the
chaste (chased)" could work in English and French--the French
verb is "chasser" and the adjective is "chaste" (with a 't'). So
I looked it up, and an on-line version of "Dictionnaire des idees
recues" has the definition "Diesse de la chasse-tete", or
something like "Goddess of the leader of the hunt" with a pun on
"chastete" ("chastity"). So Krailsheimer was in fact not adding
a pun, but coming up with one in English that would reflect the
one in French. Still, for several, I wonder if the cliches exist
in French (such as "WIT: Always preceded by 'sparkling' or
IMAGINATION: Always 'lively').
[French readers will find links to it online at
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14156. Sadly I cannot find it
online in English. People who enjoy them may also enjoy the
delicious "Maxims of La Rochefoucauld". They also hard to find in
English, but some five hundred of La Rochefoucauld's maxims can be
found in English at
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=la+rochefoucauld. --mrl]
I have been doing a lot of long-distance driving lately, so I
have been listening to books on CD. THOMAS AQUINAS IN 90 MINUTES
(actually more like seventy on CD) by Paul Strathern, read by
Robert Whitfield (ISBN 1-566-63194-7, audiobook ISBN
0-786-18527-9) is better than his GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ IN 90
MINUTES. For one thing, it is more linear. For another, it is
done in the style of English humorist (or humourist) Mark Steel,
peppered with comments such as, "In an age when the mail took over
a fortnight to reach Rome, as it does once again today"; "Christ's
crown of thorns, of which there were only three genuine originals
at the time"; and (of Louis IX of France) "he was canonized and is
now famous throughout Missouri and for his blues."
This book is not for everyone, nor is Aquinas's work. Strathern
says at one point about Aquinas's writings, "Other topics which
have insured Aquinas's masterpiece the slimmest chance of
entering the best-seller lists include the following: what the
world will be like after judgement; whether weakness, ignorance,
malice, and lust are the result of sin; and whether the movement
of the heavenly bodies will cease after judgement." He then says
that you might find it difficult to believe these were popular
topics. Just as I was thinking, "Well, *I* would love to read
arguments about these," Strathern says that Aquinas was doing
more than just writing "Christianity's answer to the Talmud."
"Ah, ha!" I thought. "That explains why they sound like fun."
I will note that there were a couple of mispronunciations, and at
one point the reader says "Augustine" when he obviously means
"Aquinas". (I am assuming the error was in the reading and not
in the text.)
And speaking of Augustine, I also listened to AUGUSTINE FOR
ARMCHAIR THEOLOGIANS by Stephen A. Cooper, read by Simon Vance
(ISBN 0-664-22372-9, audiobook ISBN 1-596-44188-7). This is much
longer (about six hours) and aimed mostly at Catholics, I
suspect, but I found it interesting nonetheless. There were a
couple of points I thought worth mentioning. First, Cooper talks
about how Augustine "proves" the existence of "natural law".
Augustine argues that stealing is against natural law, because
even thieves do not believe it is right that people should steal
from them. As such, this seems to be an application of Kant's
categorical imperative centuries before Kant formulated it. And
Cooper says that Augustine had tried to read the Bible when he
was young but gave up, but not because it was too difficult.
Cooper pointed out that Augustine was educated in a classical
manner, and read elegant Latin works. However, the Latin
translation available to him was aimed at the average person (I
got the impression that the modern English equivalent would be
the "Good News Bible"), and Augustine found it very inelegant and
vulgar. I think this was probably the "Vetus Latina", not the
Vulgate.
Spurred by comments from various readers about books similar to
CHILDREN OF MEN, I read IMPLOSION by D. F. Jones (no ISBN).
Jones is better known as the author of COLUSSUS (made into
COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT). The premise of IMPLOSION is that
an Eastern European scientist is working on a way to get rid of
rats. He comes up with a drug that vastly decreases the
fertility of rats, and then his government decides to modify it
to work on people. Why England is the target is a bit contrived,
and the degree to which its use is limited as long as it is, will
seem unlikely to modern readers. And the reaction of the English
to the discovery that 80% of the female population is sterile,
and to the measures imposed, seems very "well-behaved"--more like
what one hears of their reaction to World War II than what it
would probably be today. My main criticism is the depiction of
women seems very sexist by today's standards (though rather
Heinleinesque, I think). One finds characters saying things
like, "A strong maternal woman is close to nature--she knows kids
are her business--she knows too that Mother Nature produces
nothing useless; yet a sterile women with strong maternal
instincts *is* useless, and knows it. She feels useless--that's
why some of 'em are so bitchy." Still, it is a novel of its time
(1967) and quite worth reading if one keeps that in mind.
I also read another novel that has been compared to CHILDREN OF
MEN, GREYBEARD by Brian Aldiss (ISBN-10 0-755-10063-8, ISBN-13
978-0--75510063-7). The reason for sterility here is a series of
atomic tests in the atmosphere that interfere with Earth's
shielding from damaging solar radiation. (At least here it seems
to be an equal opportunity disaster--in both IMPLOSION and the
film CHILDREN OF MEN, it appears to be only the women who are
affected. I am told that in P. D. James's original novel CHILDREN
OF MEN it is the men that are sterile.) This is even more
"English" than D. F. Jones's IMPLOSION, with characters fairly
stoically slogging along in a world without any children for
decades. The story gradually unfolds (backwards, with flashbacks
to more recent events first and the explanation of what originally
happened last), and Aldiss manages to include all sorts of
settings: England, United States, market town, college town, rural
village, etc. The ending, which seems a bit unlikely, is the
novel's only weak point. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The questions which one asks oneself begin,
at least, to illuminate the world, and
become one's key to the experience of others.
-- James Arthur Baldwin