@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
         @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
         @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
         @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
         @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 01/02/98 -- Vol. 16, No. 27

       MT Chair/Librarian:
                     Mark Leeper   MT 3E-433  732-957-5619 mleeper@lucent.com
       HO Chair:     John Jetzt    MT 2E-530  732-957-5087 jetzt@lucent.com
       HO Librarian: Nick Sauer    HO 4F-427  732-949-7076 njs@lucent.com
       Distinguished Heinlein Apologist:
                     Rob Mitchell  MT 2D-536  732-957-6330 rlmitchell1@lucent.com
       Factotum:     Evelyn Leeper MT 3E-433  732-957-2070 eleeper@lucent.com
       Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
       second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
       201-933-2724 for details.  The New Jersey Science Fiction Society
       meets on the third Saturday of every month in Belleville; call
       201-432-5965 for details.  The Denver Area Science Fiction
       Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of every month at
       Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.

       1. URL of the week: http://www.upc.es/sia/cat/agenda/scf.htm.   The
       "Premio UPC de Ciencia Ficcion" web site.  [-ecl]

       ===================================================================

       2. Congratulations to *Sir* Arthur  C.  Clarke,  just  awarded  his
       knighthood.

       Trivia question: How many other knighted  science  fiction  authors
       can you name?  [-ecl]

       ===================================================================

       3. Well, our first revived Leeperhouse  festival  had  some  people
       show  up.  It is successful enough that I can show a BBC production
       I think is pretty good.  On Thursday night, January 8, at 7 PM,  we
       will be showing the 1981 BBC version of THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS.

       Society has fallen apart.  In one night a strange  and  spectacular
       meteor  shower  has  blinded  nearly  everybody in the world.  When
       morning comes, only those who by chance missed seeing the celestial
       event still have their eyesight.  They are the most valuable people
       in society.  In one night the old  order  is  swept  away  and  new
       little  societies  gropingly try to form.  Some fall apart on their
       own.  Some survive on their own only to  be  destroyed  by  contact
       with  other societies.  The ones strong enough to survive that have
       a third, higher threat.  Triffids are a  new  form  of  intelligent
       life from the plant world.  They can think and they can even walk a
       little.  They were a little dangerous when people could see.  To  a
       blind man, they are deadly.

       John Wyndham was a fine British science fiction writer and his best
       work  was  THE  DAY  OF  THE  TRIFFIDS.  (He also wrote THE MIDWICH
       CUCKOOS which twice has been filmed as VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.)   In
       the  late  1962 there was a mediocre film version of THE DAY OF THE
       TRIFFIDS.  It never really jelled.  In  197?  the  BBC  turned  the
       novel  into a miniseries in three parts.  There were three one-hour
       chapters.  The last time I saw it I had the  book  in  my  lap  and
       turned the pages as the story got to them.  That is how faithful it
       is to the novel.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       4. News item: Robert J.  Sawyer  of  Toronto,  Ontario,  and  James
       Stevens-Arce  of  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico,  were  recently jointly
       awarded the world's largest cash prize for science-fiction writing.

       Sawyer and Stevens-Arce shared the  1997  "Premio  UPC  de  Ciencia
       Ficcion,"  which carries a cash prize of one million pesetas (about
       US$7200).  By comparison, the largest  North  American  cash  prize
       available  to  published  SF  writers  is the annual Philip K. Dick
       Award, which carries a US$1,000 prize; the largest British prize is
       the  annual  Arthur  C. Clarke award, valued at 1,000 pounds (about
       US$1650).

       The "Premio" is open to manuscripts between 25,000 and 40,000 words
       long in Spanish, Catalan, French, and English.

       Sawyer's winning work was a portion of his forthcoming tenth  novel
       FACTORING  HUMANITY,  which  will  be published in hardcover by Tor
       Books (a division of St. Martin's Press, New York), in  July  1998.
       Sawyer  has  previously  won the top SF awards in the United States
       (the Science  Fiction  and  Fantasy  Writers  of  America's  Nebula
       Award),  Canada  (the  Aurora),  Japan (the Seiun), and France ("Le
       Grand Prix de l'Imaginaire").

       Stevens-Arce's winning work is called SOULSAVER.  It deals with the
       increasing  intervention  of the religious right into the political
       process.   His  short  fiction  has  previously  appeared  in   the
       magazines  AMAZING  STORIES and ABORIGINAL SF, and in the acclaimed
       1995 anthology NEW LEGENDS, edited by Greg Bear.

       Last year, the one-million-peseta prize went to Carlos  Gardini  of
       Buenos  Aires  for his story LOS OJOS DE UN DIOS EN CELO.  The 1995
       award went to Mike Resnick of  Cincinnati  for  his  novella  SEVEN
       VIEWS OF OLDUVAI GORGE.

       [Note: After this was announced, LOCUS reported that a  new  French
       award  for  SF,  The  Eiffel  Tower, would carry a prize of 100,000
       francs (about $20,000).] [-ecl]

       ===================================================================

       5. THE POSTMAN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: After some unexplained apocalyptic war
                 that  destroyed  society,  a drifter is looking
                 for a free meal.  He pretends to be  a  postman
                 from   a   newly  reformed  US  Government  and
                 unintentionally makes himself a hero of  mythic
                 proportions.  THE POSTMAN was torpedoed by what
                 is perhaps the most disastrous film trailer  in
                 history.   But  Kevin  Costner's  film's  worst
                 fault is merely that it covers  territory  that
                 has  already  been covered so many times before
                 and uses a sensibility that would  have  worked
                 better in the 60s than the 90s.  Still, this is
                 *not* the bad film that people are expecting it
                 to be.  Rating: 6 (0 to 10) +1 (-4 to +4)

       The plot has been done so many times in so many tiresome ways  that
       we  really  did  not need one more.  Society has been destroyed and
       peaceful good guys of the world are menaced by  marauding  nasties.
       Then  one  hero (or perhaps a handful) stands up and saves the good
       guys.  It is really SHANE turned into a science fiction  film.   NO
       BLADE  OF  GRASS,  THE ROAD WARRIOR, WARRIORS OF THE WASTELAND, and
       any number of bad sci-fi films on cable have used the plot  because
       it does not require fancy special effects to make a science fiction
       film.  Of course it can still use up a big budget on  the  plot  if
       the  filmmaker  wants.   Kevin  Costner's  WATERWORLD  is  just one
       example.  Now Costner is back and, surprise, it  may  be  the  best
       film on this theme ever made.  But it came along too late and had a
       misleading trailer.  Had THE POSTMAN been made in 1960--and  except
       for  having been based on a later novel it well could have been--it
       might have been stiff competition for THE MAGNIFICENT  SEVEN.   But
       that  was  almost four decades ago.  Audiences might have been more
       receptive to the film's idealism.  Today audiences  might  be  more
       cynical  about  the  film's  message  of  the power or idealism and
       optimism.

       It should be noted that in spite of the  impression  given  by  the
       trailer  THE  POSTMAN  is  not BACKDRAFT with mailmen.  The film is
       *not* a tribute to the loyalty  and  service  of  letter  carriers.
       That  would  be a cause whose banality would be second only to that
       of the  importance  of  good  dental  hygiene.   The  trailer  gave
       audiences  that  impression,  and as such it may turn out to be the
       most disastrous movie trailer in cinema history.  I saw  this  film
       at  a  Saturday matinee and there were four people in the audience,
       three of which were my group.  This film is not STAR WARS,  but  it
       is  not  that bad of a film either.  It is considerably better than
       ROBIN HOOD, PRINCE OF THIEVES.

       We never do find out  exactly  what  the  war  was  that  destroyed
       civilization.   There  was ground fighting in the United States and
       there was either a nuclear winter or  something  similar.   In  any
       case,  the  world  of  2013  is  little pockets of people trying to
       scratch out a subsistence living.  Making that more  difficult  are
       "the  Holnists,"  a  private  army, raiding small settlements.  The
       leader of the Holnists is the  fascist  General  Bethlehem  (played
       with  nice  savagery  by  Will Patton).  Bethlehem spouts the self-
       reliance rhetoric of the right wing taken to  a  sadistic  extreme.
       Kevin  Costner  plays a drifter, a sometime Shakespeare player, who
       is conscripted into the Holnists, meeting their admission  criteria
       ("if  you  are  between  fifteen  and  fifty and of suitable ethnic
       foundation...")  When the drifter finds the opportunity he escapes.
       On  the  run,  he  finds  a  post  office jeep with a skeleton of a
       postman inside.  He thinks up a scam to get some food.  Putting  on
       the  postman's  uniform,  he  takes  some letters to a small nearby
       community of Pinetree, Oregon, to deliver.   He  claims  to  be  an
       official  postman  appointed  by  the newly reformed government and
       they have a responsibility to feed and house him while he  performs
       his  duty.   The  effect  is  totally unexpected.  These are people
       desperately in need of good news and a return  to  the  world  that
       they  knew.   (There is an amusing scene earlier demonstrating that
       even Bethlehem's army is tired of all the violence in  their  lives
       and refuses to watch UNIVERSAL SOLDIER on a movie screen when there
       is THE SOUND OF MUSIC to watch.)  The Postman  is  treated  by  the
       settlement as a romantic hero.  His false story rekindles optimism.
       Writing a letter for the postman to deliver becomes a symbolic  act
       signifying faith in the new government.

       With a government to help  protect  them,  people  are  willing  to
       resist  the  Holnists.   This  hope  and optimism is something that
       Bethlehem cannot allow ("morale is a dangerous  thing"),  but  also
       cannot  stop.   Two  people are especially affected by the visit of
       the Postman.  One is Abby (Olivia  Williams)  who  is  looking  for
       someone  to  impregnate her.  Her husband is impotent and both have
       decided to  find  someone  virile  to  act  as  biological  father,
       especially  one who will not be around much.  The Postman fills the
       bill.  The other person affected is a black teen who  goes  by  the
       name  Ford Lincoln Mercury (Larenz Tate).  He is so inspired by the
       Postman, he decides on the spot that he will become a Postman also.

       Playing another clean-cut hero, albeit an involuntary one, will not
       do  much  for  Costner's  career  even  if  this  film does find an
       audience.  There is little in his role that Costner  has  not  done
       many  times  before.   There  probably is little in the role of the
       idealistic savior that he could not do in his sleep.  Will  Patton,
       on  the other hand, is spell-binding playing the self-indulgent and
       inflexible fascist leader with total conviction.  He plays the part
       like  some great but strange Civil War general.  Olivia Williams is
       sharp and smart as Abby.  Most of the cast  are  little  known  but
       good  actors  while  a  few  of  the  characters  are  a little too
       cloyingly polished and pretty for their roles--specifically a child
       actor  handing  off  a  letter  to a racing Costner.  But generally
       Stephen F. Windon provides some terrific images of Oregon and Utah.
       James  Newton  Howard  provides  a stirring if not greatly original
       score.

       This film covers thematic territory that has  become  too  familiar
       from  too  many lesser films.  And then it made the further mistake
       of releasing to theaters a trailer that  distorted  the  thrust  of
       this  film.   Get  past those two problems and this is actually not
       too bad a story, even at its three-hour length.  I rate it a  6  on
       the 0 to 10 scale and a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       6. DECONSTRUCTING HARRY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule:  A  number  of  interesting  stylistic
                 touches   that   work  to  varying  degrees  of
                 success.  The story, however, is a  disjointed,
                 confusing   portrait   of   an  almost  totally
                 uninteresting  Lothario  who  never  misses  an
                 opportunity  to  screw  up  his own life and to
                 hurt others.  The film is a collection of story
                 fragments  and manipulative arguments.  If this
                 is a confession Allen should have written it in
                 his  diary  and put it under his pillow, not on
                 the screen.  Rating: 3 (0 to 10), -1 (-4 to +4)
                 New York Critics: 16 positive,  4  negative,  1
                 mixed

       Woody Allen is one  of  the  most  successful  artist-directors  in
       Hollywood,  but  he  is  becoming  less  and  less  reliable  as  a
       filmmaker.  In his early  years  of  film-making  he  mastered  the
       simple  comedy.   From  there  he went into a second phase and took
       risks experimenting with different approaches and styles.  Some  of
       these  work  better than others.  ZELIG and CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
       are the work of a creative and intelligent artist.   DECONSTRUCTING
       HARRY  goes  to  the  other  extreme  and  is  a bizarre experiment
       demanding more of the viewer than it gives back.
       Harry Block (Allen) has in his life only two drives.  He  wants  to
       have sex with as many women as possible and when he makes a mess of
       his life and those of his lovers  he  wants  to  retreat  into  his
       writing.   The  story  of  this  static  and  highly  unsympathetic
       character  is  told  with  a  number  of  often  clumsy   stylistic
       experiments.   Perhaps the most irritating device is to express the
       disjointedness of Harry's life by editing Harry's scenes putting in
       cuts in the middle as if to show missing time with something edited
       out.  As a writer, Harry puts his friends into  his  books  in  the
       thinnest  of  disguises.   The film dramatizes incidents from these
       supposed books and cuts between his real story line  and  fragments
       from  Harry's  books  with  different  actors  playing the real and
       fictional people in Harry's life.  These fragments are  frustrating
       in  their  lack  of  completion,  but  even more frustrating is the
       bringing of the characters out of the fragments  into  scenes  with
       the real characters.  It is up to the viewer to keep track not just
       who is fictional and who is real but also to keep straight  who  is
       the  fictional  doppelganger  of which real person.  If that sounds
       complicated, it is.  Then as another device in one of the  stories,
       an  actor  seems to have the peculiar property that he has gone out
       of focus and can only be seen in blurry image.  Harry sees this  as
       a  metaphor  for  his  own  condition and himself goes blurry for a
       short  time.   As  if  these  touches  did  not  create  sufficient
       confusion,  the story is told out of chronological order.  If Allen
       were giving the audience a story that was worth decoding,  any  and
       all  of these stylistic touches could be excusable.  But Allen puts
       the audience through all of this to give us  a  portrait  of  Harry
       Block  who  is a selfish manipulator who is not worth the effort to
       understand.

       DECONSTRUCTING HARRY is set at a time when Harry's old college, the
       one  that  expelled him when he attended it, wants now to honor him
       for a lifetime of writing achievement.  Harry  is  searching  among
       his friends to find one who will go with him.  Just why someone who
       is so unwilling to commit to a relationship  with  anyone  suddenly
       needs  the  support  of  someone  else is unclear.  Harry tries his
       current girl friend Fay (Elizabeth Shue) only to find that  she  is
       about  to  marry  Harry's  old friend Larry (Billy Crystal).  Block
       would like his son Hilly (Eric Lloyd) to accompany him, but Hilly's
       mother, previously first Harry's psychiatrist and more recently his
       wife, refuses to let  her  son  see  his  father.   Another  friend
       Richard (Bob Balaban) would go but has health problems.  Harry also
       considers bringing a prostitute  Cookie  (Hazel  Goodman).   It  is
       interesting  that Allen should introduce another likable prostitute
       so  soon  after  MIGHTY  APHRODITE,  but  Cookie  is   considerably
       different--black  and  a lot brighter than Mira Sorvino's character
       in the previous film.

       While the comedy sequences are never complete, a few are  elaborate
       and  some  quite  funny.   The centerpiece of the film is a journey
       into Hell with Allen playing a sort of Orpheus  rescuing  Fay  from
       the  clutches of the Devil, who looks a lot like Larry.  That story
       also is left uncompleted, perhaps to show Harry's unwillingness  to
       commit  even  to  telling a story.  The linchpin that was needed to
       tie together the stylistic  quirks  of  this  film  was  a  central
       character  who  changes  and  who gives us something about which to
       care.  That character is patently not  the  one  Allen  creates  in
       Harry Block and not the characters around Harry as seen through his
       acerbic eyes.  Allen can do much better than DECONSTRUCTING  HARRY.
       I  rate it a 3 on the 0 to 10 scale and a -1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
       [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       7. GOOD WILL HUNTING (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: A twenty-year-old  super-genius  works
                 as  an  anonymous  janitor  at MIT.  He is also
                 into brawling and getting into trouble with the
                 law.   A  parole  is arranged on the conditions
                 that he do mathematics and get a  psychological
                 analysis.   This  is key to a difficult turn in
                 his life.  Ben Affleck and Mark Damon wrote the
                 screenplay  and  play  major roles in the film.
                 Gus Van Sant directs.     The  character  is  a
                 little  too  sharp  and the action a little too
                 dull.  Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
                 New York Critics: 18 positive,  1  negative,  1
                 mixed

       Frankly, the film did not do a lot for me.  I could not believe the
       main  character.   Goethe  was one of the great geniuses in history
       and he excelled, as opposed to just  being  good,  in  only  a  few
       fields.  The premise of GOOD WILL HUNTING bothered me from the very
       beginning because it was too difficult to believe that Will Hunting
       could  be  as  brilliant  in as many different fields as the script
       requires him to be.  To have a super-genius of his  caliber  places
       this  film  more  in the category of science fiction than that of a
       believable drama.  The premise that there is someone out  there  of
       this magnitude of brilliance who has not by the age of 20 come to a
       lot of people's attention seems unlikely.  Here he is working as  a
       custodian  at  MIT  and  he  can  easily  beat the best mathematics
       professors on the faculty.  Then he demonstrates he is way ahead of
       an  economics  graduate  student in that student's own field.  This
       would be hard to believe  of  someone  who  spends  his  full  time
       studying,  but  Will  Hunting (played by Mark Damon) seems to spend
       very little time in books.  Instead he spends  most  of  his  spare
       time drinking with his blue-collar buddies and getting into trouble
       with the law.

       His real genius is  discovered  by  mathematics  Professor  Lambeau
       (Stallan   Skarsgard),   winner  of  the  Fields  Medal  (the  most
       prestigious award in mathematics).  Lambeau  gives  his  classes  a
       prize  problem  to  see if one person can get it over the semester.
       Janitor Will Hunting solves it with the effort of doing  the  Times
       Crossword  Puzzle  and  leaves  the answer anonymously on a hallway
       blackboard.

       Lambeau sets a harder problem and Hunting solves it  also,  but  is
       seen  leaving  the  answer.   This gives Lambeau the clue needed to
       track down the mysterious genius whom he finds conducting  his  own
       legal  defense  after  having  attacked  a police officer.  Hunting
       fails to convince the judge and  is  sentenced  to  jail.   Lambeau
       arranges  a parole on two conditions: Hunting will undergo analysis
       and will do math with Lambeau.  Once he  is  discovered,  different
       people  fight  to  understand  Will  Hunting  and  to  pull  him in
       different directions.  For a  long  stretch  there  are  just  four
       breeds of scene in this film.  Hunting carouses and drinks with his
       rough-playing blue-collar buddies; Hunting does math with  Lambeau,
       proving  himself a far better mathematician than anybody on the MIT
       faculty; Hunting has a relationship with Skylar (Minnie Driver), an
       English Chemistry student; Hunting has mutually parasitic mind game
       sessions with his analyst (Robin Williams).   The  film  just  goes
       back  and  forth  among  these  scenes until Hunting decides how to
       handle his life.

       Hunting's ability to turn  psychiatrists  into  raving  animals  in
       minutes  seems  more  modeled  on  Hannibal Lector than on anything
       human.  It takes many sessions with his  analyst  before  they  can
       talk in anything but sarcastic jabs.  The film does a decent job of
       showing the relationship between Hunting and  his  lifelong  friend
       Chuckie  (Ben  Affleck)  who  really  care  for  each  other.   The
       relationship with his girlfriend was okay, but covers  well-trodden
       territory.   But  Hunting's mind seems really clear only when he is
       doing mathematics.  It is never clear what exactly is going  on  in
       Hunting's  mind  or  why  he  changes  in  just  the  ways he does,
       sometimes playing  games  and  others  following  the  simplest  of
       advice.   This is a film with a serious credibility problem and one
       which stagnates in the middle act.  I would give it a 5 on the 0 to
       10 and a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.

       Side comment: It is difficult to present someone superbly brilliant
       in  a film without having someone being superbly brilliant to write
       the script.  Damon does  a  reasonable  job  playing  the  troubled
       super-luminary  who  has buried himself in a lower-class lifestyle,
       if any  such  person  has  ever  existed.   The  film  draws  false
       parallels  to  Ramanujan  and  Einstein,  neither  of whom had Will
       Hunting's broadband versatility.  For what it is worth, this is one
       of  the  few  film that did a reasonable job of representing higher
       mathematics.  Certainly the they got the facts on the Fields  Medal
       (though  they  omitted  to mention that you have to be young to win
       the Fields).  Ramanujan did not actually work for "many years" with
       Hardy  as  stated.   He  died  quite  young, probably in large part
       because of his transplanting from his native  climate  to  England.
       It was a tremendous loss.

       I would have assumed that answers to really difficult  problems  in
       combinatorics  might  involve  complex counting arguments and would
       not fit on a single blackboard, but  it  is  possible.   It  filmed
       nicely,  but  it  is  unlikely a mathematician would do math with a
       marking pen on a mirror.  It is too easy to accidentally  rub  off,
       it  does  not  give  enough  writing space, and the results are not
       easily portable or savable.  He may  have  done  some  scratch-work
       there, but even that seems unlikely.

       It is hard to believe an American mathematician would not know  who
       Ted Kaczynski is.  [-mrl]

                                          Mark Leeper
                                          MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
                                          mleeper@lucent.com

            Imitation is the sincerest form of television.
                                          -- Fred Allen


               THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK