@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 03/13/98 -- Vol. 16, No. 37
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 irregularly; call 201-652-0534 for details, or check
http://www.interactive.net/~kat/njsfs.html. 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.geocities.com/Athens/4824/boskon35.htm. Evelyn Leeper's
Boskone 35 convention report. [-ecl]
===================================================================
2. I was talking to a friend about romance novels recently. You
know that romance novels are by far the best-selling genre novels
in the world. There are a lot of people, mostly women, who want to
read about romance. For those who don't want to take the time to
read, there is even a romance movie network on the cable. My
friend said she felt sorry for the readers of romance novels and
said she thought that the the reason there are so many romance
novels sold is that the women who read them lead empty lives and
had to escape from that into a book. I had never given a whole lot
of thought to just what an empty life is and who has empty lives.
It seems to me that the empty life, like the bad hair day, is an
affliction of the affluent. People who are really poor, people who
really struggle tilling the soil to get enough to eat, never have
bad hair days. This does not mean that their hair is always
perfectly combed. But when you really have to put everything you
have into the ground in the hopes that it will return you enough
for you to feed your family and for you to survive, I don't think
that a lock of hair sticking out in the wrong direction is
considered much of a problem. And what gives your life meaning is
your own survival and the survival of those you love. That is a
pretty full life, whatever else you can say about it. People who
have empty lives must already have a great deal, but perhaps they
want something more out of life. And perhaps not.
Now what is stopping romance novel readers from getting more out of
life? Well, first of all they may not realize they have empty
lives. Generally, the empty life is not a self-diagnosed ailment.
I guess a primary example of someone who could be said to have an
empty life in a book might be Sinclair Lewis's Babbitt. This is
someone who is doing nothing great for anyone. He is leaving
behind no great accomplishments. He is simply feeding his own
hungers. But I can't believe if you asked him he would say he is
leading an empty life. You could say much the same of
Mrs. Robinson in THE GRADUATE. She lives in comfort and luxury yet
from the outside we would say she is leading an empty life. She
might not think so herself. There are people who diagnose
themselves as having boredom, but not really having empty lives.
Now, there is great literature that these people could be reading
to edify themselves, and they have every opportunity to read it.
But they don't. Maybe the best analogy comes from George Bernard
Shaw's play DON JUAN IN HELL, a smaller piece within his MAN AND
SUPERMAN. (I know you are not going to trust me on this one, but
this really is a play that is well worth getting ahold of.) Dona
Anna is surprised to find people in Hell don't want to go to Heaven
even though they would be allowed to go. The Devil explains why by
analogy. In England he points out there are racetracks and there
are concert halls. Now it is generally accepted that the concert
hall is a more elevated form of entertainment than the racetrack.
But the people at the racetracks don't run out to go to the concert
hall instead. Dona Anna's father adds that at the concert hall
there are rows and rows of people who are bored to tears. They are
there not because they enjoy the music, but because they think they
owe it to their position to be there. There are probably a lot of
people who lead unfulfilled lives because for some reason that is
the sort of life they prefer to lead. If it comes to a choice
between watching "The Simpsons" or reading Hegel, they will choose
watching "The Simpsons" every time. And they will no say that they
are leading empty lives because of it.
It may seem to ungallant of me, but if I have to make a list of for
whom I feel sorry, people who read romance novels, who have the
time to read novels and choose pink-covered bodice-rippers an inch
and a half thick, are going to be low on the list of people who
receive my sympathy. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. A comment from reader Avi Hauser (somewhat delayed in the
printing, sorry). I should point out that the article this is
commenting upon is not so much as disparaging physics as
disparaging people who think they are quoting the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle when they say you cannot observe something
without affecting it. My example was observing a star going nova
probably does not affect the long-dead star.
I should have known not to keep quiet when the first disparaging
note on Physics was sent around. Now the second treatise about
Physics is out and reply, I feel, I must. Quantum Mechanics
describes a non-physical quantity called the wave function of
objects. It gives us equations (usually Schroedinger's equation
but there are other equivalent ones) whose solutions are these
wave functions. It also tells us about physical quantities that
can be derived from the wave functions. It so happens that
there is a mathematical inequality that shows that location
uncertainty(*) times momentum uncertainty are larger than a
constant (happens to be Planck constant h divided by 4 pi, but I
am showing off).
The interesting part about Quantum Mechanics is that it
postulates measurements as operations on these wave functions
and therefore, indeed, measurements do affect the measured
entity. Mark has followed in the footsteps of other giants
like Einstein, Podolski and Rosen who argued the same point:
Quantum Mechanics means instantaneous interaction which in turn
means going against the arrow of time. The EPR paradox, as it
is known, has been shown to be a true prediction of QM and the
last edition of Physics Today has an article about two such
experiments. Those of us who work in telecommunication, may
find it amusing to see the implications of EPR for
communications. Indeed, measurement here can affect something
else far away, even if it happened before! Luckily, we would
not have to worry about super novas (novi?).
A more general note; Human Nature calls for understanding the
philosophy behind the equations. I believe no theory would have
been invented without the prejudice of philosophy, which makes
us question current lore and helps us become stubborn enough to
fight the current authority. Science fiction, which is how this
e-mail list started, is another example where we mix ideas,
beliefs, philosophy and science to the betterment of all.
Avi Hauser, a physicist in heart
(*) uncertainty squared is defined as the average (of the
quantity squared) minus the square of the (average quantity)
e.g. - 2. For mathematicians like Mark - it is the
standard deviation of the population.
I am still unconvinced you can affect the star before the nova.
[Mark Leeper, a mathematician at lunch.]
===================================================================
4. THE BIG LEBOWSKI (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: The Coen Brothers tell their funniest
story since RAISING ARIZONA. Jeff Bridges
plays an aging, burned-out hippie pulled into
the weird goings-on after the wife of a famous
multi-millionaire is kidnapped. The film is
big-time funny, has a host of really weird
characters and tremendous visual imagination,
but could have used a stronger third act.
Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to +4)
Now I claim what is going on here is that a cowboy without much
respect for the sort of people he finds in Los Angeles, spins the
gull-darnedest yarn about a guy he met in a bar a couple of times.
But there will probably be other interpretations.
Jeff Bridges plays a laid-back aging hippie who happens to have the
same name, Jeff Lebowski, as a famous philanthropist, though the
hippie prefers being called The Dude. That sounds like it could be
a good thing, but the philanthropist has enemies and some of the
no-so-bright ones confuse the two and take their ire out on The
Dude. After discussing the situation with his close bowling
buddies, para-military Walter Sobchak (a hilarious role for John
Goodman) and low-voltage surfer Donny (Steve Buscemi), The Dude
figures there is nothing he can do but face the Big Lebowski (David
Huddlestone). The Big Lebowski at first has little use for someone
with The Dude's marginal life-style, but he finds a use when his
wife is kidnapped and he needs someone to drop off the million-
dollar ransom. The Dude wants to play it straight, but Sobchak
figures if they play their cards right he and The Dude could split
the million.
Only the Coen Brothers could tell a story this complicated, this
weird, and with so many characters on so many different
frequencies. The film is full of weirdoes, many of whom are
present only to add texture. John Tuturro, missing from films for
a while, plays the totally superfluous role of Jesus, the bowling
rival of our heroes. The over-ripe Jesus practically dances a
flamenco every time he throws the ball. Then their are the
nihilist bikers. And if the script does not add enough weird
characters, the character you think you know get weirder and
weirder.
Raymond Chandler used to add a touch of the surreal to his mystery
stories whenever his detective was knocked out by telling us
Marlowe's dreams while he was unconscious. But then Philip Marlowe
was only an amateur at hallucinating. He was not a stoned-out
hippie like The Dude. Conk The Dude on the bean and you get weird
bowling dreams that are worth the price of admission by themselves.
The Coen Brothers have incredible visual imagination and tremendous
good humor. Comedies of late have been mild smile- along-with-
Sandra-Bullock sorts of things. The only recent film that made me
laugh out loud recently was MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND
EVIL. But it has been a good while since I have laughed as hard as
I did at THE BIG LEBOWSKI. The only real problem with the script
is the plot lacks a strong finish. After a strong first and second
act, the film has a much lower-key third act that resolves the
mystery but lacks the strength and the humor of the first two. The
film needed a wild finish and goes soft and sentimental at the
wrong time.
This is a film that has great visuals and has genuine laugh-out-
loud humor. If it has a weak spot it is only that the story is
just okay, but that is not really the point. I rate it 8 on the 0
to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
5. TWILIGHT (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Mystery in a minor key. A once-
policeman, once-detective, Harry Ross is now
unpaid an errand boy and friend for a wealthy
man. One errand gets him involved in a murder.
Soon the complications involves blackmail and
the buried past. There is a lot of talk and
not a lot of thrills in this mystery set in
modern Los Angeles. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), +1
(-4 to +4)
Considering that TWILIGHT is only 94 minutes long and moves at such
a slow pace, the plot is surprisingly complex, not to say downright
confusing. The three main male characters are in their sixties and
are taking that fact rather hard. Harry Ross (Paul Newman) has
been a cop and a detective, but these days he is a houseguest for
the well-off Jack and Catherine Ames (Gene Hackman and Susan
Sarandon). Harry pays back his hosts by being a companion for Jack
and occasionally running errands. Two years earlier the errand was
to pick up Jack's daughter who had run off with her boy friend to
Puerto Vallarto.
Given a private package to deliver to a woman runs Harry into a man
dying of a fatal dose of bullets. The man's last act is to try to
kill Harry. Both the police and Harry are anxious to know why.
Harry is able to discover that the dead man was anxious to uncover
the story, never fully explained, of what happened to Catherine's
first husband before she married Jack.
Director Robert Benton, director of NOBODY'S FOOL, co-wrote this
film trying for the depth of character that film had and at the
same time the sort of mystery that Newman had with HARPER. It must
have looked good on paper. Clearly a lot of good actors had some
respect for the production and were willing to take non-starring
roles. We see people like Stockard Channing and James Garner in
supporting roles. M. Emmet Walsh appears just long enough to die
on camera. It is hard to judge from a script if a mystery will be
a good one or not. While the plot complications were convoluted, I
picked out the killer early in the film, never wavered from my
belief, and I was right. I suspect many viewers did the same. The
film was probably made with the assumption that audiences would
want to go along with Newman's easy-going rapport with his fellow
actors, particularly James Garner with whom easy rapport does not
seem like much of an accomplishment. However, with too much being
so mellow the film robs itself of a sense of any real tension.
Hackman tries to give some power to his role, but there is only so
much he can do playing a man dying of cancer.
Of some additional interest is that the Ames mansion was really the
home of Cedric Gibbons and Delores Del Rio. Gibbons was the art
director on films like A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, THE BAD AND THE
BEAUTIFUL, and LUST FOR LIFE. Del Rio was a fiery Latin beauty in
films of the 1930s and 1940s. The Ames's other home was one
actually built by Frank Lloyd Wright, though never completed.
The aptly named TWILIGHT seems full of characters in the twilight
of their lives and reaching a point where they think and talk
rather than act. The point is carefully driven home that Newman's
character is still a lover, but the viewer has reason to be
skeptical. The actors give the feel of people going gently into
that good night. I rate TWILIGHT a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +1
on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
6. MRS. DALLOWAY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: The title character has spent a
lifetime of taking the easy route, choosing
comfort over making her life meaningful. Now
her big concern is that her party is a success.
Contrasting, we see the story of a shell-
shocked WWI veteran haunted by memories and
self-accusation. Virginia Woolf's cat-like
claw takes a swipe at the British upper-class.
Rating: 6 (0 to 10), high +1 (-4 to +4)
Virginia Woolf wrote MRS. DALLOWAY as a stream-of-consciousness
novel taking place in the title character's mind. Now Eileen
Atkins has adapted the story as a somewhat non-linear narrative
jumping forward and backward in time. There are two story lines,
tangent at many points but never really converging into a single
story. We have a view of Clarissa Dalloway as a young woman
(played by Natascha McElhone) and as an older woman (Vanessa
Redgrave), and we have the story of Septimus Warren Smith (Rupert
Graves). More on his story later. Even as a young woman Clarissa
could not commit to anything but comfort and ease. Now as an older
woman she has attained comfort and ease and her big concerns at the
moment we see her all over the success of one of her own parties.
She is an empty shell woman inside whom thoughts bounce around un-
weighted by any real profundity. She is nostalgic for a past in
which she consistently chose the path of least resistance in spite
of frequent temptations to show a little character. As an adult
she is an antique and a relic of a dying way of life with little
inkling how irrelevant she is outside of a small circle of friends.
She has little understanding of the hard world outside that circle.
Nearby and yet so far away is Septimus Smith who fought in the
Great War and saw a close friend blown to pieces by a land mine.
Already in shock from the war, he felt nothing at seeing his friend
die so horribly. Now he is coming out of the initial shock and the
meaning of what he has seen is haunting him. He blames himself for
feeling nothing at the death of a friend. And he hates his doctors
who seem as out of touch with the harsh realities of life as
Mrs. Dalloway. They cannot even understand Smith's painful howl
and instead pallidly prescribe a rest cure at an asylum. They see
Smith as insane when the pain he feels is more real than anything
in Mrs. Dalloway's entire useless life.
The theme of the two worlds is curiously reminiscent of Sidney
Lumet's THE PAWNBROKER with Holocaust survivor Rod Steiger telling
well-meaning do-gooder Geraldine Fitzgerald that he comes from a
whole world that she knows nothing about and whose people are of an
entirely different species. MRS. DALLOWAY is in some ways very
much like THE PAWNBROKER told from the viewpoint of the genteel
Fitzgerald character.
Mrs. Dalloway's friends and, in fact, her whole class seem to be
out of touch with harsh reality. In a particularly telling
sequence, a friend of Dalloway's decides that the best thing for
England would be to take all the returning WWI veterans who have
been unable to find work on their own and effectively exile them to
Canada. Her friends who know a little more decide to humor her in
spite of the foolishness and probable illegality of the plan.
Virginia Woolf's MRS. DALLOWAY must have been a difficult novel to
adapt (by all accounts, I have not read it) and the script has some
technical problems made worst by some casting problems. The
telling drifts from present into the past with little signal and it
is not always obvious that it has happened. It is very difficult
in the flashback sequences to match the younger versions of
characters to the older ones since the characters are played by
different actors who often are physically quite different. The
young Clarissa and her friend Sally are nearly the same height in
their 20s and considerably different in height what is probably
their 50s. We are led to assume that having children has shortened
Sally by what must be six inches. It might well have been better
to use only young actors and age them much as Orson Welles aged
himself in CITIZEN KANE. But for these problems in the casting,
most of the roles seem well-played with veteran British actors in
several of the roles.
This film is for the most part gentle, but deep-down there seems to
be a lot of anger in the telling, perhaps more than one would find
in even an E. M. Forster or John Galsworthy story. It would be
interesting to read the novel to see if Woolf has the same disdain
for the characters that the film seems to have. I rate
MRS. DALLOWAY a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to
+4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact they do so.
-- Bertrand Russell