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

	                Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
	            Club Notice - 12/04/98 -- Vol. 17, No. 23

       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 2E-537  732-957-6330 robmitchell@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
       201-447-3652 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.   URLs    of    the    week:    http://www.bibliofind.com    and
       http://www.bookfinder.com.   Both  are  databases of groups of used
       book dealers: the former has 3500 dealers and 8 million books;  the
       latter doesn't cite numbers but is probably comparable and searches
       Amazon and Powells for new books as well.  (They're also handy  for
       figuring  out  if  that  old  book  you found in the attic is worth
       anything.)  [-ecl]

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

       2. We were at the Boston Fine Arts museum and we took a  break  and
       visited  the  cafeteria.   I  asked  the  cashier, "Do you have any
       mayonnaise?"  She told me, "He's up with the  Impressionists."   [-
       mrl]

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

       3. (Being somewhat serious for once, I have  been  looking  at  why
       when  I  was  growing  up, the younger generation of Jews tended to
       take up more esoteric religions.)

       Some of the reasons we lost  people  are  forces  that  all  ethnic
       groups  face.  Some of the reasons are more unique to Judaism.  Now
       I am talking here about not  just  the  reasons  people  leave  one
       religion  but  leave  it  AND  JOIN ANOTHER.  I am not talking here
       about assimilation.  Chinese immigrants  express  frustration  that
       their  children  are not interested enough in Chinese culture.  But
       the children do not come down to breakfast one day and  say,  "Mom,
       Dad, I have decided to become Latino."  The children who assimilate
       just do not stress their own culture so much.   But  I  am  talking
       about the actual changing of religion.

       You would think that the choice of a  religion  is  a  metaphysical
       decision.   You  would  think someone changes religion because they
       really do think that wine turns into blood and their  own  religion
       claimed it was only symbolic.  For the vast majority that is not it
       at all.  There are a bunch of reasons why  people  change  religion
       and  metaphysical  differences  of  opinion,  the  belief  that one
       religion really is right and another is wrong, has got to  be  very
       low  on  the  list.   Some  people  change religion for the sake of
       convenience.  If you marry  a  Methodist  often  you  take  up  the
       practice,  for  example.   Or  if you deal with Catholics a lot you
       might think of yourself as part of the Catholic community.  I don't
       know  if  there  is  a Catholic community in the United States, but
       there certainly is in countries like  Ireland,  Spain,  Italy,  and
       Poland.  There becoming Catholic would almost be assimilation.

       But part of the reason that a religion attracts people is  that  it
       seems  like  fun.   You  might  not think that this is a really big
       factor, but then you have to explain why the Japanese  have  picked
       up  so  many  Christian  customs  while  it is still relatively low
       numbers them who actually consider themselves Christian.  Christmas
       is  a  big  holiday in a country where the overwhelming majority of
       people are  Buddhist  and  Shintoist.   Why?   It  is  because  the
       trappings  of the religion are inviting.  Christmas is a lot of fun
       for some people.  And it is not that the metaphysics  of  believing
       in  Christ  imply  people  should  put lights on trees.  It is that
       these customs attract people to the religion.

       For what is now many centuries Judaism has  been  one  of  the  few
       religions  that does not encourage conversion from other religions.
       There are darn few Jewish missionaries.  And most of  the  rest  of
       the religion thinks that the few Jewish missionaries are nuts.  But
       after centuries of religious intolerance toward Jews, they have not
       wanted  to look like competition to other religions.  This has only
       brought about the accusation that Jews are cliquish, but Jews  have
       had  to walk the narrow path that would bring them the least amount
       of hatred.  It is better to be accused of being cliquish than to be
       accused of trying to win converts from the dominant religions.

       But being a religion that was not trying to win  converts,  Judaism
       never  developed  customs  that  people  from other religions would
       consider particularly attractive.  The brightly  colored  Christmas
       decorations  we are starting to see this time of year bear much the
       same function as bright colors in  flowers  or  bright  plumage  on
       birds.   It is to attract attention.  If you do not need to attract
       attention, you don't make yourself so visible.  The Jews  that  had
       great  or  colorful  celebrations  of  their holidays attracted the
       attention of intolerant non-Jews and were essentially  weeded  from
       the  gene pool.  Jews were left with a lackluster and somber set of
       holidays.  Celebrations of holidays, those few that were  pleasant,
       involved  quietly lighting candles or eating special pastries.  The
       candles were generally little tiny ones at that.  But in making the
       religion  unattractive  to  members of other religions, or at least
       never developing customs to make it attractive, we  have  succeeded
       in making it less attractive to our own younger generation.  [-mrl]

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

       4. The following is a comment from  a  reader  (not  me)  about  my
       editorial  started last issue.  Name withheld at the request of the
       of the reader.

       In your recent MTVOID, you wrote:

	    I guess that  Christians  really  enjoy  Christmas.   Boy,  do
	    Christians enjoy  Christmas.

       I couldn't resist giving you an alternative  perspective.   As  you
       know,  I  was not born Jewish.  (Truthfully, I was born "nothing" -
       my  family  didn't  bother  with  organized  religion.)   But,   we
       celebrated  xmas.   Boy,  did  we celebrate xmas.  So can you guess
       which holiday I despise more than any other?  You got it....

       It takes WORK to do xmas.  Hours  of  dust-ridden,  schlock-soaked,
       carol-howling,  mind-numbing  WORK  to  put  the  goddamned holiday
       together.  Hauling out dusty old decorations that were  tacky  when
       they  were  bought,  and  are  now positively hideous after several
       years of use.  (Remember Portnoy's line:  "For  tastes  that  would
       shame  a  gorilla....")  Cooking mountains of disgusting gelatinous
       xmas food (drop by my mom's house, and she'll treat you to some  of
       her   famous   lime-jello-with-   carrots-and-marshmallow-topping).
       Buying truckloads of inappropriate gifts for relatives  you  rarely
       see  and can barely stand when you do see them ("all the stores are
       closed, except for the Pleasure Chest!  I hope dear old Aunt Gertie
       is  into bondage gear....").  Staying up night after night wrapping
       this junk, your eyes and  fingers  gummy.   And  then  the  holiday
       itself,  which  is  by  turns boring (watching dear old Aunt Gertie
       pretend  to  like  her  new  manacles)  and  stressful  (trying  to
       discourage dear old Aunt Gertie from trying her new manacles out on
       you after she's had a few).  And after it is all over there is  the
       massive  cleanup, the broken toys, and worst of all, the WAITING IN
       LINE AT VARIOUS STORES TO RETURN ALL THIS GARBAGE THE NEXT DAY.

       As you've probably noticed, there is little mention of  alcohol  in
       all  of  this.   That's  because the whole alcohol thing is a topic
       onto itself.  If xmas is such a joyous  holiday,  why  do  so  many
       xians  have to anesthetize themselves to enjoy it?  "Jesus is born:
       let's celebrate by  throwing  up  on  our  shoes."   There  was  an
       ironclad  rule  in  my  family:  no  drinking  at  all during xmas.
       Period, end of subject.  Without this rule, my  family  would  have
       celebrated the birth of the "prince of peace" by beating each other
       half to death.

       Shudder.  The horror, the horror.   By  comparison,  kashering  for
       Pesach is a breeze.  [-anonymous]

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

       5. BABE: PIG IN THE CITY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

	         Capsule: The second BABE film is more  creative
	         than  the first, but it is also darker in tone.
	         We are back in the world where animals talk  to
	         each other, but never to humans.  Babe is taken
	         to the big city in an attempt to  save  Hoggett
	         farm.    But   Babe   gets  separated  and  has
	         adventures with a whole menagerie  of  animals.
	         The art direction of this film is almost as big
	         a feature as the animal  animatronics,  but  it
	         may  be confusing for younger children.  Still,
	         parents will find that they will have to  go  a
	         long  way  to  find  a  film  so enjoyable both
	         adults and for children.  Rating: 6 (0 to  10),
	         high  +1  (-4  to +4).  A minor spoiler follows
	         the review.

       The second Babe film, BABE: PIG IN THE CITY, had plenty of room  to
       repeat  what  was  good about the 1995 BABE. Co-writer and director
       George Miller really did not need to change  the  film's  approach.
       But  Miller  was not content to rest on his laurels.  The sequel is
       quite a different film and gives the audience much that is new  and
       quite  different to enjoy.  Is it as good as the first film?  To my
       mind it is not quite as  good.   The  story  is  a  little  less  a
       coherent story and the big climax of the film is more slapstick and
       less subtle excitement.  Like BABE this  is  family  entertainment,
       but  I think it offers a little less for the children and perhaps a
       little less for the adults also.  The tone is definitely darker and
       more  disturbing.  But like BABE, BABE: PIG IN THE CITY is probably
       the best family film of its year.  And it is one of the rare family
       films  that  may  well  be  better  appreciated  by  adults than by
       children.
       The Hoggett Farm is certainly having its ups and it downs.  After a
       series  of  adventures  related  in  the  first  film  Babe has won
       international fame as the pig who is a sheep dog.  Things are going
       well  until Farmer Hoggett is disabled in a freak accident.  (Note:
       the scenario of this accident was a joke told as early as the  Fred
       Allen  radio  program  in  the  1940s and has appeared other places
       since.  It may even be older than that.  But  to  the  best  of  my
       knowledge,  this  is  the  first  time  anybody filmed this strange
       sequence of events.)  With Mr.  Hoggett unable to care for his farm
       it  falls  on  hard times and the bank is ready and anxious to make
       the times even harder.   Mrs.  Hoggett  takes  the  famous  pig  to
       display  him at a fair.  But events conspire to maroon Mrs. Hoggett
       in the city with her pig and then to leave her pig all alone.  Babe
       finds  himself  the  new  animal  in  a  house full of animals with
       dubious human supervision.  Among  the  animals  Babe  meets  is  a
       Damon-Runyan-esque pit bull, a family of chimpanzees,

       The film is told in the same style  as  the  first  Babe  film  but
       differently.   Again  the story is divided in chapters whose titles
       are read to us by the trio of  singing  mice.   The  Classical  and
       popular  music is back including the theme from Saint-Saens's Third
       Symphony.  Miller has managed to get the  same  cast  back,  though
       James  Cromwell  has a much more limited role as Farmer Hoggett and
       Magda Szubanski has a much larger role this time continuing as Mrs.
       Hoggett.   Again  the  comedy is genuinely funny and sometimes very
       funny.  The acting and voicing seems to have all the same people in
       the  same  roles.   The  major  characters are all present, even if
       their roles are much foreshortened.  And as with  the  first  film,
       the   animals  are  frequently  three-dimensional  characters  with
       interesting personalities.  But the city Babe visits is not so much
       a  city as a Disneyland-modified city-concentrate.  It seems like a
       Frankensteinian grafting together of many of the  great  cities  of
       the world.  Looking out a window, Babe sees l

       This is more expensive and a cut  below  its  predecessor,  but  it
       still  is a good outing for the whole family.  I give this film a 6
       on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.

       Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler...

       Like ANIMAL FARM, BABE: PIG IN THE CITY may have  many  allegorical
       meanings  and perhaps even religious overtones.  Babe wins over his
       enemies with kindness and feeds  his  flock,  but  then  allows  an
       enforcer  to stand over feeding and no animal is allowed to partake
       of the  food  without  thanking  Babe,  under  apparent  threat  of
       violence.  What begins looking like an allegorical Christ into more
       a Huey Long allegory.  [-mrl]

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

       6. The 1998 Toronto International Film Festival (film  reviews  and
       commentary by Mark R. Leeper) (part 9 of 10)

       09/19/98

       Breakfast was at McDonalds and was fully up to  their  standard  of
       mediocrity.  But we had to get to the movie.  This is our last day.
       Much more so than a World Science  fiction  convention  or  even  a
       foreign trip, this I am sorry to see come to an end.

       TRANCE (United States)

       CAPSULE: This is the kind of film you used to see in the  60s  from
       small studios like Tigon.  An American couple finds themselves in a
       huge old Irish house with a mad woman stalking the  hallways,  and,
       oh  yes,  a  2000-year-old  Druid  witch is also running around and
       shape-changing.  Once it gets going it is entertaining but it would
       be  hard to claim it is actually a good film.  Rating: 5 (0 to 10),
       low +1 (-4 to +4)

	  - Written and directed by Michael  Almereyda  who  directed  the
	    vampire film NADJA.
	  - Far less experimental than NADJA but more coherent.
	  - Alcoholic American couple Nora (Alison Eliot) and Jeff  (Jared
	    Harris)  take  young  son  and  visit wife's family mansion in
	    Ireland.
	  - Huge brooding mansion beside the ocean.  Nora's grandmother is
	    near  90  and  senile.   Her  uncle  is  nearly  blind, but he
	    continues his experimentation with a 2000 year  old  petrified
	    body found in the bogs and now in the basement.
	  - Nora and Jeff are trying to give up alcohol, or so  they  tell
	    themselves.  Very flip as if always drunk.
	  - Irish accent is hard to understand at times.
	  - Harris's acting style is very much like Christopher Walken's.
	  - Myth of Earth and Sky: At the beginning of the world there was
	    just  Earth  and  Sky and they greatly loved each other.  Then
	    they were separated.  When it rains the Sky is trying to touch
	    the Earth.

       23 (German)

       CAPSULE: Two computer hackers from Hanover, Germany, members of the
       Computer  Chaos  Club  get  involved breaking into the computers of
       major companies and of governments.  What starts as  a  game  turns
       into  an  international  espionage  incident.  The (basically) true
       story is told here.  This is the story of  the  computer  criminals
       that  Clifford  Stoll  caught  as  detailed  in  THE  CUCKOO'S EGG.
       Rating:  8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to +4)
	  - Directed by Has-Christian Schmidt who co-wrote the screenplay.
	  - The other side of Clifford Stoll's THE CUCKOO'S EGG.  In  fact
	    the Nova dramatization would make a very good companion piece.
	    This is the story of the Hanover data bandits.
	  - Begins with Karl Koch and his friend David's interest  in  the
	    Illuminatus book by Robert Shea (unmentioned) and Robert Anton
	    Wilson (who plays himself in a few short scenes).
	  - Karl and David are 19 when  taken  with  Hacker's  ethic  that
	    information   belongs   to   everyone.   Begin  breaking  into
	    corporate and government  computers.   A  go-between  suggests
	    that  the  KGB  will pay well for the right information.  From
	    there life starts giving them big ups and bigger downs.
	  - 23 is basically a morality tale of  how  the  Hanover  bandits
	    ruined  their  lives.   With their fascination in conspiracies
	    they actually bred conspiracies against themselves.
	  - Hard to keep up with the pace of the story telling.  The names
	    are a little hard to follow.
	  - Hard to understand why the hackers ethic would cause Karl  and
	    David to ally themselves with the KGB.
	  - Use money from their hacking to  buy  cocaine  and  only  make
	    their lives worse.
	  - Making obvious errors.  When the landlord no longer  seems  to
	    care whether you are paying rent or not, get the heck out.
	  - In  tone  similar  to  TRAINSPOTTING.    People   trapped   by
	    shortsighted behavior.
	  - The information that the Hanover bandits gave the Soviets  was
	    not  the  serious damage.  They stole much of the innocence of
	    the Internet.  Imagine a village in which people  feel  secure
	    and  nobody  locks  their  doors.   Two kids discover this and
	    start  petty  thefts.   They  may  not  steal  much  but  soon
	    everybody  will realize they have to put locks on their doors.
	    Security becomes  an  industry.   That  is  what  the  Hanover
	    bandits did to the world of computers.

       While we were watching the film it stopped  and  the  house  lights
       came  up.   We waited to find out if there was someone going to get
       the film going again.  Someone put their head in the door and  said
       it  was  not a real fire alarm.  That was a relief since nobody had
       heard any fire alarm and if it had been real we could  have  gotten
       toasted.

       Somebody came on the PA  system  and  said  "We  are  in  an  alarm
       situation.   Please  remain  where  you  are."   We remained.  Some
       people left, as the film was nearly over  anyway.   Eventually  the
       voice  came  on  and said that there had been a false alarm, but it
       still took another five minutes before  they  could  get  the  film
       going again.

       When the film was over  we  stopped  for  lunch  at  an  Indonesian
       restaurant,  then back to the room to pack.  Then to see a film not
       part of the festival, though it starred the same pair of actors who
       starred in CLAY PIGEONS.

       RETURN TO PARADISE (United States)

       CAPSULE: Wow!  Pretty tough to imagine this not being the best film
       I  see this year.  Three buddies committed a crime in Malaysia, two
       left the country, and one was  caught.   If  neither  of  the  free
       buddies  go  back to stand trial the caught man will hang.  Whoever
       goes  back  will  be  volunteering  for   prison   under   horrible
       conditions.   An  intelligent film about very tough moral decisions
       and their consequences.  Rating: 9 (0 to 10), high +3 (-4  to  +4).
       A  very  heavy  spoiler  after the review discusses the issues this
       film raises.  This is a very good  film  but  some  of  its  issues
       cannot be discussed without disclosing plot twists.

       This is an adult film in the literal meaning.  It is  a  film  that
       does  not  sugar coat its view of reality.  Things do not happen in
       this film because of wishful thinking the way they might in a Frank
       Capra film.  RETURN TO PARADISE is a film without a safety net.  It
       asks the right questions and does not provide the viewer with  pre-
       digested  answers.   In  A  FEW GOOD MEN there are some interesting
       issues raised and there are giant neon  signs  telling  the  viewer
       which  side  is  right  on  the  issues.  Independently of the Jack
       Nicholson character's ideas, the script makes him an insulting male
       chauvinist.   The  film  entirely  sidesteps  the  issue of whether
       Nicholson might be correct about defense, he clearly is a  villain.
       RETURN  TO  PARADISE  also raises issues.  But it is not a morality
       tale.  It does not tell the viewer what the answers are.  There are
       no neon signs.

       Tony (David Conrad), Sheriff (Vince  Vaughn),  and  Lewis  (Joaquin
       Phoenix)  are  having  a  good time together in Malaysia.  They are
       drinking beer, seeing the countryside, getting  into  trouble,  and
       smoking  cheap  hashish.   They throw out the hashish they have not
       used when Sheriff and Tony have to go home.

       Flash forward two years.  Sheriff is a limousine driver, Tony is an
       architect.   Lewis has spent the last two years in a Penang prison.
       Now the Malaysian government is going  to  hang  Lewis  as  a  drug
       dealer  unless  he can prove he was only a user.  To do that he has
       to produce who shared the drugs with him.  Informally the Malaysian
       government  says  that  they  will give a total of six years prison
       time to the one or two people who show up and will commute  Lewis's
       term.   Lawyer  Beth (Anne Heche) has the job of convincing Sheriff
       and Tony to go and take their prison sentences so Lewis will not be
       executed.   But how does one weigh the greater evil when the prison
       is so bad that six years may be tantamount to a death  sentence  or
       perhaps be enough to permanently unhinge the prisoner.

       Vince Vaughn and Joquin Phoenix are perhaps  better  known  as  the
       leads  of  CLAY  PIGEONS.   Here  they  have a very different moral
       relationship but their fates are similarly connected.   Anne  Heche
       of  SIX  DAYS,  SEVEN  NIGHTS  is the lawyer stuck with the task of
       getting two men to give up years of their lives to save the life of
       someone  they  hardly  know.  The script is based on the film FORCE
       MAJEURE by Pierre Jolivet.  The original  English  language  script
       was Bruce Robinson  who wrote what I considered the best film I saw
       in the 1980s, THE KILLING FIELDS.  And here he  is  connected  with
       nearly  the  best  film I have seen thus far in the 1990s.  However
       the script was rewritten by Wesley Strict.

       RETURN TO PARADISE is a rare film experience.  It is an intelligent
       and  adult look at people making hard choices in the real world.  I
       give it a 9 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +3  on  the  -4  to  +4
       scale.

       Heavy spoiler.... Heavy spoiler....Heavy spoiler...

       If this film were only about the heavy price Sheriff and Tony  were
       being  asked to pay to save Lewis's life, this would be a very good
       film.  But it  goes  much  beyond  that.   Unfortunately  one  only
       realizes the other issues of this film toward the end.

       If one were to ask if freedom of the press is a good thing or a bad
       thing, I think most of us would vote in favor.  We give the press a
       broad range of freedoms in this country in the hopes that  it  will
       help  to  topple  dictators,  or  better yet never letting them get
       started.  We do not want to let the government limit our freedom of
       expression,  our  First  Amendment rights.  If I were asked what is
       the downside of giving this much  power  to  the  press  the  first
       example  that  comes  to  mind  is that we are giving the press the
       right to publish how to make dangerous devices.   There  have  been
       issues in the past of magazines wanting to publish instructions for
       building your own atomic bombs.  It is also very timely  that  this
       film  comes  out  just  as a media barrage is toppling a President.
       There are certainly good arguments that the press  has  overstepped
       its bounds.

       Our First Amendment really hamstrings us in  controlling  dangerous
       information.   There  are  laws  that  may  let  us use restraining
       orders, but deep down the First Amendment has  given  all  the  big
       guns  to  people who want to make information available, for better
       or for worse.  In the case in RETURN TO  PARADISE  it  was  a  lost
       cause  from  the beginning.  The international press was going tell
       the world about Lewis's case.

       That would anger the Malaysian government  and  they  would  punish
       Lewis.   Any  nobility  on  the  part  of Sheriff and Tony would be
       misplaced.  (And that really is something we rarely  see  in  film.
       The  ethical  thing  to  do  is  rarely  shown as being useless and
       pointless.)  As soon as the press got hold of the story, it was out
       of the main characters' hands.  Lewis was going to die, not because
       of his crime, but because the founding fathers felt the  press  had
       to be unrestrained.

       The other issue of where we are paying a heavy price  is  that  the
       Malaysian judge has a very good point.  In his country children are
       free from the risk of drugs.  Malaysia has a  much  lower  risk  of
       crime.  Our lax attitude on drug enforcement has a heavy price.  We
       walk a middle ground between either legalizing  drugs  or  treating
       drug  use as harshly as the Malaysians do.  We are afraid to do the
       former and do not have the stomach to  do  the  latter.   And  that
       middle  ground of shadow tolerance is also what kills Lewis in this
       film.  These are  complex  issues.   Nobody  is  totally  wrong  or
       totally right.

       [to be continued] [-mrl]

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

	    Hilbert once had a student in mathematics who
	    stopped coming to his lectures, and he was finally
	    told that the young man had gone off to become a
	    poet. Hilbert is reported to have remarked, "I
	    never thought he had enough imagination to be a
	    mathematician."
	                                  -- George Polya