@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 09/04/98 -- Vol. 17, No. 10
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. URL of the week: http://www.kithrup.com/brin. David Brin's home
page. See a review of his latest, HEAVEN'S REACH, later in this
issue. [-ecl]
===================================================================
2. In keeping with my editorial of July 4 I notice that Borders
Books (in Naperville, Illinois) has out on display the book HOW TO
DUMP A GUY by Fillon and Ladowsky. The book appears to be a useful
guide to any woman who wants to end a relationship with a man.
There is no equivalent book HOW TO DUMP A GAL by anyone by anyone.
In fact when is the last time you heard anyone called a "gal?" Why
is it so much worse to call a woman a gal than to call a man a guy?
[-mrl]
===================================================================
3. It was the humorous morning story on Public Radio last week, but
I am not sure I find it very funny. I think I will have to retract
something I said in this column.
Be warned I may have given some bad advice in this space some time
ago. I was talking about jury duty and how to avoid it if you
really want to. I suggested that if you really did not want jury
duty you say in all sincerity on the papers you fill out "I support
my local law enforcement officers and I promise to vote 'guilty.'"
The law tells you that you have to vote one way or the other on a
jury, but it does not mandate any specific decision process. It is
unethical to decide to give a rubber stamp guilty vote, but it is
not illegal. It is perfectly legal to place a lot of faith in your
local law enforcement officers. And if you want to use that for a
decision process, who can tell you that it is illegal?
Admittedly I never actually tried saying I promised to vote guilty.
But apparently there was a similar case to this just this last
week. There was a guy who really did want to get out of jury duty.
Now, he was on kidney dialysis, and that would have gotten him off.
But he was of a playful frame of mind and he instead made a
statement on his written jury materials that he hated blacks,
police, and judges. He undoubtedly thought this should disqualify
him, as indeed it should have. Instead he was cited for contempt
of court and sentenced to fifty hours of public service.
Now I don't mean to defend someone who hates blacks, policemen, and
judges. Well, ... yes, I do. You can in this country legally hate
anyone you want. I won't say that it reflects well on you, but it
is legal. There is not much you can legally do about fulfilling
the hatred, thank goodness, but there is no law against hatreds.
But if someone does have the hatreds, do we really want him or her
on juries? I think not. Few of these people are going to self-
identify. But if they are willing to self-identify, it seems
stupid to say they will be charged with contempt of court. That
just sends a message to keep their hatred secret and go ahead and
serve on the jury. If someone is willing to admit bigotry they
really should be free to disqualify themselves from jury duty.
Of course, this is not to say they necessarily should self-
identify. The little bit of Thomas Jefferson in me thinks that
even a bigot has a point of view that should be represented on a
jury. I think Thomas Jefferson would say that they should not be
impelled to disqualify themselves. Even bigots should be able to
express themselves in the legal system. There was just enough of
the impish crypto-anarchist in Jefferson to nicely season our laws.
Jefferson thought that every once in a while someone should come
along and blow things up and change the natural order. A little
revolution now and then is good for the country. Given a choice
between the country being free or running smoothly, he was happy to
sacrifice the smoothness for freedom. So he would have said that
you want bigots on juries once in a while to shake things up and
because they should have their views represented if they so wish.
However, if a person wants to disqualify himself due to the
extremity of his views he should have that right.
But that has somebody worried. The fear is that if anyone can
disqualify himself as a prospective jury member then we will not
have enough people willing to serve on juries. But does it make
sense to threaten someone with punishment for contempt of court if
they dare be honest and say they would render a biased vote? That
just sends a message that they should be on the jury and gives them
a green light to let their biases rule their votes. I would like
to see someone appeal this decision of last week since I think it
hurts the system. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. HEAVEN'S REACH by David Brin (Bantam Spectra, 1998, $24.95,
Hardcover, 447pp, ISBN 0-553-10174-9) (a book review by Joe
Karpierz):
David Brin is considered one of the modern day masters of the
science fiction field. His reputation was based on his early Hugo
Award winning novels STARTIDE RISING and THE UPLIFT WAR, both in
his Uplift Universe. Various other of his novels have been Hugo
nominees, such as THE POSTMAN. There have been others, but none
has been particularly worthy of the award, in my opinion, except
for THE POSTMAN. In other words, the shine has come off the star;
the works haven't been quite as good as those early winners.
Then along came what Brin is calling his "Uplift Storm Trilogy":
BRIGHTNESS REEF (which was a Hugo nominee), INFINITY'S SHORE, and
now the finale of the story, HEAVEN'S REACH. I've heard and read
Brin say that he did not set out to write a trilogy; it's not what
he does. At the recent Baltimore Worldcon he apologized to those
of us sitting in the audience at his reading for doing this,
claiming that this was the first time he had written a novel
without doing an outline. Without an outline, the story got away
from him. He vowed never to do it again.
I, for one, hope he finds his outline skeleton in a hurry. The
trilogy suffered from bloat; he didn't need three books to tell the
story. On the other hand, the way it turned out, a novel seemed to
be the right length to tell the portion of the story that ended up
in HEAVEN'S REACH. Maybe that's because he set so many things up
when the story got away from him that he *needed* an entire novel
to tie things together, so it seemed appropriate. I don't know.
What I do know is that HEAVEN'S REACH is the best of the three
books. When Brin set about writing it, he said to the folks on his
emailling list that it was a return to old fashioned space opera.
He wasn't lying. You want exploding stars? You got them. You
want exotic and weird aliens? You got them? You want Dyson
Spheres? You got weird looking ones. You want intergalactic (to
heck with interstellar), interdimensional adventure? You got it.
You want warring alien races fighting over the fate of Earth? You
got them. You want far reaching implications for the fate of the
universe? You got those too.
This is the kind of stuff that I started reading sf for, and the
kind of thing that Brin has gotten away from in recent years. I
guess that the reason this book is better than the other two in the
trilogy is that he crams all that stuff into 440 pages with no
letup. Oh yeah--he also sets stuff in motion for the next Uplift
book, whenever that might be, by dropping several hints along the
way that implied that "if you this is big and weird, you ain't seen
nuthin' yet."
The story follows action on several fronts. From the weird
dimension of E space, where the inhabitants are memes that result
from the thoughts of the living creatures who visit there, to the
ship "Streaker" as it carries it's mysterious cargo found in the
Shallow Cluster--which started all the religious/fanatical wars
over ancient beliefs about the Progenitors (that billions of years
old ancient race that started the Uplift process), to Earth space
where our home planet is under siege by factions who wish to
destroy the wolflings (a term used to describe a race which claims
to have uplifted itself, as the humans have), to..... well, you
get the point.
HEAVEN'S REACH is space opera adventure as befits the "Golden Age"
of science fiction, and is Brin's best novel in many years. But
therein lies the rub. I'd like to nominate this novel for the Best
Novel Hugo, but so much of it depends on what preceded it in the
prior two novels in the series that it really doesn't stand on its
own. It's frustrating that what may end up being one of the better
novels that I read in 1998 may not really deserve the Best Novel
Award.
Would I recommend this novel? Only if you've read the other two
books in the series. Would I recommend the series? Uh, only so
you can get to this novel. Kind of circular, isn't it? The story
the trilogy tells is a worthy addition to the Uplift Saga (and for
those who aren't aware, the prior books, in publication order, are
SUNDIVER, STARTIDE RISING, and THE UPLIFT WAR), and if you're into
the Uplift Universe, then yes, by all means, read it. It's worth
reading the trilogy just for the satisfaction of getting to the
last installment. [-jak]
===================================================================
5. EVER AFTER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: It may be a very 1990s retelling of
the Cinderella story, but the real show is the
sumptuous recreation of 16th Century France.
Drew Barrymore is not the most desirable
Cinderella, but Angelica Huston gives depth to
the evil stepmother. This film would be
acceptable down to age 7 or so but would not be
boring for Mom and Dad. Rating: 6 (0 to 10),
+1 (-4 to +4)
New York Critics: 10 positive, 1 negative, 2
mixed
One thing the world did not need was yet another telling of the
Cinderella story, particularly one that gives Cinderella the values
and qualities of a 1990s woman. Given that that is true, and that
the story has been much revised, this is at least a watchable
version that benefits from a sumptuous production. Normally it is
bad policy for a filmmaker to adapt a famous story and then to
revise it. However, in this case there is a framing sequence in
which an old woman, a Grand Dame, is telling the Grimm Brothers
what really happened and proving it by showing them the actual
glass slipper that apparently had been in her family for a long
time. Saying that she is going to tell "what really happened"
covers a multitude of revisions to the classic story and even a few
anachronisms. While a film like ROBIN HOOD, PRINCE OF THIEVES
claims to be the story of Robin Hood and then tells its own story,
EVER AFTER starts right out by saying the Grimm Brothers had it
wrong. There is even a nod to the historical fact that in the
original Grimm story the shoe is a fur slipper. The story was
mistranslated to English and "fur" became "glass," words that I am
told sound similar in French.
Once we are past the framing sequence the scene shifts to 16th
Century France where a widower father, Auguste (played by Jeroen
Krabbe) very deeply loves his precocious eight-year-old daughter
Danielle (Anna Maguire). So that his daughter will have a family
he marries the enigmatic Rodmilla (Angelica Huston). Very soon
after the marriage Auguste dies. Flash forward ten years and the
household under Rodmilla's rule has a very definite pecking order.
Danielle (now Drew Barrymore) is basically just a servant. In a
rather nice variation on tradition only one of the stepsisters,
Marguerite, is beautiful, vain, and cruel. The other sister,
Jacqueline, is rather plain, but decent and sympathetic to her
stepsister. Her heart is good though she rarely has the courage to
say anything. Jacqueline is just one position above Danielle in
the house pecking order. Everything in the house is ruled over by
Rodmilla, who sees things her own way. As she goes back on a
promise she says, "Nothing is final until you are dead. And then I
am sure God negotiates."
To rescue a house servant, Danielle must pose as a woman of the
court and in that guise she captures the attention of Prince Henry
(Dougray Scott). He is amazed that this woman is willing to argue
with her prince. And he is more amazed that when she argues she
invariably wins. For once it seems that what a prince finds
stimulating is a woman's intellect, not her looks. This variation
on the traditional fairy tale has among its revisions that there is
no fairy godmother protecting Cinderella. Instead, visiting court
is none other than Leonardo da Vinci (Patrick Godfrey) and he comes
off nearly as magical. I guess that Leonardo was about as close as
you could get to wizardry in the 1500s without it actually being
wizardry.
Drew Barrymore is reasonable as Danielle, though neither the
director nor the camera really coaxes much deep pain or emotion
from her. She has a sort of hurt-child look that might be
acceptable for this role, but does not quite work in the scenes in
which she is supposed to be a formidable fighter or look stunning.
Speaking of stunning, the stepmother is also supposed to be
attractive according to the script and while Angelica Houston is a
good character actor, it is never clear why Auguste is so taken
with her. Her acting does have the fairy tale villain feel,
however, an artifact of films like THE WITCHES. And she does
qualify as one of the better features of this film. Dougray Scott
is something of a surprise. Initially he comes off as just a
handsome hunk without a lot of acting talent. But he does have a
very expressive face, when he bothers to use it. That could make
him a very enjoyable comic actor in the style of Hugh Laurie. Also
along for the ride is Timothy West, one of those solid British
actors who will always turn in a quality performance. Having
Jeanne Moreau in the framing sequence does a lot for the film. She
certainly is one of the great ladies of French cinema.
EVER AFTER is something of a surprise. Nothing great here, but it
is a pleasant film to watch and is nicely visualized. I give it a
6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
The elegance of a theorem is directly proportional
to the number of ideas you can see in it and
inversely proportional to the effort it take to see
them.
-- George Polya