@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 08/06/99 -- Vol. 18, No. 6
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@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 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. I am continuing with how this country at one time encouraged
tobacco use.
NPR documented recently how the American military pushed tobacco.
In training men would be exercising but would be given a smoking
break. The deal was smoke if you have them, otherwise continue
exercising. Basically they punished people who did not smoke.
The following is an anecdote found at
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/406.htm, though I have heard
it elsewhere. "Gene Roddenberry told me that while he was creating
"Star Trek," the network (NBC) and the production company
(Paramount) put enormous pressure on him to include cigarettes on
the starship Enterprise. Roddenberry pointed out that, considering
the health risks known about cigarettes even in 1966, no one would
be smoking by stardate 1513.1 (circa 2264 A.D.). The network and
studio executives used both pressure and persuasion. They tried to
get Roddenberry enthused about how cigarettes might look in the
twenty-third century. Maybe they would be square instead of round;
perhaps they would come in colors; perhaps cigarettes would light
themselves! Roddenberry's creative juices were not stimulated.
Finally, the executives gave him an ultimatum: either the starship
Enterprise would officially be declared a Smoking Zone, or
Roddenberry's other radical idea--to have a woman as an officer of
the Enterprise crew--would be abandoned. The executives were clever
in offering this choice: Roddenberry's wife was already cast to
play the female officer. After quite a bit of soul-searching,
Roddenberry came to the only conclusion he could: both cigarettes
and his wife did not get an intergalactic boarding pass. The irony
was that, in later years, when smoking was less fashionable,
Paramount pointed with pride to "Star Trek" as one of the few shows
in syndication that had none of those "distasteful' cigarettes."
As I write this, big tobacco has just lost a major class action
suit. I think the figure I heard was $200,000,000,000. The
government seems to have removed some major protections from the
tobacco industry and they seem to be really vulnerable. I just
read that several stamps created for the United States Postal
service show famous people not smoking. Well, this is not
surprising, but they are taken from photos of the people and they
are smoking in the photos. A stamp of classic newsman Edward R.
Morrow removed a cigarette that was almost his trademark. A new
stamp of Jackson Pollock is taken from a photograph from Life
Magazine, but with one major difference: there is no cigarette
perched on his lip.
The Soviet Union used revisionist photography in much the same way.
They would have a group photo of party officials and some of them,
ones out of favor, would be cropped or cut out. Winston Smith in
1984 had a job, which was going into historical records and
deleting references unfavorable to the state. These days he works
for the Postal Service. I understand their reasons, but I think
the Postal Service may be going a little overboard here. It just
shows the strength with which the tide has turned. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: In 1994 three amateur filmmakers went
into the Maryland woods making a documentary
about the local legend of the Blair Witch.
They never returned. This is claimed to be a
compilation of the footage they took showing
how they were lost and ran afoul of something
unseen. This is a film that demonstrates that
horror in a film need not be created by visual
effects. Instead the immediacy created by
hand-held cameras and a realistic rather than
artificial style makes this the most intense
horror film since HENRY, PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL
KILLER. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to
+4). Following the review is a non-spoiler
sidebar listing the rules of the European film
movement Dogma 95.
There is a paradox in filmmaking. The viewer goes to a film to see
an experience, but ironically not really to share the experience.
We as viewers want to see the story, but we do not really want to
participate in the experience. The filmmakers we consider to be
the best do not make realistic films. These great stylists of
cinema are mostly people that rather than making a film real for us
make it unreal. The most real film is crude footage right out of a
hand-held camera. Even using Steadicam is stepping away from
reality. As we look at he world our head bobs and jerks.
Steadicam smoothes out the bobs and jerks making the resulting film
less real. A rare few films use crudity and a lack of style to
make the film more real for the viewer. THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING
DEAD is an effective horror film, not because a great stylist
polished it but because it looks like it is not polished at all.
It is shot in black and white and photographed crudely. It does
have music, but it is the music that the filmmakers could get free
and the music is rough. Color and a lush orchestral score are a
distraction.
As I write this review there are two horror film in wide release.
The remake of THE HAUNTING is a highly glossy film with great
special effects and images from the imagination of an artist. THE
BLAIR WITCH PROJECT on the other hand is shot primitively with
hand-held cameras and has almost no music. And that lack of style
makes the film seem all the more real. By showing almost nothing
of the menace in the story it allows the viewer's mind complete
freedom to imagine the threat. In fact THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT--
perhaps coincidentally--very nearly follows the rules of Dogma 95.
THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT was made on a very tiny film budget, and it
is made with almost no stylistic tricks. In fact it has no style
whatsoever to distance the viewer from the action. That makes it
the most effective horror film we have seen in years.
The plot of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT is obvious from the first
minutes of the film. We are told at the very beginning of the film
that in October 1994 three student filmmakers, Heather Donahue,
Michael Williams, and Joshua Leonard (played by Heather Donahue,
Michael Williams, and Joshua Leonard) were making a film. They
went into the Maryland woods near Burkittesville to shoot a
documentary about a local legend, the Blair Witch. They never came
out of that woods and we are told a year later their film footage
was found. We don't even know how it is supposed to have been
unearthed. But we are seeing the raw film footage they shot. It
is clear from the beginning that they were incompetents and should
not be out in the wild by themselves. It is not hard to guess what
trouble they found in the woods and what caused them not to come
back. The film spends the rest of its short 85-minute length
showing the viewer what was expected to happen did happen. This is
not a great plot. It is almost no plot at all, in fact. The
viewer knows what is going to ensue and just sits there to see it
happen and to pick up the details. Yet just seeing it all happen
without having the filmmaker interpose style between the viewer and
the story makes this film an experience so immediate and intense
that people are walking out of the film rather than subjecting
their nerves to the film. The special effects in this film are all
mostly sound effects. They are all easy to create, but they tap
into a basic fear of being vulnerable in the woods, in the night,
in the dark (to paraphrase both versions of THE HAUNTING). This is
a film that will tap into some very basic fears.
The film is written, directed, and edited by Daniel Myrick and
Eduardo Sanchez. It is a Haxen Films production (probably named
for the classic 1922 Norwegian film documentary HAXEN, meaning
"Witches"). The three main characters apparently play themselves.
According to the publicity most of the dialog is improvised, giving
it a real immediacy. Apparently they were given a rough plot
outline and identifying with the characters they argued among
themselves in a sort of role-playing game. I would bet that the
scenes were filmed in very much the order that we see them in the
film to make easier the slow build in the actors' hysteria. The
reported cost of shooting the film was $20,000, but the film is
playing to full houses. It is the kind of trick that probably can
be done effectively only once, though THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT is
bound to have imitators. This is a film of incredible intensity.
It has no sex, no violence, a fair amount of medium-strong
language, but less than a lot of other films in theaters. Yet it
is too strong for even some of the adults seeing the film. I rate
it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
In case there is any confusion the film THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT,
the television documentary "The Curse of the Blair Witch," and any
legends or historical factoids found in either are complete
fictions created for the film. A possible exception is the
television description of the backgrounds of the three film
students who were real people and played themselves in the film.
There never was a Blair Witch or an attempt to do a serious
documentary about her.
Dogma 95 is a European film movement founded by Danish filmmaker
Lars von Triers. It is intended to bring film back to a more
natural sort of filmmaking. THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT follows, as
far as I can tell, the first seven of the rules and breaks the last
three. However, its compliance with so many of the rules of Dogma
95 may be purely coincidental. The following are the rule of Dogma
95.
I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and
confirmed by DOGMA 95:
1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be
brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a
location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice
versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is
being shot).
3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility
attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place
where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the
film takes place).
4. The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable.
(If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or
a single lamp be attached to the camera).
5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.
6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons,
etc. must not occur.)
7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to
say that the film takes place here and now.)
8. Genre movies are not acceptable.
9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
10. The director must not be credited.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
3. CHILDREN OF GOD by Mary Doria Russell (Villard, 1998, 438 pp,
$23.95, ISBN 0-679-45635-X) (a book review by Joe Karpierz):
In my mind, it's got to be extremely difficult to put together a
novel after one like THE SPARROW. As a writer (not that I know,
mind you), you know that your first novel was a terrific one, and
now you have to follow it up with another novel that you hope will
be half as good as the first one. And you have to make the
decision whether to write your next novel in the same universe as
the first one, or do something completely different. In either
case, expectations must be high, although I would think that doing
something in a different universe or setting might be a little
easier to deal with. After all, if you write a lousy novel in the
same universe as your highly successful first novel, well, you've
been there before, you should know those characters, how they
interact, etc., so that you write a good novel. A lousy novel in
another universe can be a little easier to take.
Mary Doria Russell chose to follow up THE SPARROW with a direct
sequel, CHILDREN OF GOD. She didn't write a lousy novel, but after
THE SPARROW, it was a major letdown.
CHILDREN OF GOD picks up almost immediately after the conclusion of
THE SPARROW. The central character of the last book, Emilio
Sandoz, is still recovering from his ordeal on Rakhat and the
inquisition at the hands of the Jesuit leaders. His falling out
with God causes him to leave the Jesuits and the priesthood. He is
able to get past his emotional problems enough to fall in love with
Gina Guiliani, a single mother recently divorced from organized
crime man Carlo Guiliani. Meanwhile, the Jesuits are putting
together another trip to Rakhat, and the Pope wants Sandoz along
for the ride.
(Spoiler alert)
Meanwhile, on Rakhat, we discover that not all those who we thought
died did indeed die. If you remember from THE SPARROW, major
cultural disruption occurred when the humans from the first
expedition planted their own food, then showed the Runa how to do
the same. This upset the delicate balance between the J'anata and
the Runa. In a conflict that ensued when J'anata came to cull the
extra children of the Runa that resulted from the Runa eating
better than they ever had, Sofia Mendez was thought to have been
killed. We discover that the Runa saved her, and she eventually
gave birth to Isaac, fathered by her late husband from the original
expedition, Jimmy Quinn. Isaac seems to be mentally handicapped in
some way, however. We later find out that this isn't true.
You may wonder why I'm spilling all the beans on this. Well,
honestly, I can't really think of any other way right now of
setting up what happens next.
It's all rather complicated, mind you, with relativity and all
getting in the way of a straight line story, but basically Sandoz
is kidnapped by Carlo and his gang for the flight to Rakhat (not
without some "help", but I'll leave that one alone), and gets there
to find out that there's a war between the Runa and the J'anata
occurring, and the Runa are winning. As a matter of fact, the
J'anata are nearly extinct. Isaac has disappeared, and Sofia fears
that he has been taken by the J'anata, when in fact he's off on his
own, learning, studying, absorbing. He is the key to why Sandoz
has come back, although to me it is a bit of a reach.
I'm having a hard time with this review because I had a hard time
with the book. None of the characters spoke to me at all, and the
only one that I really liked was Nico, a sort of slow (but not as
slow as you might think) bodyguard who eventually comes to befriend
Sandoz. As in THE SPARROW, I just could not get into the beings
living on Rakhat, either Runa or J'anata. I found the scenes
involving the natives on Rakhat tedious, other than those involving
Isaac (native, though human) and Ha'nala. The story didn't grab me
as much as THE SPARROW did (although I suppose one could argue that
that would be difficult to do), and I felt like I had to trudge
through it.
Was it a rotten, lousy, book? No. Was it a good book? Not in my
mind, but I've spoken with several people who thought that while it
was not as good as THE SPARROW, it was still a terrific novel. If
I had to do it all again, I'd take a pass on it.
This concludes my reviews of this year's Hugo Nominees. It gives
me just enough time to fax my Hugo ballot in. Now it's time for me
take a break, and read a few other things that have been stacking
up. Down the road I plan on reading and reviewing the new Robert
J. Sawyer novel, David Brin's finale to the Second Foundation
Trilogy, and Vernor Vinge's latest.
Until then... [-jak]
===================================================================
4. FACTORING HUMANITY by Robert J. Sawyer (Tor, ISBN 0-312-86458-2,
1998, 350pp, US$23.95) (a book review by Joe Karpierz):
[This review ran late last year, but is being re-run as part of Joe
Karpierz's series of reviews of Hugo-nominees. -ecl]
We all know the mantra of real estate: location, location,
location. Robert J. Sawyer has his own mantra: ideas, ideas,
ideas. And this is good, since above all else, science fiction is
the literature of ideas. Well, Sawyer certainly doesn't
shortchange his readers in his latest effort, FACTORING HUMANITY.
FACTORING HUMANITY is a story of first contact. As the story
opens, Earth has been receiving messages from Alpha Centauri A for
ten years. Heather Davis, a professor of psychology at the
University of Toronto, has been attempting to decipher them with
little success. Her estranged husband, Kyle Graves, is working on
a quantum computer project, also with little success, and also at
the University of Toronto. Their marriage turned rocky after their
daughter Mary,committed suicide, and they are currently separated.
The narrative begins with their other daughter, Becky, accusing
Kyle of molesting both her and Mary.
Now that the stage is set, the story takes off. The messages from
Alpha Centauri stop, and Heather eventually discovers the secret to
the alien message. Kyle, working on both the quantum computing
experiment AND another project dealing with the idea of developing
consciousness in a computer (the APE project, for Approximate
Psychological Experiences), is basically just having a tough time
getting by due to Becky's accusations. Matters are made worse when
two different parties come to him concerning his quantum computing
project; one wants him to continue his work but keep it hushed up,
and the other wants to buy his services in order to crack an
encryption code that otherwise would take many lifetimes to crack
due to its complexity (more about this later).
Earlier I talked about an abundance of ideas. How does quantum
computing, psychology, group minds, computer consciousness, Necker
cubes, the nature of consciousness, hypercubes, and the end of
humanity sound? The fun in all of this for me is that I spend a
good portion of the book trying to see how it will all fit
together--just as I did with STARPLEX and FRAMESHIFT. As a matter
of fact, it can be argued that there are TOO many ideas in this
book: couldn't the story have been told with a few fewer loose ends
to tie up? For instance, I mentioned the encryption code that a
consortium wants Kyle to crack. It turns out that whatever is
encoded holds the contents of yet another message from the stars,
received several years earlier. What does that have to do with the
rest of what's going on?
But no, I think these ideas all fit together. I said that this was
a novel of first contact. I guess I lied. It's a novel of
contact, period. Not just with the Centaurs (as our characters
call them), but of contact with ourselves, our families, and
indeed, the whole human race. It's about what we can learn about
ourselves and our fellow man if we just pay attention. So what if
we need a little help getting there? The important part, Sawyer
tells us, is that we do make contact with ourselves and the rest of
humanity in order to make the world a better place.
Do I have any problems with the book? No, not really. There is a
little ground that Sawyer has covered before. He seems to like to
use a couple having relationship troubles as a way to help move
things along (if memory serves, THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT and
STARPLEX were the same way, though I could be wrong), and many of
his main characters have some ties to Canada, one way or another.
I suppose that's okay, because it is said that you should write
what you know about, and since Sawyer lives in Canada, that
certainly applies. He's also used the first contact thing before,
back in GOLDEN FLEECE, where once again someone is trying to
decipher a message from the stars in much the same manner as
Heather does in FACTORING HUMANITY. But I don't think any of those
things take away from just how good this novel is. They just
strike me as happening a little more often than I'm comfortable
with. Maybe I'm just picking nits because it's fashionable to have
to find something wrong with a book even though it's good. I don't
know.
The upshot is that I feel that this is Sawyer's best novel to date,
certainly better than his last effort, ILLEGAL ALIEN. And it's
gotta be good: it contains the title to the third installment of
the upcoming second trilogy of "Star Wars" movies as well as the
real secret to writing good "Star Trek" episodes.
I think you'll enjoy it. [-jak]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
There is one way to find out if a man is honest: ask him; if he says yes, you know he is crooked.
-- Mark Twain
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK