@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 05/18/01 -- Vol. 19, No. 46
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@avaya.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@avaya.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@avaya.com
HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
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. For those of you interested in reading this year's Hugo nominees
on-line:
- the nominated short fiction that appeared in ANALOG is available
at http://www.analogsf.com/0107/issue_0107.html
- the nominated short fiction that appeared in ASIMOV'S is
available at http://www.asimovs.com
- David Langford's "Different Kinds of Darkness" is available at
http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/fiction/dl01.htm
- Stanly Schmidt's "Generation Gap" is available at
http://www.lrcpubs.com/artemismagazine/issue01/gengap1.html
- I have no information yet about availabilty of Ted Chiang's
"Seventy-Two Letters"
[-ecl]
===================================================================
2. So long and thanks for all the books: Douglas Adams died Friday,
May 11, at the age of 49 of a heart attack. A tribute from actor
Stephen Fry is available at
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,489979,00.html. [-
ecl]
===================================================================
3. Some people are complaining that the new National Budget is
cutting taxes for the rich but including no new funds for
education. The Republicans, of course, deny that that is what the
budget does. At the same time US NEWS & WORLD REPORT ran a special
issue on how to choose a boarding school. I guess we know how they
see the budget. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. Most people never visit the tourist attractions that bring
people to the areas they live. So frequently you hear a New Yorker
say he has never been to the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State
Building. I try not to do that. I have been to most of the major
tourist attractions within a day's striking distance of my home.
Springtime rolls around, the weather turns pleasant, and Evelyn and
I feel it would be nice to get on the road and to go see something
historic. A few weeks ago we went to Valley Forge. This was the
campground where General George Washington parked his troops from
late December 19, 1777, until June 19, 1778. It is now a National
Park.
There is contradictory information about how bad things were for
the American troops. Most sources--and the legend--say that it was
a horribly cold winter and the men were near starvation.
Nevertheless they remained fiercely loyal to George Washington.
That was what the legend says and within days of their leaving
Valley Forge they took on the British at Monmouth where they had a
stunning victory. From that point on the war went against the
British.
Historian Richard Shenkman, whose best known works try to puncture
legends and myths, disagrees. In his I LOVE PAUL REVERE WHETHER HE
RODE OR NOT he says that conditions were really no worse that
winter than during the rest of the war. Washington intentionally
created the myth of the terrible winter himself trying to lobby
Congress to give more aid to his army and as a defense against the
criticism that he was not doing a very good job as commander.
Indeed when I look at an almanac of the American Revolution with
major events about what was happening at this time, it says little
about Washington actually commanding the troops or much heroic at
all being done. Instead it talks about a matter that makes
Washington sound a lot less like a hero and more like a petty child
involved in a disagreement. It was this disagreement that seemed
to be occupying Washington's mind at Valley Forge. Needless to say
this is not the Washington that the National Parks Service tends to
present to the public at the park. [Y
Of 11000 soldiers in camp, 300 died, mostly of disease. There were
268 courts martial, and as is often forgotten, hundreds of
floggings. A standard punishment was flogging. Washington said of
the winter, "By death and desertion we have lost a good many men
since we came to this ground and have encountered every species of
hardship that cold, wet, and hunger and want of clothes were
capable of producing."
In fact the National Parks people labor under a handicap at Valley
Forge that their peers at places like Antietam and at Gettysburg do
not have. Their problem is that nothing much happened at Valley
Forge. Think about what you know about Valley Forge. You hear
about the cold winter and the hardship. There is no special site
of hardship. What do the Parks staff have to show people? Where
the troops drilled? Where they had cabins? That is all OK, but it
lacks the blood and thunder of a battlefield. People like to see
ground sanctified by blood and struggle.
The park consists of a Visitor Center that is mostly museum and
souvenir shop. Next door is a theater where they have an 18-minute
film about Valley Forge. Elsewhere for a two-dollar ticket you can
see Washington's headquarters which is indistinguishable from
anybody else's tiny house from the period. If you are not really
excited about a bed that can justifiably claim, "George Washington
slept here" you can save yourself the expense and effort. So there
is little really exciting to see.
They have special events to liven things up. We got to two special
events. One was a demonstration by two history reenactors of
musket and rifle. Mentioned was that prime targets on the
battlefield were always the commanders of the other side. I asked
them afterward about that. I said that there were probably all
sorts of errors in THE PATRIOT. What about the implication in the
film that the British thought that it was bad sport to aim for the
commanding officers. They thought it was a ridiculous thing for
the script to have Cornwallis say. Of course Cornwallis had his
men aim for the Continental commanders and we aimed for theirs. We
asked them a little about historic reenactment. Sometimes they
follow a strict scenario, other times they are more like war
gaming.
The other special event was a real joy. One of the rangers was
giving a talk, with short dramatizations, about a nearly forgotten
gang of outlaws who allied themselves with the Tories and against
the Continentals. The story of Doane Gang seems to be every bit as
dramatic as those of the cowboy gangs a century or more later.
Moses Doane headed the gang and terrorized New York and New Jersey.
The ranger puts on a good show. He also enjoyed discussing cinema
we later discovered. He mentioned that the park authorities were
not happy with his choice of subject matter for his presentations.
Why talk about criminals when so many American heroes were around
then, but the talk added some much needed excitement.
My chuckle of the day came from a little boy in the museum in the
visitor center. There were reprints of three paintings of George
Washington. The boy asked his mother in frustration "How come
there aren't any REAL pictures of him?"
Next week I will continue with Valley Forge, but mostly I will say
something about an affair of political intrigue that occurred at
that time and puts Washington in a new light you probably did not
learn about in school. [-mrl]
===================================================================
5. A KNIGHT'S TALE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: The story is intentionally
anachronistic. That would be excusable since
it is clearly deliberate. The tale is a highly
cliched sports story devoid of surprises or
interest. Brian Helgeland writes and directs,
inspired by a story of THE CANTERBURY TALES.
Rating: 4 (0 to 10), low 0 (-4 to +4)
Just a week ago I was complaining that the film THE MUMMY RETURNS
was severely damaged by its lack of period feel in the scenes set
in 1933. That was a story whose premise was fantasy, so the rest
of the film really needed to be realistic to avoid having the
proceedings become a total cartoon. Before I saw the film I was
getting ready to explain why I would give A KNIGHT'S TALE more
latitude to play with the period feel. Here the anachronism is the
point of the film and is done intentionally. In fact, there might
even be a good constructive reason to introduce anachronism. In
medieval times there must have been a lot of slang expressions used
in every day conversation. Few of these would be likely to be
known today, particularly to non-scholars. Where we might say,
"get a life," they might have had some other expression, something
we no longer know. So as long as the actors were speaking Modern
English anyway, they could say, "get a life" and still be authentic
to the period. As long as the writing made clear that was how the
anachronism was being used, the anachronism would be more or less
acceptable. So I had this great defense of A KNIGHT'S TALE all
prepared. I saw A KNIGHT'S TALE, however, and now I don't want to
defend the film.
A film needs at least to have either an interesting and original
story or an interesting background. For example, the film DEAD
CALM has what was a fairly cliched slasher story at least had an
interesting nautical background. If the viewer get bored with the
main plot there is enough else that is of interest. This is not
the case with A KNIGHT'S TALE. The background atmosphere is
intentionally murdered, and the foreground story is boringly
obvious. Even the jokes are not very funny.
The year is 1356--well sort of. More like a 21st century 1356.
When a knight dies of natural causes, his squire William (played by
Heath Ledger of THE PATRIOT) substitutes for his master. Will wins
and discovers he has some unexpected skill as a jouster. With two
associates as his crew, and a third poet he finds on the road, they
become a team. The poet is one Geoffrey Chaucer (Paul Battany) who
helps William forge the noble origins necessary to be a jouster.
The fraudulent nobleman soon falls in love with a beautiful woman
he has seen in passing, Jocelyn (Shannyn Sossamon). And the knight
has a rival for Jocelyn's hand as well as a rival in the field in
person of Count Adhemar (Rufus Sewell). From there the plot is a
standard, not to say tiresome, sports success story. The only
halfway interesting character is Kate (Laura Fraser of TITUS), a
woman blacksmith whom the group pick up along the way.
Of course, none of this is allowed to in any way feels much like
1356. Audiences at the joust sing, "We Will... We Will... Rock
You" while doing the Wave. The modern music and the 21st century
gestures all give the film a sort of semi-whimsical surreal feel,
much like some of the scenes in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL.
Brian Hanson who produced, directed, and wrote the screenplay is
probably best known for his writing the screenplay and co-producing
the much better L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. He also co-wrote the screenplay
for the under-appreciated THE POSTMAN. Each had a much better
plots than A KNIGHT'S TALE. The film's production design is by
Tony Burrough. Burrough also did production design on nice looking
films like 1995's RICHARD III and 1998's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. This
film generally has a good look if not much substance. A few places
model-work is not well integrated with live action. Also some
scenes seem to be shot at twelve or perhaps eight frames per
second. A similar effect was used in GLADIATOR. I personally find
this style jarring and having very little positive effect.
With a plot older than, well, CANTERBURY TALES and an unconvincing
background, this film just totally misses its mark. Still, nearly
all its sins would be excusable if the plot had been a little
better. I rate this film a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low 0 on
the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
6. THE LUZHIN DEFENCE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: John Turturro stars as Alexandre
Luzhin, a chess Grand Master and genius who
seems nearly an idiot savant. At an important
championship, he briefly meets a woman and
decides he wants to marry her. Through
interwoven flashbacks we see how he became the
chess genius that he is and get a little feel
for how he thinks. It is so enjoyable to see
one film in which the competition is on an
intellectual plane rather than a physical one.
Rating: 9 (0 to 10), +3 (-4 to +4)
Somehow I think of the works of Vladimir Nabokov as being deep with
psychological and Freudian meanings. I have never read his books
but have not been greatly impressed by the film versions of LOLITA.
So I am not sure what I expected from THE LUZHIN DEFENCE.
Certainly what I expected was not a delectable comedy-drama about a
near-autistic chess genius, his courtship, and the intrigue against
him at a chess championship. But what makes the film most fun is
the view into how a chess master thinks, how the driving need for
chess has disordered the rest of his mind, and how he copes in the
world because of it. It may be an odd coincidence, but the two
best films I have seen this year, MEMENTO and THE LUZHIN DEFENCE
both deal with people with damaged minds and how they cope in the
"real" world.
In the late 1930s Natalia Katkov (played by Emily Watson) is
meeting her parents for a stay at a ritzy and beautiful Italian
resort. Natalia's parents hope she will meet a wealthy husband at
the resort and they have a particular count in mind. Just at this
time the resort is the site of an international chess championship.
A grand master at the contest is the strange Alexandre Luzhin (John
Turturro). Luzhin seems to have devoted every useful neuron of his
mind to chess at the expense of his ability to function in the
normal world. He is known for his weird behavior, like dancing to
music that nobody else hears, but still held in awe. The man
perpetually looks as if he was just awakened from a deep sleep and
finds himself in the middle of a brass band.
After a short chance encounter with Natalia, Luzhin surprises her
by proposing marriage. Natalia's mother was hoping her daughter
would find a husband, but this social misfit was not what she had
in mind. The young woman, however, is unhappy with suitors of
great style and lessor substance. This chess master has no style
so all there is to see is his substance. Before Luzhin has time
for Natalia he must win the current championship and at the same
time must deal with the demons of his youth.
Through interwoven flashbacks we learn about Luzhin's boyhood, one
which in some ways parallels his present. He is the son of parents
who do not get along, and he does not get along with his teachers.
When his father shows him chess to focus his mind it works only too
well, but then his mind is focused only on chess. The results are
reminiscent of the film SHINE. One montage seems to imply he is so
consumed by his love of chess that he cannot even make love without
his mind returning to the game he loves. Yet there is little about
the great game he can explain to Natalia other than that there are
what he calls "strong" moves and "quiet" moves. The strong moves
are obvious and show power. But the quiet moves are subtle and
actually make it possible to exercise power. But working to bring
him down is a mysterious man who is master of both kinds of move in
a larger game than chess.
The resort created for this film is sumptuous, especially the room
designed for chess competition. It invites comparison to the
similar room at the beginning of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. The
costume work is complex and appears accurate. The camera
repeatedly returns to images of crystal, through which we see the
same world we see with our eyes, but distorted. This is much as
the distorted view Luzhin has of our world.
Marleen Gorris, who directed this film, is fifty years old and was
born in Holland. Her previous films include a didactic ANTONIA'S
LINE from 1995 and MRS. DALLOWAY in 1998. The production design is
by Tony Burrough who also did the design for RICHARD III (1995),
GREAT EXPECTATIONS (1998), and A KNIGHT'S TALE (2001).
THE LUZHIN DEFENCE is an unexpectedly likable film about a man who
has given his whole mind and life over to the passion of chess. It
is part thriller, part character study. I rate it a 9 on the 0 to
10 scale and a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
7. SHADOW OF THE HEGEMON, by Orson Scott Card (Tor, Copyright 2000,
ISBN 0-312-87651-3, hardcover, $25.95) (a book review by Joe
Karpierz):
In my review of the previous book in this series, ENDER'S SHADOW, I
wrote the following:
I have mixed feelings, however. Is this novel as good as I think
it is because it's well crafted, telling the same story from a
different perspective, making it fresh all over again? Or is this
novel good only because the original was good, and it's essentially
the same story?
I now have an answer to that question. ENDER'S SHADOW was good
only because the original story was good (ENDER'S GAME), and it's
essentially the same story.
To be fair, that may still not be true. However, judging by the
latest entry in the series, SHADOW OF THE HEGEMON, it certainly is
true. This book is nowhere near as good as ENDER'S SHADOW, and the
reason can be found in the afterword. Some readers may know that
Card was going to write a prequel trilogy to the Ender series.
Well, we find out that the story has expanded from three to four
books because of a comment made by one of his pre-readers (if you
will), who suggested a change be made (which I will describe a bit
later). This stretching out of this book, which in turn caused an
extra book to be written (sort of like Douglas Adams writing the
fifth book in the Hitchhiker's Trilogy), causes this novel to slow
to an absolute crawl.
In short, I was bored.
This is a military novel, a political novel, a novel about
diplomacy. Which, I suppose, is all well and good if that's what
you're interested in and looking for. The novel takes place not
long after the end of the Formic War--the war against the buggers.
Humanity has won, led by the children in the Battle School, as we
have seen in ENDER'S GAME and ENDER'S SHADOW. The Battle School
has been disbanded, Ender has gone off to participate in events
chronicled in SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, and all the rest of the Battle
School kids have gone home to be with their families. The nations
of the world now want to re-exert their sovereignty after
temporarily uniting with each other to fight off the invaders.
What better way to gain an advantage by kidnapping and using Battle
School children for their own purposes? So, one by one, all the
kids are kidnapped.
Except Bean. They (there's always a "they", isn't there?) want him
dead instead. It turns out that Achilles, Bean's old nemesis from
Battle School, is behind the kidnappings. It turns out he wants to
rule the world himself. Then there's Peter Wiggin, Ender's
brother--he sees what Achilles is doing and wants to stop it. And
he asks Bean for help. The other major player in our little drama
is Petra, the Battle School cadet who fell asleep while fighting a
battle during the formic war. She is kept closely guarded by
Achilles himself, who is using her in a gigantic real life game of
Risk, in which he sees himself as the winner.
Ah, Petra, it's not your fault that this book went wrong. You see,
Petra's escape was meant to be quick and early on in the novel.
However, as it turns out, via recommendation from that pre-reader,
her escape is made the focal point of the novel. Card says he
would be cheating his reader if her escape occurred early in the
book. I say he's boring his readers by drawing the story out like
that. I say he's stealing my valuable reading time by extending
this story like that.
Now maybe you like military, political novels, novels about
diplomacy. I might too, if I read a good one. I didn't like this
one at all. Which of course begs the question of whether I'm going
to read the next one. Well, of course I am, because among other
things I'm a completist. And I also have this insane desire to see
if it will get any better. Don't continue on your own--it should
only be done by a trained professional.
Which means that I shouldn't be doing it either.
Moving on to other things, as readers of this erstwhile publication
already know, the Hugo nominations are out. Evelyn has asked me if
I was going to review the nominees for best novel again, as it has
become somewhat of a tradition. The answer is yes. In looking at
the nominations, it's going to be a tough road, because I'm
predisposed against fantasy novels, and I see two on the list. But
I'll give it my best shot. I promise.
In any case, my next review will be of HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET
OF FIRE. It was easy to get a hold of a copy--I just walked into
my daughter's room and asked if I could borrow it. I was almost
hoping she's say no. :-) [-jak]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@avaya.com
Racism is not widespread among most of British society, but it permeates every nook and cranny of the race
relations industry.
-- Lord Norman Tebbit
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK