THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
01/03/03 -- Vol. 21, No. 27
Big Cheese: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Little Cheese: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Science Fiction Reading Group (announcement)
Stupid Questions (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
HAPPY HERE AND NOW (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE INTENDED (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE BARONESS AND THE PIG (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
LABYRINTH (book review by Tom Russell)
This Week's Reading (Lisa Goldstein's TOURISTS, Sarah
Orne Jewett's THE COUNTRY OF THE POINTED FIRS,
Pat Murphy's THERE AND BACK AGAIN, Gahan Wilson)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fiction Reading Group (announcement)
The Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library is starting a science fiction
reading group which will be meeting monthly. The first meeting is
Tuesday, January 14, at 7 PM. The library is in the municipal
complex at the corner of Route 516 and Cottrell Road, just east of
where Route 9 crosses Route 516. All are welcome; one doesn't
need to be an Old Bridge resident. Further directions on request.
===================================================================
TOPIC: Stupid Questions (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
There seems to be this whole controversy about the question
"What would Jesus drive?" One Rev. Dan Smith carried a placard
with that question last spring. Somehow it does not seem to be
going away. It has caused a big backlash of people claiming it
is a really stupid question. That brings me to the subject of
stupid questions.
I worked for a telecommunications giant that broke up and I was
working for a telecommunications medium. It broke up and I was
working for a telecommunications midget. It didn't make a lot
of difference to me, but for the purposes of this story it may
mean something to the reader. A major part of what I did was
being basically a repository of technical information on many
levels. I saw my job as being a general problem solver.
Whatever sorts of technical problems people were having they
could bring them to me and I could pull the problem out of my
memory if I had seen it or one like it before. I termed this
"leveraging off of commonality." It certainly was true that
there came to be a lot of things that people needed to know that
I was the only person who knew the answer and who had experience
with the problem. It was a fun job, like solving puzzles for a
living.
I had to answer a mixed set of questions. And a mixed set of
questions is like the contents in a can of mixed nuts. In the
larger sizes you don't really get that many. Those tend to
percolate to the top and get seen. They are like the Brazil
nuts. You get more almond-sized questions. But the biggest
majority of what you get are the smaller peanuts. I spent a lot
of my time on small and non-technical problems. Solving these
problems did not impress anybody but the person who brought the
problem to me. Generally these were for secretaries and
managing department heads who frequently shared the same sense
of bewilderment at the workings of computers and often would
explain to me that they were just not lucky with computers. The
people who were more technical were a different matter. Brazil
nut questions generally came from technical people who were
facing very interesting logic questions on how to get a piece of
software to do something nobody else would have thought to use
it for. When these questions came up frequently I could design
interesting solutions. But the vast majority of questions came
not from this priesthood but from the bewildered.
Now it is almost inevitable that when you get to talking to
people who deal with the general population in a company they
start swapping "stupid questions" from customers. Since I was
known to deal with a lot of people at lower levels of knowledge
about the technology it was expected that I would have a lot of
so-called "stupid customer" stories. I am afraid that I was
always a disappointment in these discussions because I genuinely
did not have any favorite stories and probably not even any that
were not my favorite. What I told people was that I didn't
consider that I had stupid customers and I did not get what I
would consider to be stupid questions. They assumed that this
was out of idealism of some sort. People assumed that I didn't
want to talk ill of my customers.
There is some truth to that. But also I tend to want to be sure
that if I call a question stupid that it really is. Every
example I have ever heard of seems not really to come from
stupidity but from some insight that I had not seen. If I think
about these questions for a moment I end up with a crisis of
faith, disbelieving that the question really is stupid. I have
gotten to the point where I am skeptical that stupid questions
exist anywhere.
Let me give you an example. I was reading an account of what it
was like to work at a Barnes and Noble Bookstore. The author
was talking about customers that she found offensively stupid.
This immediately made me skeptical that I would agree with her
or think very much of her. She said they asked the question,
"What kind of book would my friends like?" She wanted to
respond, "I don't know. How should I know your friends' taste?"
She considered this to be a really stupid question. I don't
think that is a stupid question at all. I know films better
than books, but if someone asked me what films would their
friends like, I would say THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING or OCTOBER
SKY. The simple fact is that just about anybody who does not
have an aversion to cinema likes these movies. There are books
that are for very individual tastes and others that are more
widely liked. I think the author of the article just did not
give the question much thought. She didn't know what were the
popular books in her store, which, let us say, does not reflect
well on her, working as she did in a bookstore.
Someone who had read my India travel journal wrote to me
complaining about stupid tourists and the stupid questions they
asked. He was at a zoo in India looking at the monkey cage and
an American asked him "Is monkey sacred in India?" My
correspondent asked me what kind of stupid question was that. I
still am not sure of the reason for his vehemence. I wrote my
correspondent back saying, that perhaps it was not such a stupid
question. The tourist knew that cows were sacred in India.
That seems strange enough to an American. A monkey seems even
closer to a human. Implicit in the question is what is it that
makes one species of animal sacred in the Hindu religion. I am
sure my correspondent decided I was as stupid as the other
American was. At least he never wrote back.
It sounds cornball, I know, but I think the reason I never
perceived I was getting stupid questions, is that for every
stupid question I can generally find a fairly intelligent
question behind it. I am a little hard pressed to find an
engaging question behind "What would Jesus drive?" But I do
have 1/7 of the answer. From sundown on Friday to sundown on
Saturday he wouldn't. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: HAPPY HERE AND NOW (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A decidedly unhappy attempt to mix jazz music, science
fiction, the Internet, all into an incoherent attempt at a
thriller. The plot, never really explained so it makes sense,
seems to involve software that disguises people on the Internet
and somehow has something to do with a missing girl. This is a
good one to skip. Rating: 1 (0 to 10), -2 (-4 to +4)
One of the things I require of a movie is that it make sense.
This one didn't. Incoherence is no substitute for an
explanation of what we have seen, to matter how artistic the
intent. Director Michael Almereyda (NADJA) did not seem to want
to tell a story so much as to have a frame for some filmed jazz
sequences and to put some enigmatic images on the screen.
Amelia, played by Liane Balaban, is looking for a sister who
disappeared. Living in New Orleans with her aunt Lois (Ally
Sheedy), Muriel (Shalom Harlow) disappeared leaving no clue
except that her beloved PC's memory was wiped clean. Amelia
goes looking for Muriel with the help of a cabdriver and part
time detective Bill (Clarence Williams III of "The Mod Squad").
Amelia believes her sister's disappearance is connected with a
web site with a live host Eddie Mars. Unfortunately what can be
seen on the computer of Eddie Mars may have nothing to do with
the real person. There is software that allows people to appear
on the web in real time with a digitally created face and voice
entirely different from the real person. (A similar idea is a
throwaway in S1M0NE.) The circle of people involved gets larger
to include a fireman, a termite control expert, and a local
legend of Rhythm and Blues, Ernie K-Doe.
The movie gets stranger and more dreamlike until it is unclear
what is really happening. Writer and director Michael Almereyda
seemed more concerned with forcing in his jazz musical
interludes than in telling his story.
There are several technical problems with the script. It claims
that Blaise Pascal invented calculus. That was Isaac Newton and
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Pascal invented the study of
probability. The claim is made that in a little-known past,
Nikola Tesla did not die but went on to invent cloning. While
that is not impossible, cloning was a long way out of Tesla's
area of interest and genius.
But the real problem with the film is that it does not really
come together into any real conclusion to the mystery. I fount
HAPPY HERE AND NOW not at all happy and rather than now here it
was nowhere. I give it a 1 on the 0 to 10 scale and a -2 on the
-4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE INTENDED (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Two innocents, an optimistic surveyor and his fiancee,
come to a steamy, sinister trading settlement in the Malaysian
Jungle. They run afoul of a supremely dysfunctional family.
Black moods and blacker deeds in the grim deep undergrowth.
Rating: 4 (0 to 10), 0 (-4 to +4)
This is a sort of tawdry melodrama set in a sticky, sleazy,
sweaty trading outpost in the jungle on the Menkuang River near
Ivory Bay. Presumably this was somewhat inspired by Joseph
Conrad and might have stood with his works if there was some
deep profundity obvious. Sadly, there was no such resonance
evident. That leaves just the dark and dank emotional drama. A
British couple, betrothed but not yet married, come to the
jungle trading post as the husband Haimish (JJ Feild) has been
hired to explore roots in the forest. He goes off on an
expedition to do so, leaving his wife-to-be in the hands of the
rather unsavory family that runs the trading post. The family
consists of the woman who runs the post for "the Company" ("Out
here I am the company," Mrs. Jones proudly proclaims), her
nephew, and her son William who seems wasting into barbarity.
William has been educated in England, but now sits like an
animal in a cage and broods resenting his mother's power over
him. There is also the degraded and conscience-ridden priest
and maybe one or two others. All are struggling over the little
bit of money there is because it is the only ticket back to
civilization. Kristian Levring directs and Janet McTeer,
Olympia Dukakis, and Brenda Fricker star. The cast is good and
one might find oneself pulled in by the mood. But taking a step
backward it just seems like overwrought claptrap.
The basic concept of people trapped in a sweaty hell, looking
for the money to get anywhere but there could have been borrowed
from WAGES OF FEAR, but sadly THE INTENDED shares none of that
film's excitement. Instead, it is a story of power and evil in
the jungle that has everything that Conrad would give it but
deep meaning. I give it a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the
-4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE BARONESS AND THE PIG (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is a rather heavy-handed parable of the sort that
was made in the 1970s about sexism and class-prejudice. Set in
1887, it has a heroic, free-thinking American woman married to a
French baron come to Paris fresh with new ideas on how to make a
more just future. She finds barriers to her late-20th century
values in a society in the staid class-conscious male-chauvinist
society. The nice look of the film cannot compensate for the
didactic writing. Rating: 4 (0 to 10), 0 (-4 to +4)
THE BARONESS AND THE PIG has a great grasp of late 20th century
values and attitudes. The problem is that is it set in 1887.
The setting is Paris of 1887 and the Baron (Colm Feore) has
brought his new American wife, a former Quaker (Patricia
Clarkson) to the city and hide-bound society. The Baroness has
plans of creating a social salon using new electronics like
electric light and the phonograph. She does not yet know that
she will be expected to follow the strict rules of society and
in particular the dictates of her husband. Never mind that he
is a foolish, selfish, worthless man.
The Baroness has enlightened ideas that she got from her raising
in America. The first of her project will be to adopt a feral
child. The child was raised with pigs and the Baroness wants to
mold her into a perfect housemaid. She will bring technology
like electric lighting so that the poor will not have to live in
the dark. She will form her own salon where people will gather
and talk about the new enlightened world that is coming.
Yet nothing the Baroness seems to come to much due to
conspiracies against her. High members of society are aghast at
her new ideas. They feel inexpensive light is a mistake. Then
even the poor will have light. "Light must be spread
judiciously." The Baron, who cheats in business and then brags
about it, and who indulges himself with pornography, and who
rapes the maids, is convinced he must keep his wife in line to
protect society and to maintain his own power. When the
Baroness tries to act as a good influence on her husband he
coldly informs her that he married her out of charity.
Michael Mackenzie who directed and wrote the film based on his
own play has a real feel for melodrama but not subtlety.
Subtlety in this script consists of touches like leaving the
ambiguity of whom the title refers to as "the pig." The film
wends its way to its cathartic but rather predictable
conclusion.
Patricia Clarkson of THE GREEN MILE stars as the Baroness who
believes in a bright future through science but whose personal
dreams are destroyed. Colm Feore of TITUS plays the despicable
Baron. Feore seems to have the kind of face one casts as an
insensitive person. It is rather comforting to see veteran
actor Bernard Hepton around and working. I have liked Hepton
since his role in the "Colditz" television series which must
have been made nearly three decades ago. Here he plays an
intelligent and well-intentioned butler.
Mackenzie gives the film a nice antique look by filming in
Hungary. The film is short in HDCAM, a video process. The
images are generally sharp but there are still a few drawbacks.
The process does however create interference patterns when
showing intricate patterns as with lace. The small print of the
closing credits also showed pixels. Bright lights would create
a dark video halo. But the technology seems promising. I rate
THE BARONESS AND THE PIG a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the
-4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Year-end book review and comments: LABYRINTH by Mark
T. Sullivan (book review by Tom Russell):
Multiple choice quiz:
The moon is made of ________ ?
a. Green cheese
b. Rocks and dust
c. Alien nanotechnology among rocks and dust
d. Philosophers' stones among rocks and dust
Several books I read in 2002 suggested answers to this little
quiz.
If you've recently read Steven Baxter's MOONSEED you might have
selected answer "c" here. In it, a rock from an Apollo mission
is discovered to be an alien nanotechnology "seed."
In the MINORITY REPORT collection of Philip K. Dick stories, I
read his excellent "Autofac," of which I'll say no more other
than that it should be mentioned here, and it is a very clever
story.
What exactly is "nano" technology anyhow? Perhaps if I read
PREY, Michael Crichton's newest, he'll have an opinion on this
subject. But I didn't care for CONGO nor TIMELINE so I'm not in
a hurry to read PREY.
Anyhow, I find a book on the returned-books cart at the library:
LABYRINTH by Mark T. Sullivan (copyright 2002). Judging from
the picture on the cover, perhaps this will make a good gift for
our son-in-law. He enjoys extreme cave exploring. The cover
picture shows a cave explorer rappelling into the deep. So I
check it out to check it out.
From the first page I have a problem: "(The moon is made of)
... rocks sent hurtling through space by the Big Bang."
If it weren't for the son-in-law gift possibility I would've
given up on the book at the first page. But I persevere a bit.
Soon we meet the main good guys, not-so-good guys and one very
bad guy. Seems this bad guy is in cahoots with a mad scientist.
Really.
Now the caving excitement begins. Sullivan may not have a clue
on most basic science, but he has done his homework on caving.
Maybe our son-in-law would enjoy this book after all?
Anyhow, I go to buy the book at B&N, but they don't have it in
the store nor do they have it on order. Perhaps their book
reviewer doesn't have an extreme cave explorer in the family?
They do have an earlier Sullivan novel on the shelf.
I'm going to stop wasting time on the book, but it's easier to
go online to renew it than to take it back, so I read a little
more. This is when LABYRINTH inspired the quiz above. It's not
a spoiler to reveal that one of the unexamined rocks from the
Apollo missions is discovered to be a "philosopher's stone" by
the mad scientist - who has been disfigured by being exposed to
its quark decay. Yes, its quark decay...
LABYRINTH takes "science fiction" around a new bend. Well,
perhaps not a new bend but certainly a wrong bend.
To be fair, Sullivan does acknowledge the liberties he has taken
with the history of the Apollo project and with science in
general. The real fun in LABYRINTH is finding all his "science
fiction."
Here's how Ebert and Roeper might rate the books I mentioned,
if they ever read books, and if they agreed with my opinion:
MOONSEED - one thumb up
LABYRINTH - one thumb half up
TIMELINE - two thumbs cut off
CONGO - two heads chewed off
So LABYRINTH ain't so bad after all. On a 1 to 10 scale I would
rate it at seven and a half groaners.
P.S. After the first draft of this I now read that USA Today
rates PREY a "disappointment," calling it too technical to be a
commercial success. "Technical" I go for, so I'll request PREY
at our library. [-tlr]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Sometimes when you read a book, or the context in which you read
it, can affect how you view it.
For example, I just re-read Lisa Goldstein's TOURISTS as a bit
of research on magical realism. I then read Sarah Orne Jewett's
THE COUNTRY OF THE POINTED FIRS, a turn-of-the-century series
of vignettes about coastal Maine. Though it certainly wasn't
intended as magical realism (and indeed, the notion of magical
realism hadn't been invented yet), it certainly read that way.
I started Pat Murphy's THERE AND BACK AGAIN, a book highly
recommended by several people recently. But I found the
parallels to Tolkien's THE HOBBIT annoying rather than
intriguing, and gave up. Maybe it's a question of mood, because
I know a lot of people do like it.
I finished Gahan Wilson's STILL WEIRD, a collection of his
macabre cartoons. There's no one like him. Perhaps the fact
that he was born dead and is a descendent of P. T. Barnum
(*and* Willing Jennings Bryan) has something to do with it. The
only artist even close to his style is Edward Gorey, and Gorey is
far more formal and restrained. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Some people have a large circle of friends
while others have only friends that they like.
-- Anonymous
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/