THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
06/27/03 -- Vol. 21, No. 52
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:
Administrivia
Zoos (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
HULK (a.k.a. THE HULK) (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
FINDING NEMO (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
BONES OF THE EARTH (book review by Joseph Karpierz)
Reviewing the 2002 Short Story Hugo Nominees
(comments by Dale L. Skran)
This Week's Reading (TIME AND AGAIN, CONQUISTADOR,
LAST STOP VIENNA) (book comments by
Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Administrivia
Thanks to Rob Mitchell and Steve Goldsmith for sending out the MT
VOIDs during our vacation. This issue is a bit late because we
hadn't prepared it ahead of time, not being sure how long we'd we
gone. We got a number of pieces of mail about the notice while
we were gone. Please be patient, I am trying to answer them all.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Zoos (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
On our recent travels we went to the zoo in Louisville, Kentucky.
For me a zoo is always a sort of guilty pleasure. I do enjoy
seeing the diversity of animal life and to some extent the
behavior of the animals. But I am still bothered by what I see.
I am someone who bores very easily and hates boredom. I have
always been this way and have even developed a vast number of
portable means to avoid boredom--books on my palmtop, etc.
I think a zoo is a mechanism to transfer boredom from humans to
animals and I feel a little guilty about that when I visit one. I
cannot help myself. Whenever I visit a zoo I start looking at the
size of enclosures and I compare them in my mind with what living
in the wild offered these animals. No wonder most animals lie
around and sleep during the day.
Animals are probably a little less bothered by boredom than are
humans, I think. . They probably have a lower intellectual
capacity. It is one we tend to underrate, but it is still lower.
If I remember, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas in THE HIDDEN LIFE OF DOGS
concludes that what dogs really want from life is just to be in
each others' presence. They want to be surrounded by their loved
ones. One's mother in another part of the country notwithstanding,
humans generally want more than to just be in each others' company.
Language has given us higher aspirations and better things to do
with our minds and our lives. I would like to think that boredom
is more of a problem with humans than with animals. But zoos are
really more or less factories of boredom for animals. Animals are
incarcerated in pens and condemned to routine and an easy diet.
This must be agonizing for them.
There are probably other reasons why our prisons are hellholes but
one of the reasons is that when a prison is running ideally they
are also boredom factories and humans cannot stand boredom.
Animals may have a little higher capacity for boredom I believe,
but zoos are just not designed to intellectually challenge animals
and that must take its toll.
We saw in the gorilla enclosure that the inmates (exhibits?) were
just sitting around trying to sleep to pass the time. The awake
ones would look listlessly at the spectators, but there is not
much in the cells to interest the gorillas and the wall of glass
reduces the spectators to just images of tangential relevance to
gorilla life. These gorillas seem to have lost their fight with
lassitude and just wait for endless time to pass.
Is this unpleasant for the gorillas? I think apes have minds
similar to our own, including perhaps a sort of common decency not
all that different from our own. People were astounded when at
the Chicago Zoo a visitor accidentally and somewhat carelessly
dropped her baby into the gorilla pen. In what is now a famous
incident a female gorilla reacted by gently picking up the baby,
cradling it in her arms, and taking it to the access door to wait
for a human to come in and pick up the baby. I think most people
would consider this an action of common decency. But we generally
apply that word "common" only to humans and not to the wider range
of apes. Apparently it is decency common to both humans and
gorillas. I firmly believe that when you deal with a gorilla you
are dealing with a reasoning being. Its differences from humans
are perhaps in part the result of what we judge is a lower
intellectual capacity, but it is not very much lower. The
diferences are also--and perhaps more--the effect of a cultural
difference. A gorilla seems to be a thinking being with
intelligence not far from our own.
It may sound like I am over-anthropomorphizing gorillas. But I
think that science is coming out of the period when it reduced
animals to machines. It refused to use the similarity of some
animal minds and human minds to understand animal behavior. Where
we can apply the similarity, it is probably the best tool we have
for understanding animal behavior. Certainly what we know about
human behavior must be very applicable to ape behavior.
Put an animal into an enclosure and give him the same easy routine
from one day to the next and the reaction is lassitude or
challenging the system with bad behavior. The same reaction is
probably true in prisons. For humans the answer to this problem
is to give people opportunities to use their minds. That is
probably not as easy to do for zoo animals. So zoos become
prisons for animals. Zoos really should be made more challenging
for animals. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: HULK (a.k.a. THE HULK) (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Ambitious but ultimately dissatisfying film version of
the Marvel comic. A man periodically turns into a not-so-jolly
green giant. Ang Lee does the adaptation with ill-calculated
sensibility and not much sense. Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1
(-4 to +4)
There are some moments of excitement in HULK, an introspective
adaptation of Marvel Comics hero The Hulk. One has the big green
smashing machine fighting three monster hulk-dogs, including what
may be the screen's first monster French Poodle. But the film's
most intriguing scene has the ultimate in human rage fighting
instruments of mechanized warfare, represented by several attack
helicopters. It is the 21st century battle of the angry man
versus machine. But the moments of real excitement are kept to a
minimum for too long in this film. Until the final third, the
film is overly self-conscious and introspective as if Lee, in
trying to bring more to the comic book story, lost the original
vital essence. This is a film about rage turning a man into a
monster and the audience needs to feel rage or they cannot
participate in the experience.
Berkeley scientist Bruce Banner (played by Eric Bana) does
bio-medical research. He struggles with the fact he cannot
remember his early childhood. He gets his clues in dreams which
keep prodding him with images from a past trauma which has
cauterized his memories of the past. Betty Ross (Jennifer
Connelly) works with him and strangely also contends with her own
images from the past.
Bruce believes himself to be an orphan, but somewhere close by
lurks his father David Banner (played by Nick Nolte and in
flashbacks by Paul Kersey). His father did something just awful
with biomedical discoveries. We never find out exactly what it
was, but it left a legacy in Bruce's genes which when combined
with strong radioactivity turns him a pastel green, inflates him
like a Macy's float, and allows him to disregard walls and
ceilings when he moves his huge bulk around. Betty's father (Sam
Elliot) is an Army general. He knows that some powerful, weapon-
related hocus-pocus is going on. and the Army has left him in
charge of making sure America gets it first.
This all sounds like it a little more fun than it actually turns
out to be. The problem is the film is so dark and so slow to
unfold. It takes too long a time to unravel what the mystery
incident was even in a film a langurous 136 minutes in length. In
fact, we never actually learn the full story. We never even
understand exactly what all the scientific research is all about.
Equally strange is why General Ross is given such a free hand to
handle the situations he faces in the film. His occasional
ineptitude is so obvious that it telegraphs action well before it
happens. He also is inept in his relations with his daughter as
part of the two dysfunctional parent-child relationships that
support the plot structure. Lee maintains a subdued tone, trying
at times to be deep and psychological and even verge on the pseudo-
mystical. The Danny Elfman score is not his usual fare but
neither is it greatly notable.
Ang Lee bring gravity to superhero stories, but his hand is still
unsure. I rate HULK a disappointing 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a
low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
There are at least two questions that the film version brings to
mind. Bruce Banner seems to have something like 75 kilograms of
mass. He at least triples his volume when he becomes the Hulk.
Doesn't this make him rather fluffy rather than strong? Certainly
it leaves the question of where he gets his strength.
Even more intriguing is the question of how his pants manage to
continue to fit his midsection after it expands to several times
its size without ripping out the seams. The place where his pre-
expansion clothing would naturally be the tightest would be his
waistline. His pants would rip first instead of being the only
thing that survives. Lee seems to remember this detail in one or
two scenes, at one point showing an elastic waistline, but usually
he ignores it, hoping it will not be noticed.
[Everyone seems to be calling the film THE HULK, but the actual
title on the screen is just HULK.] [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: FINDING NEMO (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A timid tropical fish earns his stripes when he goes on a
quest to rescue his son. Pixar animation's new feature is
certainly an audience pleaser, but for once their new feature is
not clearly better than their previous work. Rating: 6 (0 to 10),
high +1 (-4 to +4)
Pixar Incorporated, the computer animation company that partners
with Disney, generally manages to make each new film they make
better than their previous effort. It is a faint criticism, but
FINDING NEMO is probably no better than being just on a par with
MONSTERS, INC. The animation is fine, at times spectacular. Much
of the humor is just puns with sea-related words and small
allusions to films and film-making. For example, a shark is given
the name of a famous prop shark used in another film.
As the story opens, Marlin (a clownfish voiced by Albert Brooks)
and his mate are expecting hundreds of their eggs to hatch soon.
In a moment's tragedy Marlin loses mate and eggs. Only one egg
is left. Sometime later Marlin is a single parent of a single
teenager-like offspring. Marlin has become extremely
risk-adverse, terrified that something will happen to little Nemo.
Then Nemo is captured for an aquarium in a dentist's office.
Marlin begins the long odyssey to find his son and return him
home. Along the way he picks up a traveling companion, Dory
(Ellen DeGeneres). Together they face the dangers of the sea to
travel from the Great Barrier Reef to a dentist's office in Sydney
and to perform an apparently impossible rescue. The writers seem
to have thought of all the ways a fish might possibly die and have
put them into the story. Still, this is a moving father-and-son
relationship, and one in which for once Disney does not
automatically assume that father knows best. The script develops
many characters of different types, with voices by actors
including Willem Dafoe and Austin Pendleton. Thomas Newman
provides the score.
Younger children may be desturbed by scenes of violence against
fish and a number of rather fierce and ugly-looking fish,
including three sharks ambivalent about eating other fish.
While not Pixar's best effort, FINDING NEMO still beats any Disney
animated film through 1960 and probably a good deal later. I rate
it a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
The film is shown with an older but still enjoyable Pixar short,
KNICK KNACK. Also, the end credits have some humorous animation.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BONES OF THE EARTH by Michael Swanwick (Harper Torch, 2002,
383pp, ISBN 0-380-81289-4, $7.50 pb) (book review by Joe Karpierz)
So, the first book I picked up after the Hugo nominations came out
was Michael Swanwick's BONES OF THE EARTH. The novel is one of
four nominations that Michael has received this year (along with
two short stories and one novelette). He seems to be very
popular, based on this fact. I was prepared to really like this
novel, based on his earlier Hugo-nominated novel, JACK FAUST.
I was disappointed.
BONES OF THE EARTH is a dinosaur/time travel/alien encounter
novel, and about the only thing that it delivers on is the
dinosaur element. The rest is disjointed, somewhat confusing,
and, in my mind, incomplete.
The story starts out following the recruitment of paleontologist
Richard Leyster into a time travel program by a man named
Griffin. The offer? Go to the Mesozoic to study dinosaurs - a
paleontologist's dream. He eventually accepts the offer (the act
of which we do not ever see - just the immediate effect of ending
up at a conference for paleontologists who have all been recruited
for the job) and climbs aboard. At the aforementioned conference,
we learn all sorts of things about the rules of time travel,
paradoxes (paradice? paradise?), and all that rot. What we, or
the conference attendees don't learn, is where the time travel
technology comes from, how it works, and why we have it. We
eventually get the answer to where it comes from and why we have
it, and of course we'll never find out how it works. :-)
Up until now things are interesting. Even the fact that rogue
scientist Dr. Gertrude Salley decides to mess with the paradox
effect keeps things going for awhile, but in general nothing
interesting happens for the rest of the novel. We meet the
Unchanging, emissaries of the entities that gave us time travel.
We meet the Old Man, but after we find out who he is, we never
find out how he got where he is in the power structure, something
that I deem crucial to keeping my interest once I found out who he
is. And we do meet the folks who gave us time travel, and they
tell us why they did it. But the reason, to me, is unsatisfying
(as an aside, I liken it to the philosophical reasonings behind
the war started by the Shadows vs. the Vorlons in BABYLON 5. I
suspect that I may not be alone in feeling that that little part
of the story was lame. But I digress.), and leaves me wanting
more. And just how did things turn out when our benefactors
change their minds?
In my mind, this novel was not Hugo quality. Heck, it wasn't
even that good. Give it a pass. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Reviewing the 2002 Short Story Hugo Nominees (comments by
Dale L. Skran)
General Comments: Given the dominance of ASIMOV'S recent years, I
was surprised to see two nominees from ANALOG, and also surprised
to find them among the better stories.
"Creation" by Jeffrey Ford (F&SF May 2002): This fantasy about a
child creating a little man of sorts is well written, but not my
cup of tea. Dale's #3 pick.
"Falling Onto Mars" by Geoffrey A. Landis (ANALOG Jul/Aug 2002):
This brutal yet realistic tale of the colonization of Mars depends
on a sort of trick, but for all that is a decent nominee. Dale's
#2 pick.
"A Gift of Verse" by John L. Flynn (Nexxus Fall 2002): Not
read/reviewed. [Note: This was on the initial ballot, but later
removed because of prior publication. Instead, Molly Gloss's
"Lambing Season" (ASIMOV'S Jul 2002) was added. -ecl]
"'Hello,' said the Stick," by Michael Swanwick, (ANALOG March
2002): A great 'Analog' story - short, to the point, and lacking
expository lumps. It is hard to believe that Swanwick wrote both
this and "The Little Cat." Dale's #1 pick.
"The Little Cat Laughed to See Such Sport," by Michael Swanwick,
(ASIMOV'S Oct/Nov 2002): You've got to be kidding - this
third-rate detective story about genetically engineered cats and
dogs isn't worth your time, and is an embarrassment to Swanwick,
an otherwise excellent writer. Dale's #5 pick.
No Award: Routinely nominated, but has never won. Maybe this
year. Dale's #4 pick.
[-dls]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
A few weeks ago (05/30/03), I talked about TIME AND AGAIN by Jack
Finney, and said it was not to be confused with BID TIME RETURN by
Richard Matheson, which was made into the film SOMEWHERE IN TIME),
or with TIME AFTER TIME by Karl Alexander, or Finney's sequel,
FROM TIME TO TIME. Shelving books recently, I discovered that it
should also not be confused with TIME AND AGAIN by Clifford
D. Simak, which predated it and also appeared under the title
FIRST HE DIED.
Let's see. We have a couple of alternate histories this week.
First is S. M. Stirling's CONQUISTADOR. The title might make one
think that it involves some change in the Spanish conquest of
large parts of the Americas, but it doesn't. Stirling postulates
a change much further back which eliminates all the European
nations that led to Spain "discovering" the New World. What we
have is the story of a bunch of World War II veterans who discover
a gateway near San Francisco to this alternate world. However,
since in this alternate world the "cross-worlders" have minimal
contact with the existing peoples other than the Native Americans,
the gateway could just as easily be one to a distant planet.
(Except, of course, that the cross-worlders know where the gold
is.) So basically the part of alternate history that I like--the
idea of how things would be different--is completely missing. Any
differences in Europe or China or Africa are only slightly alluded
to. So to me, this book had little point.
LAST STOP VIENNA by Andrew Nagorski is at least a real alternate
history, except that it pretty much ends just when the major
change occurs, (another) one of the things that annoys me in
alternate histories, and for the same reason as the previous book
did--one doesn't get to see how things would have been different.
[-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
"Iguana--the other green meat."
-- Anonymous Slogan
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/J.MolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/