THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
03/19/04 -- Vol. 22, No. 38
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
The Adam-and-Eve Syndrome (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
The Neverending Series (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Sherlock Holmes Pastiches (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (CLASSIC AND ICONOCLASTIC ALTERNATE
HISTORY SCIENCE FICTION, LIVERPOOL FANTASY, and
WHITE-COLLAR SWEATSHOP) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Adam-and-Eve Syndrome (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I have been giving some thought to a problem that bothers me as a
film reviewer that few readers seem to be aware of. If you are
reading this you probably know that I review films as a hobby. I
want to talk a little about a phenomenon that I have encountered
writing film reviews that actually disturbs me more than a little.
In fact it has stopped me dead from writing about some films. It
is one of the reasons I have not gone professional as a film
reviewer. You want to know what bothers me? Let me tell you a
story.
Several years ago I was introduced to someone who knew a friend of
mine. My new acquaintance found out that I liked science fiction
and told me he had just read a terrific science fiction story. It
really provoked him to think. The implications of this story he
found just amazing. He wanted to tell me about the story. It
concerned two space explorers--a man and a woman--who were
stranded on a planet. They had to find a way to survive in the
hostile environment. It is mostly about how they made their new
surroundings livable. In the end they decided to take new names
for themselves for life on this planet, since it appeared they
would be there a long time. The man named himself Adam and the
woman chose Eve. My new friend was taken up short by the surprise
ending. This was a real shock to him that it was a different
origin for human life. We are all descended from space
explorers. As he is recounting this story, I kept asking myself,
is this the Adam-and-Eve story? No. It can't be. Yes, it turned
out the story that so impressed him was the infamous "Adam and
Eve" story.
This story is rediscovered time and again by amateur science
fiction writers. Rumor has it that every science fiction editor
has gotten this story many, many times. It may start differently,
but it is always a man and a woman becoming the Biblical Adam and
Eve. It earns an automatic rejection slip, and deservedly so.
Just about every new science fiction writer thinks of this story
at some point. Rod Serling even did the story once for "The
Twilight Zone" as "Probe 7--Over and Out" with Richard Basehart as
Col. Adam Cook. And the story had whiskers on it when Serling did
it. It is hard to believe that any aspiring science fiction
writer today would not know of the "Twilight Zone" episode.
What is scary about this story is not the content, but the effect
it had on my new friend. The idea that it just bowled him over,
silly, predictable, and cliched as it was. I knew it was just a
silly story with cliched ideas, but the implications just held him
spellbound. I could have laughed the incident off, but it got me
to wondering. Could it happen to me? How do I know that a film
that I find really powerful and deep really is?
There are a lot of films that people are moved by that are really
rather silly. Back in 1971 a film came out that many of the
contemporary critics thought was very moving. The name of the
film was BILLY JACK and it was about a martial arts expert, who
was formerly a Green Beret. He hated violence, but he was so darn
good at it. This film may have had one of the first
dramatizations of the most common martial arts scene. You know
the one. The hero comes into a bar or inn or pool hall and is
minding his own business when a bunch of nasty, ugly, bullies much
bigger than then hero start picking on him. Our hero stands there
and shows self-restraint, taking it until he can take it no more.
Then he gets up and (surprise, surprise) he wipes them all out.
How often have we seen that scene repeated?
In the early 1970s people found BILLY JACK a great film. Looked
at now it seems so infantile. But it is like the Adam-and-Eve
story. Somehow it looks really good in the flush of the moment.
Some ideas just hypnotize people like deer in headlights. The
Adam-and-Eve story seems to do that occasionally. I call the
effect the Adam and Eve syndrome.
This should not be confused with a "guilty pleasure." That is a
film someone knows is bad but enjoys for some reason other than
critical thinking. Both are films that the critic likes and
everyone else does not, but in the case of a guilty pleasure the
critic knows it is a bad film. A film that fits an Adam-and-Eve
Syndrome is one that the critic really thinks is good and most of
the world disagrees.
But what scares me is that I may be susceptible to the same
syndrome. Sometimes I find myself really electrified by a film.
But is it the film or is it me?
What films do I think are good and just about nobody else
appreciates? Almost ashamed to admit it, I would list LIFEFORCE,
MIMIC, and the 1996 version of ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU. They had the
same effect on me as the Adam-and-Eve story had on my
acquaintance. And sometimes I really like a film, but I want to
ask someone else, did you see what I saw? Is this film really as
good as I thought? Films I am sorry I did not recommend more
highly for fear I was mesmerized include THE GREY ZONE and
CYPHER. There is still time to recommend CYPHER which has not
yet gotten a wide release.
When Roger Ebert gives three stars to a film that most of the
reviewers do not like (a phenomenon that is happening more
frequently of late), does he worry about whatever he calls the
Adam-and-Eve Syndrome? [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Tracy Chevalier's novel is trimmed down to almost a
vignette telling the story of the model for Vermeer's most famous
painting. The film actually runs a little slow and introspective
at 95 minutes. This is art director Christina Schaffer's film
really as much as it is director Peter Webber's. Scene after
scene seems to look like a Vermeer painting. Rating: high +1 (-4
to +4) or 6/10
Tracy Chevalier's novel GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING is a much fuller
story than is covered by Peter Webber's film version. To bring
the story down to a somewhat slow-paced 95-minute film much had to
be removed or shortened. The storyline is only what was most
central to the book's plot. But it is really art director
Christina Schaffer's film. The movie is about Vermeer's paintings
and visually it really captures the style of Vermeer's paintings.
The subject matter of scenes, the lighting, and the muted tones of
the color palate are all chosen to match Vermeer's style. Most
frames of the film actually look like Vermeer paintings come to
life. In a way this is almost a betrayal of Vermeer. The
implication seems to be that his characteristic style is really
only photographic realism and the great painter was just being a
literalist and was recording what he saw.
The story is quite simple. In Delft Holland in the 1660s, young
Griet (Scarlett Johansson of EIGHT-LEGGED FREAKS and LOST IN
TRANSLATION) comes to work at the home of Johannes Vermeer. She
is little more than a paid slave in this household ruled with a
powerful hand by the artist's mother-in-law, Maria Thins (Judy
Parfitt). Everyone in the household but Johannes himself treats
Griet roughly and unfairly. He is impressed both with Griet's
aptitude for the tasks of being an artist and her attractive
appeal as a model. The film is even presumptuous enough to have
Griet rearrange furniture to improve a painting. Having her
willing and able to correct the great artist is perhaps
overstating the script's point, but Griet does have talent.
Griet's attractiveness is not lost on Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson),
Vermeer's chief patron. And this too causes Griet trouble. There
is some wit in the script as we hear Vermeer's wife and mother-in-
law cajole Van Ruijven to increase his patronage.
A familiarity with Vermeer's painting style in general and with
"Girl with a Pearl Earring" in particular is not necessary, but it
does improve the enjoyment of the film. Director Peter Webber and
writer Olivia Hetreed slowly assemble the elements familiar from
the painting. We see where the interest in the girl's headgear
comes from. We see the pearl earrings on Vermeer's wife's table.
We know they will be important in a slow build to the actual
painting of the portrait. Even then it is a wait before we get to
see the now famous painting, though it will be familiar to some
from the cover of the bestseller. Scarlett Johansson is not a
perfect match for girl in the painting, but watching the film one
does not notice.
Perhaps what is most interesting about the film are the fine
points of life in 17th century Holland. It is now standard in
films showing other cultures to show what a kitchen looks like and
what the food created is. Webber does not make the mistake of
making the food look too inviting. Holland would not have had a
very exciting diet by modern standards. Griet's best friend,
other than occasional visits with her family, is the butcher and
his son and on her visits we see the market in detail. The father
is impressed with Griet's judgement about meat. The son is
interested in the obviously intelligent Griet, even as Vermeer is,
and begins to spend time with her.
This is a film in which what one sees is more important than what
one hears. Visually the film is worth the admission even if the
story could have been more satisfying. I rate GIRL WITH A PEARL
EARRING a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Neverending Series (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I would like to take this opportunity to rant against a growing
trend in the publishing of science fiction and fantasy. I am
speaking of the business of taking a single novel and splitting it
into multiple parts.
But this has been going on for years, you say? Yes, but of late
there have been developments that make it all the more
aggravating.
Let me be clear that I am not complaining (here, at least) about
books that take place in the same universe with some of the same
characters, but that are each self-contained stories. I *like*
the Sherlock Holmes stories! I even think that such series as
"Tarzan" and "Narnia", while having some interdependence, are
fine. It's the series in which book one ends on a cliff-hanger
and book two picks right up at that point that I object to.
Yes, I realize that's how THE LORD OF THE RINGS was published.
But the technical realities of publishing in the 1950s regarding
the size of books was the original cause, and these days one is
seeing single-volume editions of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Irony:
the combined edition of this is shorter than some individual
novels in Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series. One need only
look at Mary Gentle's ASH: A SECRET HISTORY or John C. Wright's
THE GOLDEN AGE, each published as one volume in Britain and
multiple volumes in the United States, to realize that it is not
the physical size of the book that is driving the United States
publishers behavior.
(By the way, one reason DUNE was published by Chilton for its
first appearance in book form was that Chilton--previously known
only for automobile manuals--was at the time one of the few
publishers who had the ability to publish a book as thick as
DUNE.)
It was bad enough a few years ago when everything was a trilogy
(or a tetralogy, or more). In effect, the author was asking you
to pay, not $25 (in hardcover) for a story, but $75 or $100.
(Most of these stories were well within the limit of what could be
published as a single book. LES MISERABLES is 1886 pages and had
come out in one volume.) But a recent development is making it
even worse. Apparently the big chain bookstores have discovered
that books by mid-list authors that are priced above $24.95 just
don't sell well enough, and are resisting carrying them. Now, the
idea is presumably that readers aren't willing to spend more than
$24.95 on a book by a mid-list author, so the expected result
would be that the publishers would keep the price down to that.
Well, they have--sort of. What is happening is that a book that
would have listed for more than that is being split into two
books, each below that price. So, for example, instead of paying
$27 for an 800-page book, readers are being asked to pay $48 for
two 400-page books, neither of which is complete in itself.
But wait--it's even worse than that. We are also seeing "runaway
stories." Series announced as trilogies turn into tetralogies, as
the last book gets much longer than expected. So even if a reader
is resigned to paying $25 times 3, or $75, for a story, after the
first couple of installments, they discover they have to spend $25
times 4, or $100, instead. Among other things, this tells me that
the author hasn't even finished writing the story when the first
book has come out, so the reader is also betting on the continued
health of the author. (I'm assuming there is a contract that at
least prevents the author from stopping halfway through just
because he's lost interest. It's also not clear what happens to
the remaining books if the first one sells very badly.)
And readers also seem ambivalent about these books. (Actually, I
prefer the term "confused.") I can't guarantee it's the same
people who buy these multi-volume stories as those who say they
can't read MOBY DICK or BEN-HUR because they're too long, but I
can't help but feel that there's some overlap. (MOBY DICK checks
in at 704 pages, BEN-HUR at 558. The latest episode in Robert
Jordan's "Wheel of Time" is 864 pages long; Tom Clancy's novels
are usually 990+ pages.)
So what lies ahead? There is hope. There is some indication that
publishers are no longer pushing for longer and longer stories,
but are now trying to limit the length of works so that they can
publish them for under $25. Kate Nepveu writes in her report of
the Boskone panel on editing: "It is not, actually, in new
writers' interests to imitate blockbuster novels in their length.
Chains are getting very price-sensitive and don't want to buy
hardcovers over $X (a number I didn't write down) by unproven
authors." Charlie Stross addresses this at length in
http://tinyurl.com/2ltrj as well. But again, it seems as though
sometimes the answer is just to split a long book in half.
My reaction to all this is that I do not, under normal
circumstances, buy any of these multi-volume novels until all the
parts are published. Even then, I tend to look to my library, at
least to start it, rather than spending a fortune on an untried
work. The exception to this is might be when somehow a single
volume of a multi-volume novel gets nominated for a Hugo--but once
again, my library usually comes to the rescue. Frankly, I would
rather give three different authors a try than one.
Comments? [-ecl]
[This editorial comes just as I have filled out my Hugo ballot,
both for the current year and for the retro-Hugos of fifty years
ago. I am reminded how much more appealing the best of 1953 is
than the best of 2003. The earlier novels are all in the 200-page
range and seem to be so much more enjoyable. -mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Sherlock Holmes Pastiches (book comments by Evelyn
C. Leeper)
After I mentioned that Alan Stockwell's Holmes pastiches were not
in the first rank, someone asked me which ones I thought were.
Here is my answer.
First, I tend to prefer short stories, maybe because that's what
most of Doyle's stories were, and what seems the "right" length.
(There were only four longer pieces, and A STUDY IN SCARLET and
THE SIGN OF FOUR are closer to novellas than to novels.) However,
recommending individual short stories can be an exercise in
frustration for the reader in trying to find them, so I will stick
to collections or anthologies. (Many of these are out of print,
but that's why bookfinder.com was invented.)
Second, because I'm a science fiction fan, I do like Holmesian
stories with a science fictional slant. So I've included some of
those as secondary recommendations.
First, the novels. The acknowledged classics are Ellery Queen's A
STUDY IN TERROR and Nicholas Meyer's THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION
(and to a lesser extent its first sequel THE WEST END HORROR). I
would also recommend Lloyd Biggle's THE QUALLSFORD INHERITANCE and
L. B. Greenwood's THE CASE OF THE RALEIGH LEGACY as "traditional"
pastiches. For those looking for something a little out of the
ordinary, try Esther Friesner's DRUID'S BLOOD, William
Kotzwinkle's TROUBLE IN BUGLAND, Eve Titus's "Basil" series, and
Manly Wade Wellman--SHERLOCK HOLMES'S WAR OF THE WORLDS.
As far as single-author collections, the first place to start is
with Adrian Conan Doyle and John Dickson Carr's THE EXPLOITS OF
SHERLOCK HOLMES. Next would be August Derleth's "Solar Pons"
books. (Basil Copper then wrote *more* of these, which aren't
quite up to Derleth's.)
In anthologies, the best are those edited by Marvin Kaye or Martin
H. Greenberg (as primary editor). Good specialty anthologies
would include Isaac Asimov's SHERLOCK HOLMES THROUGH TIME AND
SPACE, and Mike Resnick's SHERLOCK HOLMES IN ORBIT. In general,
the anthologies are all original stories, though the Asimov is a
reprint anthology (hence of higher quality than most).
You'll notice that most of my selections are older books. There
are a lot of pastiches coming out these days, but they are mostly
"modern"--they abandon the Victorian sensibilities and go in the
direction of more (often explicit) romance for Holmes, or more
graphic descriptions of violent crimes, or more politically
correct attitudes towards women or other races. While I have no
complaint about the latter in real life, it doesn't work when one
is trying for an evocation of Doyle's original stories.
So, do you have any additional suggestions? [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Most of the books that I receive as a judge for the Sidewise
Awards are straight alternate history. (There are also some
straight fantasies that publishers send, either out of confusion
about the award, or the hope that we may decide they are alternate
history after all.) But occasionally we get a non-fiction study
of alternate histories. This year it was Edgar L. Chapman and
Carl B. Yoke's CLASSIC AND ICONOCLASTIC ALTERNATE HISTORY SCIENCE
FICTION. Published by the Edwin Mellen Press, it consists of
fifteen essays by various authors. With titles such as
"Metafiction and the Gnostic Quest in 'The Man in the High
Castle': Dick's Alternate History Classic After Four Decades", it
is clear that these are not casual jottings, but works that could
be described as "academic" and (one suspects) would probably count
as publications needed in the "publish-or-perish" game. Which is
not to say that they are not of interest value. (I found Robert
Geary's essay on Ward Moore's BRING THE JUBILEE particularly
valuable, though perhaps that is because two friends have just
read this book independently of each other.) I will admit that
some essays depended too much on literary theories that I was
unfamiliar with. If you understand the concept that "the
distinctive focus in THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE is on hermeneutic
activity, on the process of interpretation itself and on questions
about the interrelationship of reality, history, and text (or
artifact)," then this may be the book for you. Except for one
small detail--the book's list price is $119.95! Some research
indicates that Mellen Press is an academic vanity press, which
probably explains the price. (Many of the individual papers, I
should point out, were presented at the more traditionally
legitimate venue of the International Association for the
Fantastic in the Arts in Florida.) Now I realize that if you
bought some of today's alternate history series in hardcover,
you'd be paying this much, but I still cannot recommend this. And
I'm guessing even your public library won't have it. You might
try an academic library, or there are used copies available for
"only" about $85.
A standard alternate history is Larry Kirwan's LIVERPOOL FANTASY,
in which the Beatles broke up in 1962 and went their separate ways
and the National Front is now in control of Britain. If I cared
more about the Beatles, I might have enjoyed it more. (I think
part of it depended on recognizing the names of the Beatles'
various girlfriends, offspring, and so on.) It has been well
received by others more knowledgeable about the whole "Fab Four"
scene than I am.
Jill Andresky Fraser's WHITE-COLLAR SWEATSHOP was published in
2001, and apparently written before the technology companies'
meltdown. In a sense, then, she was writing about the good old
days, when people had jobs they could be overworked and mistreated
at. (Though she does describe a lot of layoffs--I think the
difference is that many of the people in the book who are laid off
find jobs at other companies where they will be equally
overworked. Nowadays that doesn't seem to be happening.)
But the negative practices she describes aren't exactly new,
though she seems to imply they came along in the 1980s. For
example, she talks about one bank's "Adopt-an-ATM" program, where
employees were asked to volunteer to clean up around one of the
bank's ATMs near their home--on their own time and without pay.
(The Department of Labor put the kibosh on this one.) But when I
worked for Burroughs in 1973-1974, similar shenanigans went on.
For example, they would require that I visit a customer four hours
away (spending eight hours there) without an option to stay
overnight, and would even dispute paying for breakfast. They
would send employees to classes where accommodations were
dormitory-style and you were assigned to room with a total
stranger. During the gasoline crisis, they required that each of
us do two trips a week to San Francisco to deliver or pick up card
decks for compiling. (And when I tried to choose both trips on
the same day, so that I needed to drive to work only once and
could take the train the other four days, I think that was
disallowed.) And the list goes on. My point is (in case you lost
track) that a lot of the "sweatshop" conditions that Fraser
decries as new are new merely in companies that had been
reasonable before--but that this "reasonableness" was by no means
universal. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
It isn't the incompetent who destroy
an organization. It is those who have
achieved something and want to rest
upon their achievements who are forever
clogging things up.
-- Charles Sorenson
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mtvoid/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/