THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
04/02/04 -- Vol. 22, No. 40
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:
Our Sponsor (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Written on the Verde Canyon Wilderness Train (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Comments on Gigolo Joe Dances Because Gigolo Joes Dance
(letters of comments by various people)
THE LADYKILLERS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CALLAHAN'S SECRET by Spider Robinson (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
This Week's Reading (A FIRE UPON THE DEEP, UNDER THE ANDES,
and THE PILLARS OF EARTH) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Our Sponsor (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
This issue is brought to you by Patrick O'Malley's Original Irish
Gefilte Fish. Only North Sea whitefish goes into Patrick's
mother's original gefilte fish recipe. Try O'Malley's, the most
Irish name in gefilte fish. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Written on the Verde Canyon Wilderness Train (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
I remember seeing a brochure for Busch Gardens, a theme park in
Florida. I think what it showed was their recreation of an
exotic street from Morocco. It looked reasonably believable in
the brochure. But I realized that is not the effect that being on
the street would really have. The problem is not with the street
but with me. I don't look like I belong on a Moroccan street.
That would not be so bad for me, but other tourists would see me
on the street. Further if they let me on the street they would
leave other tourists on the same street. Some of them would be
just as boorish and inappropriate to the setting as I myself am.
That would ruin the effect. But the truth is that most tourist
destinations are not quite up to their reputations or my
expectations.
I have been to what is reputed by most people to be the most
beautiful American State. That would be Alaska. Now I will admit
that I did not go far inland. I was on a cruise, which means I
saw only the outer rim. And Alaska is very nice I admit. But it
is not really the most beautiful area I have ever visited. Let me
tell you my most vivid memory of Alaska. I think this incident I
had on Glacier Bay in Alaska says it all.
Our guide pointed out what he called a "colorful" bird that was
flying over our heads. I saw the colors were black, white, and
two different shades of gray. That is what passes for colorful in
Alaska. There are not a whole lot of bright colors on Glacier
Bay. It is a view almost entirely in black, white, dull blue and
brown. Maybe in some places there was some dark green. It is
kind of downbeat, to tell the truth.
I actually have visited a region of the world that I think has
Alaska beat. This is just my opinion, understand. These things
are, of course, a matter of taste. But you can get better scenery
than in Alaska. And it is in the United States.
I refer to "UCAN." That is my own acronym for Utah, Colorado,
Arizona, and New Mexico. I am convinced that UCAN is just about
the most visually splendid area in the world. And I usually am
not chauvinistic about the United States.
Incidentally, I am writing this on the Verde Canyon Railroad.
This is a tourist railroad that rides the rim of Verde Canyon in
Clarkdale, Arizona. Have you heard of Verde Canyon? I hadn't.
But let me tell you something. It isn't really one of the major
tourist attractions in the United States. But compare it to
Australia's Ayres Rock. Everybody in Australia knows Ayres Rock.
It is probably the greatest or second greatest natural wonder in
Australia. But if by some strange occurrence Ayres Rock was not
in the outback of Australia but in Verde Canyon nobody would
consider it spectacular. In fact, it might even be too
insignificant to have a name. (Sorry Australia.) Verde Canyon
has some spectacular views. It has some incredible rock cliffs it
has huge vistas that dwarf Ayres rock. And there is so much that
is impressive in the UCAN that Verde Canyon still qualifies as a
tourist secret. It has a lot of competition in the UCAN. Utah is
probably the most spectacular of the four states but they each are
different and impressive.
The railroad rides the south wall of the canyon. It rides out
twenty miles, stops for fifteen minutes, and then returns on the
same route. The trip is about 200 minutes of actual movement
time. The cost of a regular adult ticket is a little less than
$40. A first class ticket is about $20 more. The cost of a
Broadway play ticket these days is for most plays $100 or more.
If given the choice, Verde Canyon is a much better deal than a
Broadway play.
If you are the kind of person who flies coach I guess my
recommendation would be to go standard $40 adult fare. The extra
$20 buys you a one soda or champagne and a mini buffet of five or
six items including chicken wings, egg roll pieces, salad, and
muffins. Also there are pretzels and cheese crackers. Additional
soda is available at a reasonable $1 a can. Ice cream sandwiches
just after the midpoint of the trip are available at the same
price. I think the $40 ticket gives better price-performance.
If there are four in your group you sit in a plush couch but it
has the drawback that it does not always put you in the best
position to see the scenery from the car. (That may be because I
am slightly under-height.) You can go to the open-air observation
car and see the scenery much better. But then there is no
advantage to going first class. The seats in the regular section
are like on many trains: two seats, aisle, two seats. Wherever
you are you get narration of what you are seeing over a public
address system and like most public address systems on trains, it
is not always possible to make out what is being said.
You either are or are not the kind of person who gets excited by
beautiful and incredibly big geological scenery. But if you are
you may not realize it until you actually see some. I always said
"big deal" when I saw an issue of the magazine "Arizona
Highways". Not expecting to be all that impressed Evelyn and I
first visited Arizona and New Mexico just as a matter of
completeness in visiting states. Within half and hour of getting
out of the airport we were using phrases like "when we retire
here." Most of our vacations since then have been seeing more of
the West. Looking at photographs is not a good way to judge what
is out here. Realize that photography is always a very poor
representation of what you see in the Southwest. It is almost
impossible to get the scale of the huge objects that you are
seeing in a photograph and scale is an important part of the awe.
This part of the world is genuinely awesome. I sincerely
recommend this part of the world and the Verde Canyon Railroad is
quite good also.
(A moment for journalistic honesty: What am I doing on this train?
I gave permission to the Verde Canyon Railroad to publish some of
my writing in one of their publications. To return the favor they
gave me four first-class passes to ride their railroad. It wasn't
necessary, but it was a nice gesture. They gave me the passes
with no further obligation. I am writing this article not because
I got a free ride but because I had a terrific afternoon. I think
that I will probably come back when I am paying my own way. And I
have been honest in this article. I have been candid about
positives and negatives. I think people should spend just one
vacation among the towering rock formations to see if they like
it.) [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Comments on Gigolo Joe Dances Because Gigolo Joes Dance
(letters of comments by various people):
We got a lot of letters of comment on Mark's comments on
evaluating films.
Carl Aveyard said, "Very well put. This happens when you read a
particularly good novel (i.e., THE POSTMAN) and then see the film.
What hits you most in the book often fails to appear as the main
message in the film. There's probably an inverse correlation
between the complexity of ideas in a novel and the ability to
portray these in a commercially successful film."
When Mark said, "Actually I have found a small group of friends
who all think the film [THE POSTMAN] deserved more respect," Bill
Higgins responded simply, "Yo."
Mike Glyer says, however, "Not that I am insisting THE POSTMAN is
a horrible film, but I was really disappointed in it. Symptomatic
of its many weaknesses is that -- similar to the ending of the
Robin Williams version of Hook -- the hero is not allowed to kill
the villain even though there is a war on. How sophomoric."
And Dan Kimmel wrote, "I'll give you half credit. I agree with
you on THE POSTMAN. The critics went in thinking it was
WATERWORLD II and treated it accordingly. But on A.I. you're a
voice in the wilderness. The film was an abomination. As I noted
at the time, it was a project Kubrick put aside because he
couldn't figure out how to make it work. Spielberg the proceeded
to show that Kubrick was right."
However, Dave Anolick had a very different opinion, saying:
"Thanks for defending AI! It has been so long since I saw it, some
of the details are fuzzy. For instance, I don't remember when Joe
danced, but I agree with you it fits. I enjoyed the film for many
reasons. It wasn't perfect, had some real slow moments, and as you
said, the ending was both contrived and poignant."
"But the main theme, as you said, was the way robots were stuck
between being an independent intelligence and yet being programmed
to their specific purpose. This is more shown by Joe than David.
David's intelligence had to be limited to the age he was
programmed for. But Joe needed a higher level of AI to perform,
ummm, adult activities. (A Gigolo has to be able to make high-order
decisions in places beyond just the bed room.)"
"It seemed to me that robots were able to strive to be independent,
yet were also limited and struggled with what is hardwired in their
brain. Joe running to protect himself and helping David was
actually able to succeed over-riding his programming to some
extent. David with less intelligence was not able to do so."
"And this fits the human condition as well. Many people struggle
their entire life with psychological issues that may be
biologically or environmentally imprinted in who they are. Some
overcome it, some can't and most are somewhere in-between the
extremes."
"Boy, you made me want to rent the movie to see it again."
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE LADYKILLERS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The Coen Brothers try their hand at remaking one of the
best of the 1950s Alec Guinness comedies from Ealing Studios.
Their effort just wastes talent on too few new laughs in a version
that has little to offer anyone who has seen the original. This
makes two mediocre films in a row from the usually infallible
brothers who need to return to their earlier anarchic wit.
Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
Joel and Ethan Coen have been known for very innovative and
creative films. With THE LADYKILLERS for the first time they are
taking a pre-existing film and remaking it in their own style.
Thus for the first time they are inviting comparison to another
director's work on the same material. In this case it is to
Alexander Mackendrick, who in 1955 made the original THE
LADYKILLERS for Ealing studios. That version starred Alec
Guinness and Herbert Lom, and featured an admittedly under-used
Peter Sellers. Remaking a classic was a bad miscalculation from
the usually intelligent Coen Brothers. Their remake suffers both
by comparison to the original and by comparison to most of their
other films. It simply is not as creative as most Coen Brother
films and it lacks both the subtlety and the large laughs of the
1955 version.
Marva Munson (played by Irma P. Hall) is a black woman in the
South who gets some odd ideas in her head as the local
constabulary can attest. But now something strange really is
happening in her house. Her new tenant, Professor Goldthwait
Higginson Dorr (Tom Hanks doing a Colonel Sanders impression with
an overbite), is not what he seems. Dorr, one of Hanks's first
character roles, claims to be leading a quintet of musicians
playing fine Renaissance devotional music. Actually it is just a
front for the five to tunnel into the vault of a local riverboat
casino and to rob it. Marva does not know what they are doing,
but she has very strong ideas of right and wrong and she is not
going to stand for any wicked shenanigans going on under her roof.
But Professor Dorr has assembled some desperate men including the
General (Tzi Ma), who looks like a North Vietnamese commandant,
Gawain MacSam (Marlon Wayans), a foul-mouthed hip-hopper, and
would-be explosives expert Garth Pancake (J.K. Simmons) who just
can't get anything done right. Their efforts are hamstrung their
own foolishness but even more by Marva's antics. In the earlier
film little Katie Johnson seems too demure and harmless to get in
anybody's way, and that was where the humor came from. Irma
P. Hall is a big forceful woman who does gets angry and violent
and that robs the irony from much of the humor.
The film is at its funniest showing why the thugs turned to crime.
The General shows he is tough foiling a robbery at his doughnut
shop. Pancake is shooting a dog food ad when things go
hilariously wrong. There is a funny bit as Lump (Ryan Hurst)
plays football and we get a Lump's eye view of the action. At
this point the film seems to be working well, but it quickly bogs
down. The Coens got kudos for the use of the music in O BROTHER,
WHERE ART THOU? and they try to repeat the trick by flooding THE
LADYKILLERS with church gospel music. They devote too much of the
film to devotional music. What the film needs is less gospel and
more funny gags. What the story did not need is a slapstick
sequence involving one character flying through the air and it did
not need a portrait that changes expression from scene to scene.
There are simply gags that have been done before and were not
really funny then. It seems the Coen Brothers' famous creativity
is running out of steam.
Hopefully the Coens have learned that they can do better writing
their own material than remaking someone else's. Their remake
seems so much less detailed and textured than the Ealing film, and
far less enjoyable. If they do remake they should choose material
they really can improve upon, instead of just updating. I rate
the remake of THE LADYKILLERS a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or
5/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: CALLAHAN'S SECRET by Spider Robinson (copyright 1986,
Berkeley Science Fiction, ISBN 0-425-10059-6, 172pp, $2.95
paperback) (book review by Joe Karpierz)
I'm still on the short story kick, although from a different angle
this time. For instance, you may wonder why I'm reviewing a book
published in 1986, when I usually review more recent works. It
goes like this.
Some of you may know that I am out of work, and have been since
November. While I can always use a good laugh, there are times
when I really need a pick-me-up. So, in looking through my to-
read stack, I see Spider Robinson's latest Callahan novel,
CALLAHAN'S CON. I attended a reading by Spider at Torcon3 last
year, and he read from the first chapter. I was laughing so hard
I was nearly in tears. I know that part of this is the delivery
of the material, but still, it *was* funny. So anyway, I thought
to my self that this would be a good time to read CALLAHAN'S CON.
Nope.
I started looking around, and realized that I hadn't read a whole
bunch of Callahan books. As a matter of fact, the last one that I
did read was TIME TRAVELLERS STRICTLY CASH. Sheesh. It turns out
that I had most of the books in the series in the house, so I went
back to pick up the next one, CALLAHAN'S SECRET.
As an aside - you may be asking yourself if I'm going to read
every last Callahan book before I get to CALLAHAN'S CON. Well,
yes I am. At least those that I have in the house. There are one
or two missing, so I may go to the library and get those. So
you're going to have to put up with a bunch of Callahan reviews
before I get to the Con, although I won't be reading them straight
through. So relax. :-)
The original Callahan stories were sold to the magazines back in
the 70s and 80s. For the uninitiated, Callahan's Place is,
according to the back cover, "the saloon on the edge of time and
space". The place is frequented by humans and aliens, talking
dogs, vampires, telepaths, you name it. And every one of them has
a story to tell, a problem to be solved, and love to share.
And puns. And riddles. And Tall Tales.
The whole thing is very irreverent, funny, touching, and moving.
I'm not sure that you can really call this stuff science fiction,
although it does what some of the best SF does, which is use
science fictional elements to talk about the human condition.
Added on top of that, Spider manages to make it funny, and comedic
SF is something hard to do.
The stories - oh yeah, forgot about them. Probably the best story
in the collection is "The Mick of Time". Mickey Finn is an alien
that landed here on earth several years ago to scout the planet
for a forthcoming invasion by it's Masters, nicknamed the
Cockroaches in the first story in the book, "The Blacksmith's
Tale". Contrary to all belief, the Masters are on their way to
find out what happened to Finn and to take over the planet. While
it's a typical old time SF plot, the real story here is how the
regulars, new and old, of Callahan's Place band together to deal
with the invasion of the Cockroaches. We also find out at least
three of Callahan's Secrets in this tale as well. "Pyotr's Story"
tells a tale of a vampire with an unusual problem - one that the
vampire feeds by helping out patrons of Callahan's. "Involuntary
Man's Laughter" (I told you there were puns in here) shows how the
patrons of Callahans can use modern (for 1986, anyway) technology
to deal with a very bizarre problem.
This is great, light, easy, yet thought provoking reading. I
found myself being stared at by people on the train that I take to
downtown Chicago for some IT training when I unashamedly laughed
out loud (a lot) reading this book. I didn't care. It's good,
it's funny, and it put me in a better mood. Next up will be
CALLAHAN'S LADY, followed by a review of a children's
SF/fantasy/baseball novel that my son gave me for my birthday last
week. Why that one? Heck - some of you may have kids out there
that you want to buy a book for. Stay tuned. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Our science fiction discussion group got tired of reading classics
chosen primarily because the library system had many copies, and
wanted to read a relatively recent book, preferably a Hugo winner.
Because all the libraries in the system seem to "weed" their
collections with a rather heavy hand, there weren't any "in
stock," but the person organizing the reading groups is also the
person in charge of science fiction acquisitions and he said that
he could certainly justify buying half a dozen copies of a
mass-market edition of a Hugo-winning book. (It's about the price
of one hardcover, and certainly cheaper than the audiotape version
of a recent Robert Jordan that the library seems to have
acquired.) And a half a dozen copies would be sufficient--the
group is small and some of us would have the book already anyway.
So we picked Vernor Vinge's A FIRE UPON THE DEEP as being the hard
science fiction that people wanted (as opposed to soft science
fiction like FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON) or fantasy.
The book met with mixed reactions. One person gave up after a
hundred pages because she found Vinge's technique of throwing out
ideas (and words) without explaining them very confusing. Another
person agreed that Vinge did this, and felt it indicated a
disregard for his readers, but he enjoyed as much of the book as
he could read before the meeting and hoped to finish it at some
point in the future. I thought the technique, rather than showing
a *disregard* for the readers, showed that Vinge expected his
readers would be able (and willing) to work to figure out the
details.
One interesting observation made was that Vinge threw a lot of
different ideas into A FIRE UPON THE DEEP: the nature of the
Flensers, the concept of the Slow Zone, the structure of
interstellar trade, and so on. This was like Robert J. Sawyer did
in a previous discussion book, CALCULATING GOD. But one person
said that while in CALCULATING GOD it just seems like a jumble of
ideas thrown together, in A FIRE UPON THE DEEP it appears as a
well-structured tapestry.
The "original" reading group has a policy of choosing books that
are three hundred pages or less. The other groups (mystery and
science fiction) have not adopted this policy, but given that I
was the only one to finish this six-hundred-page book, we will
probably try to stick to something a bit shorter in the future.
Unfortunately, this probably rules out most of the recent Hugo
nominees.
I also read Rex Stout's lost race novel, UNDER THE ANDES, which is
available on-line. It was not really a classic of its genre, but
rather pretty much a potboiler of cliches.
Ken Follett's historical novel THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH is set in
twelfth century England during the time of the wars between
Stephen and Maud and revolves around the building of the cathedral
at Kingsbridge. If you're into architecture and architectural
history (particularly of Gothic cathedrals), you'll almost
definitely enjoy this book. (I'm sure someone somewhere has
described it as "historical fiction with rivets.") There's also
the requisite amount of love, sex, violence, and so on. My one
objection might be that the characters seem to be like Harry
Turtledove's Basilos (in his "Agent of Byzantium" stories)--they
appear to invent a major new commercial concept (e.g., dealing in
wool futures, becoming an intermediate trader, etc.) every few
weeks. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Academia forcibly tells you about all
the great men and revolutionaries, and
rebels, especially the rebels, who have
changed the world for the better. But
they wouldn't notice one were he
standing right in front of them.
-- Eli Khamorov
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/