THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/28/04 -- Vol. 22, No. 48
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 Laws of Cartoon Physics (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Mini-Article of Comments on Mammoth Books (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Pizza (letter of comment by George MacLachlan)
SHREK 2 (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
TROY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (THE SECRET OF THE OLD CLOCK;
I, ROBOT; LORD JIM; THE STONE READER)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Laws of Cartoon Physics (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Readers might enjoy "The Laws of Cartoon Motion" adapted from the
book ELEMENTARY EDUCATION by Mark O'Donnell. O'Donnell has
watched too many Warner Brothers cartoons and is trying to
formalize the laws of physics as they seem to apply to Bugs Bunny,
the Road Runner, and their associates. It is perhaps more fun
than watching the cartoons. See
. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Mini-Article of Comments on Mammoth Books (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
I would like to talk about a publishing phenomenon that I find
very interesting. Personally I find that I am enthusiastic about
a certain line of books, but just about nobody else seems to
mention it as anything special. I now consider the publisher
associated with it to be for me the second most interesting
publisher in the world. (Before you ask, the most interesting
publisher for me is probably Dover Books who do fascinating
reprints and whom I will talk about some other time.) Yet while
Dover has lots of fans I have never heard anyone but myself talk
about this publisher.
My interest in this line of books must have started maybe twenty
years ago when I first started noticing that some unusual reprints
of pop culture novels were coming from the same source. A
publisher I had never heard of, Carroll & Graf, was reprinting
books like the very earliest novels of Leslie Charteris's
character The Saint. It got so that if I saw a bunch of books
spine out on a shelf in a bookstore I would look for the Carroll &
Graf books. I discovered that a fair proportion of what they
publish would be books of some kind of special interest. They
might be might be about sports, about true crime, science fiction
stories, whatever.
But there are other publishers who have interesting books. That
is not what I would call a real publishing phenomenon. What
started my interest was a book that was apparently a reprint of a
thick anthology from Britain. They retitled if I remember
correctly. The new title they gave it was "THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF
{Something or Other}." I forget what it was the book of, but it
was probably something like THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF VAMPIRE STORIES or
THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF GHOST STORIES.
Anyway, that was my first THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF.... That had to be
ten or fifteen years ago at least. Now Mammoth Books seem to be
showing up all over the place. They are taking up a lot of space
on my bookshelf, only partially because a mammoth book does take
up space.
The set of possible topics seems to have exploded. They have
history books; puzzle books; science fiction, horror, fantasy, and
detective stories; pulp fiction stories; puzzle books; sports; gay
and lesbian and straight erotica; books of prophecies. The latter
categories don't interest me that much, but they have a very large
range.
The paper and the binding are not as good as Dover books. Dover
uses acid-free paper and binds in signatures. Mammoth Books have
a thicker and less smooth paper. These books are bound with glue,
but I have never seen one with a binding problem.
The books are uniformly five by seven and three-quarter inches and
the thinnest are one and a quarter inches thick. Some are nearly
two inches thick. That depends on the number of pages, of course.
They all seem to be at least 500 pages and some may be closer to
650.
Some publishers will make their book big by using a very large
font. They think they are bringing their material to the
partially-sighted, I believe. Carroll & Graf does not do that.
The font size will vary but it never is so large that it seems to
be stretching insufficient material. And with 500 to 600 pages
that means there is a lot of material in each book. In truth I
never have read one of these books cover to cover. I probably
never will. There is just too much in each one. They are
mammoth. Or nearly so. And they are not too expensive. I think
that currently they are at most about $12.95. If you read a
quarter of the book that is a lot of entertainment for the price.
All of this would be meaningless if the topics of the books were
not particularly interesting. And while this is the hardest thing
to demonstrate without just listing titles, the subject matter is
what is really surprising. I can look down a list of titles of
Mammoth Books and probably more than half of their titles are
appealing to me. How many publishers can you say that about?
That is an amazing batting average. They have a whole line of
eyewitness accounts of history. World War II memoirs, accounts
from the age of fighting sail, accounts from the age of
exploration. I think one of my favorite books, John Carey's
excellent EYEWITNESS TO HISTORY (from another publisher), may have
inspired this line of eyewitness accounts for Mammoth Books. They
have numerous fiction anthologies. And the stories are reprints,
not original stories. (At first that does not sound like a
virtue, but it means the editors did not commission the stories
and then pretty much had to take what they got back. Most
anthologies seem to be collections of commissioned stories these
days. Mammoth anthologies are collections of stories that
somebody thought were worth reviving. To me that means
something.) They have books on chess and books of puzzles. The
list is extensive. A few belabor their subject to the point of
tedium. Those I can skim. I just don't know where they can get
all the material to fill those books. What amazes me is just that
they have so much output. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Pizza (letter of comment by George MacLachlan)
> Enjoyed your discussion for pizza purists. I believe that you
> and Evelyn have been to Japan. Did you not come across pizza
> with corn and even fish on it?? I had the same reaction to
> those varieties as you had with pineapple.
>
> George
Good to hear from you, George.
A lot of people seemed to like that discussion. That's ironic. I
was a little too indirect and I think EVERYBODY missed the point
of what I actually was saying. I am afraid that this editorial was
a complete failure. I made the joke to Evelyn and she really liked
it and told me I should expand it to an editorial. We both were too
close to the joke and its origins. Neither of us realized that it
was too subtle for anybody else to understand and indeed it was.
I should explain what it was REALLY about. Massachusetts had just
started allowing same-sex marriage and a number of conservative
columnists were complaining vociferously that it wold make marriage
meaningless. I saw no reason why letting gays be married would ruin
marriage for straights any more than the fact that some people put
pineapple on pizza should ruin pizza for someone who likes pepperoni
and mushroom on pizza. After all it's still the same pizza. So I
started repeating all the right wing's arguments, but I substituted
the issue of pineapple on pizza.
Well, when Jonathan Swift wrote GULLIVER'S TRAVELS he saw it as an
angry, sarcastic diatribe against the society he saw around him.
Instead it became a pleasant fantasy classic.
Actually, anybody can eat anything they want on pizza and it is
fine with me. For the record, pizza is an amazing food. Just
about anything that anyone likes on pizza, I think tastes pretty
good on it. I am not just being diplomatic. In Scotland I had
pineapple on pizza and actually I thought it was quite a good
combination, just a little unexpectedly. A little bit of
pineapple juice in your mouth that you get when you bite into the
pizza is tastier than I would have thought. I did not have
Japanese revisionist pizza simply because when in Japan I liked
the native Japanese food too much. Noodle shops were great at
lunch and department store sushi for dinner were some of the best
sushi meals I ever had. My whole time in Japan nothing I was
served or bought ever went unfinished. I did break my rule having
pizza rather than Lithuanian food occasionally in Lithuania. The
Lithuanians like fresh herring on pizza. And, you know, that
tastes pretty good. But you need the real fresh herring; not the
sugared stuff you get in jars here. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: SHREK 2 (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: There is distinctly less magic and fun in SHREK 2 as the
title ogre has problems becoming accepted by his in-laws. All the
same cast is back with the same voices, but the tone of the film
is darker and we don't learn a lot more about the characters that
we liked in the first film. One new character is engaging, but
overall we just know these characters too well from the first
film. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
If there had not been a SHREK, then SHREK 2 would have been a
better film. Much of the novelty of this world has fallen off the
production. The fun of for the first time meeting Shrek and
especially Donkey are gone. Donkey is a good character, but he
has a smaller role in this film where he is not really important
to the plot and he gets fewer good lines. Eddie Murphy is
probably not allowed to suddenly ad-lib something like a sudden
fixation on parfaits. This film does, however, introduce us to
Puss-in-Boots, and Puss is a good character but not as funny as
Donkey was when we met him. In the first film the story was set
in a fairy tale world that is far, far away and an ogre is
rescuing a princess. That works for me. SHREK 2 is set mostly in
what Fiona calls the Land of Far, Far Away, but it is basically in
a place a lot like Hollywood. In this land Shrek has problems
with his in-laws. So who needs to enter the world of fairy tales
to have a comedy about someone having in-law problems in
Hollywood? Somehow we invested more interest in wondering if the
lead couple would get together than we ever could in whether they
will stay together. If they break up it will be largely their own
fault for not valuing each other's love enough.
So in the transition to the second film a little of the magic
leaked out just in having the ogres start out already married. A
little more leaked out when the jokes were toned down just a bit.
Or perhaps the writers were just not as creative this time around.
Also, this film just seems a little darker in tone. As the film
opens Shrek (voiced by Michael Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz)
have accepted themselves as ogres. Then they get a command to
visit Fiona's parents, King Harold (John Cleese) and Queen Lillian
(Julie Andrews). King Harold never expected to have an ogre for a
son-in-law or for a daughter either, for that matter. He begins
to plot against the marriage with the Fairy Godmother (Jennifer
Saunders) and her son Prince Charming (Rupert Everett). Along the
way we get a new character, a charming swashbuckling rogue, Puss-
in-Boots (Antonio Banderas) who mixes in a little of his former
role as El Zorro.
The little digs at Walt Disney's animated fairy tales and the
popular media in general somehow seemed a lot funnier in the
original. Perhaps part is that they are expected now so the
element of surprise is lost. I do not know what they were looking
for in the source music songs in this film, but they did not find
it. The songs in the first film were somehow instantly likable.
The choice of songs this time around seems pallid and drab. If I
hear the same songs again on the radio I will probably not even
remember that I have heard them before.
At the end of SHREK 2 we are just about where we were at the
beginning of SHREK 2, but an hour and a half have been spent at
least pleasantly. I might well have enjoyed myself watching SHREK
for the nth time as much as watching SHREK 2 for the first time.
Perhaps what we need next is a film about Donkey. Eddie, if they
offer you I SPY II, go for DONKEY: THE MOVIE instead. I would
rate SHREK 2 a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: TROY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is a frequently flawed film, but for fans of
classical adventures it is worth seeing anyway. This is probably
the version of the "Iliad" story that will stick with you. TROY
breathes life into Homer's story and makes the characters seem
like real humans. Brad Pitt stars as the noble Achilles and does
a reasonable job. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
You probably have heard some negative things about the film TROY.
They are mostly true. The characters are not well developed. You
have probably heard that the filmmakers took this giant work of
ancient literature and turned it into an action film with lots of
CGI special effects. Why would you want to see that? Well,
because they took this giant work of ancient literature and turned
it into an action film with lots of CGI special effects. I read
THE ILIAD more or less under protest. It was in verse yet.
Characters like Achilles were like chess pieces. Now Achilles was
in tent sulking. Now Achilles was angry on the battlefield. In
verse you gave very little thought to Achilles as a human rather
than this character who might as well be made of marble. He was
one-dimensional. One could say that in TROY, Brad Pitt plays
Achilles perhaps a little flat. But flat is two-dimensional and
two dimensions is a whole lot more than one.
When I read about the formidable walls of Troy, I will now have a
picture in my mind of what those steep and impregnable walls
looked like. I will tell you very frankly that beforehand I did
not want to see noble Achilles played by pretty Brad Pitt. Pitt
did not seem formidable. Now I have seen Achilles as played by
Brad Pitt and I wouldn't want to fight him. I had previously seen
two different films called HELEN OF TROY. Yes, the story of Troy
was all there in each case. But the images of those films have
faded from my memory very quickly. They were just not very
engaging films. TROY is going to be the version of the story of
the siege of that city that I will probably remember. This is the
version with the really impressive images. Sure, many of those
images were create in a computer. But that is not how I am going
to remember them. If this was not a story from classical
literature I might not remember it. But this is the film that got
to Homer's ILIAD first with really impressive images and with
reasonably human characters who are not made out of marble. I can
almost guarantee you that whenever you run into the story of the
siege of Troy or the Trojan Horse, this film is what will come to
your mind.
The film opens with Agamemnon (Brian Cox, as always delightfully
slimy) conquering Thessaly, the last kingdom of Greece he does not
rule. To make the conquest he must call upon his greatest hero
(also something of a prima donna) Achilles. What follows bodes
not well for the rest of the film. Once Achilles is found, lazily
sleeping late in his tent while the battle was forming, he is
given the job of defeating a giant brute of a man who is the
champion of the Thessalians. Guess who wins. Soon the story is
back on track as the Trojan Paris (Orlando Bloom) steals Helen
(Diane Kruger) from her Greek king husband Menelaus (Brendan
Gleeson). He takes Helen to Troy. This gives Agamemnon the
excuse to bring an army of thousands of men to try to take the
walled city. We are very quickly into the material of Homer's
ILIAD. Much too quickly actually, since that should take place in
the tenth year of the war, not the first. However, since there
are no accounts of the first ten years of the war as far as I
know, that material is easily dispensed with. The film fairly
accurately follows the story of THE ILIAD but without the presence
of corporeal gods. When THE ILIAD runs out, it continues with the
story of the fall of Troy. (Incidentally, it is a common error to
believe that the story of the Trojan Horse and the fall of Troy is
told in THE ILIAD. Actually there may be a reference or two, but
THE ILIAD ends before that incident. That story and the
subsequent fall of Troy is told elsewhere, most notably THE
AENEID.) The film does not noticeably take sides in the war, but
King Priam of Troy (Peter O'Toole at age 72) comes off
considerably better than does Greek King Agamemnon. However, most
of the film is about Achilles who ironically seems to combine in a
single personality childishness, manhood, and high nobility. The
Trojans have their own noble hero in Hector (Eric Bana), the loyal
brother of Paris. The wily Odysseus is played by Sean Bean well
enough to make the viewer wish that director Wolfgang Petersen
would now feature Bean in an adaptation of THE ODYSSEY.
Complaints? I do not think that the walled city of Troy could
have been as big as it is portrayed. I visited the assumed site
near Canakkale, Turkey, and it just did not seem that big. One
sees a fair amount of nudity in the film, though always with the
"naughty bits" hidden. Still, it seemed more than the film
needed. Petersen borrows a touch from Akira Kurosawa's RAN by
having some of the battle scenes be nearly silent with overlaid
music. The score is by James Horner. There are a lot of people
in this film who just did not look Greek or Trojan, but that seems
to be the approach. These people are supposed to look and act a
lot like the viewer or people the viewer knows. Petersen fleshes
out Homer's characters, giving them recognizable personalities and
makes them understandable and believable to a modern audience. I
rate TROY a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Carolyn Keene's THE SECRET OF THE OLD CLOCK was a nostalgia read
for the mystery book group, but one of the oddities about it is
that people had at least two different versions to choose from.
Originally written in 1930, it was re-written in 1959 to remove
racial sterotypes (sounds a bit like Agatha Christie's TEN LITTLE
INDIANS/AND THEN THERE WERE NONE!), as well as to raise Nancy's
age to 18, change her roadster to a convertible, and other
"modernizations." One of these modernizations, according to one
person who read both editions, was the dumbing-down of the
language. This may be why I didn't enjoy the new version as much,
and I also missed Beth and George. (We weren't sure if they were
written out, or whether they didn't appear until later volumes.
And we also didn't think today's teenagers would find much to like
in them--there isn't much for them to identify with, but there is
no "period feel" left to enjoy either. (This is why the updating
of Sherlock Holmes done for the later Universal films doesn't work
very well.) And our opinion is supported somewhat by one person,
who said her niece had read it and thought that Nancy was just
"too good" to be believable.
(Ironically, given the removal of the racial stereotypes, Nancy
Drew is now published under Pocket Books's Minstrel imprint.)
There are also new series of Nancy Drew: Nancy Drew on Campus,
Nancy Drew Notebooks, Nancy Drew & Hardy Boys Super Mysteries.
Frankly, my recommendation both for those looking for nostalgia
and for those reading them for the first time would be to read the
1930 editions if you can find them, and skip the newer ones.
Details about many of the differences and change can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/opinion/06BENF.html (probably
expired, but there seems to be a copy at
http://www.bayviews.org/baynews/news0403.htm). There was also an
essay on epinions.com, but it seems to be gone.
Isaac Asimov's I, ROBOT, on the other hand, has not been revised
since the original 1940s and 1950s publication of the stories, and
remains extremely readable even now. And while many of the
stories are "mere" puzzle pieces, several had deeper philosophical
issues that remain pertinent even today. (And I may have more to
say after our science fiction discussion group discusses it.)
On the other hand, I tried to read Joseph Conrad's LORD JIM, this
month's selection for the general book discussion group at the
library. But it was just too tough going. I know people talk
about how Joseph Conrad mastered English so well as a second
language, but if one looks at just this novel, one gets the
impression that he didn't really have the hang of it. His
phrasing, combined with the non-linear telling of the story, made
this the sort of book that I decided life was too short to read.
(Many people felt this way, though a couple of people did finish
it, and one really liked it. That gives it a slight edge over THE
SUN ALSO RISES, which no one liked.)
And one non-book: I watched THE STONE READER, a documentary about
the filmmaker's search for Dow Mossman, the author of THE STONES
OF SUMMER. Mark Moskowitz had tried to read the book in the 1970s
and hated it, but when he came across his copy recently he found
that to the contrary he now thought it was superb. He realized
that Mossman hadn't ever written anything else and had disappeared
from view. So he embarked on a quest to find Mossman and discover
why this is so. The first part of the film is not specifically
about THE STONES OF SUMMER, and books that matter to their readers
in general--books like CATCH-22 and HAROLD AND THE PURPLE CRAYON
and CALL IT SLEEP and many others. Moskowitz travels around,
talking to people involved in publishing, teaching, or just plain
reading, all the time looking for hints to what happened to
Mossman. And this is the only movie I can remember that has,
following the song credits, book credits--and more books were
listed than I ever saw songs listed. Highly recommended for all
lovers of books. (No, I won't tell you what happens.) [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The gods do not protect fools. Fools are
protected by more capable fools.
-- Larry Niven
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/J.MolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/