THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/06/05 -- Vol. 23, No. 45 (Whole Number 1281)
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 Next Phase of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Nebula Awards
Fortune Cookie (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Do the Math (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR NORRELL by Susanna Clarke
(book review by Joe Karpierz)
SF: EPISODE I (SAMURAI FICTION) (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (TUNNEL IN THE SKY, CITY OF GOD,
and WHAT JUST HAPPENED) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Next Phase of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
(comments by Mark R. Leeper):
HOLD THE PRESSES
[If the wording of this seems familiar, I am writing this at the
last moment to get into the notice. I just found out about this
this morning. I am just an updating of a notice that ran last
September. At the moment I am too rushed to write some new
insouciant humor to go with this story so you will have to make do
with the previous souciant humor of the last posting. I will not
have time to proofread and apologize in advance for any of words
order out.]
BBC Radio 4 has produced another new series of their hugely
super-popular semi-sci-fi but mostly comedy series "The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". [Also movie currently a. Issue
this see.] They began broadcasting on May 3, which may seem like
just any other date to you, but it is the day in which the light
and darkness are in equal proportions and this is the country of
paganism and Stonehenge. [Well, no, that was the last time the
notice ran. These days there is more light than darkness. At
least in some ways. Oh dear. There isn't time to find something
special about May 3 and it has already passed anyway. Rush.
Rush. Rush. Okay, how about that we are just half a year round
form November 3?]
But, I hear you say that BBC 4 is a whole ocean away. (Well, some
of you are now saying no, it isn't, but those voices are saying it
in a British accent. (How cultured it sounds. Can this really be
the people that spends its evenings drinking in pubs and which
produces those tawdry tabloids and whose Ministers of Parliament
are so frequently found in their cups and in ladies' foundation
garments? (But I digress.))) The inescapable fact is that very
few of us on this side of the pond have radios strong enough to
pick up the Beeb (that is the super-secret nickname for the BBC
that only us aficionados who are real insiders know) so we will
have to wait for local broadcasts of the series just like last
time. But, hark, many things have changed over the last 26 years
since the show's first broadcast. (America still had the respect
of the world then, for one thing. (But I guess that was true four
years ago too. (But I digress.))) Fear not, fair varlet, if thou
hast one of those useful PC thingees with the screen and the
keyboard and the spam and the pop-ups. [Jeez, did I really used to
write like this? It was clever, I suppose, but I am much funnier
today than I was then.] For one can yet get BBC 4 over the
Internet. Yet wait, says you, have I (you) not already missed the
first episode? In sooth thou hast, but thou canst download an
episode up to a seven days after its Thursday re-broadcast. There
is still time, but thou bestest rush for the deadline draweth
nigher and nigher.
Details at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/index.shtml and
the BBC's own information at http://tinyurl.com/bffat. [There.
A whole article written in 47 seconds. And most people probably
don't remember I made all these jokes before. Gee, do other people
know about the benefits of reuse? Or is it just me and Roger
Corman? [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Nebula Awards
Winners of the 2004 Nebula Awards:
Novel: PALADIN OF SOULS, Lois McMaster Bujold (Eos)
Novella: "The Green Leopard Plague", Walter Jon Williams
(Asimov's Oct/Nov 2003)
Novelette: "Basement Magic", Ellen Klages (F&SF May 2003)
Short Story: "Coming to Terms", Eileen Gunn (STABLE STRATEGIES AND
OTHERS)
Script: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING, Fran Walsh,
Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson (New Line Cinema; based on
the novel by J. R. R. Tolkien)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Fortune Cookie (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A friend of mine plays a game. When he eats in a Chinese
restaurant and gets a fortune cookie he reads the fortune and
suffixes it with the prepositional phrase "in bed." This
supposedly makes fortunes a lot more funny. So I was showing this
to Evelyn and opened my fortune cookie. The fortune was, "You
will sleep well tonight." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Do the Math (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A phrase you hear frequently is "do the math." The sort of thing
is "One man. Three women. Do the math." Wow. Sounds
impressive, huh? Usually when you hear or read that there is no
mathematics whatsoever to do. Or if there is mathematics to do,
it is second grade arithmetic. There is a one third of a man per
woman. So what does that mean? They aren't going to divide him
up.
I think the phrase "do the math" should really be licensed and
its usage controlled. Anyone who says to do the math should have
to prove first that there is some math there to do and second
that he himself can do the math. Bluffing is probably more
common than bona fide cases where there is mathematics that can
be done. You do see cases where the real mathematics is highly
sophisticated and the person who says "do the math" has not done
any himself. This is closely related to proof by intimidation.
Somebody might say, "we will run out of food by the middle of
this century--do the math.
Okay. So let's actually do some of the math. In Robert
Heinlein's TUNNEL IN THE SKY, a story that takes place
considerably in the future, there is a reference to the claim
that if everybody in China was lined up four abreast and marched
past a point, say a reviewing stand, the end of the line would
never pass it. Chinese are born too fast. (Well, I have always
heard the problem saying they were walking off a cliff, but that
is needlessly gruesome. For once Heinlein is more politically
correct than the norm.) Heinlein says the assertion is not true
and that even if one ignores deaths it would take only about four
years to review the entire Chinese population.
I do not know where Heinlein got his figures, but I went to the
CIA web page that gives the population, birth rate, and death
rate for China
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ch.html).
Let's do the math. In the year 2004 there were 1.299 billion
people in China. (This assumes that figure is accurate and the
Chinese are not hiding from the government the number of children
they have. The government punishes families with too many
children, and some families really do cheat and hide the number
of children they actually have.)
In 2004 there were 12.98 births per 1000 and 6.92 deaths per
1000. That is a net change of 6.06 added to the line per 1000.
(I have no idea why all these figures fall so suspiciously close
to nice round numbers. What are the chances? Do the math.)
With 1.299 billion people that gives you an approximation of
7,817,400 people added per year. That is 21,417 people added per
day. That is 892.4 people added per hour. Or 0.247888 people
added per second. That is very close to 4 seconds per person.
(Another nearly round number.) Or a new row of four people would
be added about every 16 seconds.
So for the numbers to work and the statement to be true the row
of four people walking abreast would have to pass by every 16
seconds. That is a fairly open rank. I think we picture it as
being more likely a row would walk by every two seconds. So
walking four abreast is not going to do it. One person walking
by every 4 seconds would be about right. But this assumes that
children born to parents who have already walked by would have to
go through the line. Even with that assumption eventually the
Chinese population would have all been reviewed.
Now Heinlein, who I suspect did not really do the mathematics,
says that his high school student figured how long it would take
to deplete the un-reviewed population. He came up with four years
somehow. I tried the calculation and found it to be a nasty
differential equation. It has been thirty-one years since I have
done a really nasty differential equation. Hey, you want more
drama in the MT VOID? Here it is. I am going to face my
own demons right here in front of the MT VOID readership. I am
going to challenge myself to solve this problem. My own personal
demon is the mathematics I have forgotten. Now I will put it to
the test. Next week I am going to come back with the answer or I
will admit that I am just not the sharp mathematician I used to
be. I will report the results next week. I may give the
solution technique if I can make it sufficiently clear, but I
will come back with some sort of answer or an admission of
defeat. I wonder if I can run this like a walk-a-thon. Anyone
want to pledge money to Oxford Famine Relief if I am able to
solve this problem? (You know, this is going to be pretty
depressing if I fail. Maybe this isn't such a good idea.)
TO BE CONTINUED NEXT WEEK [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY (film review by Mark
R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: It is hard to be too harsh on a film with as many smiles
as this one has. But for many of us the jokes will be just too
familiar. Some of the visualizations are quite good and perhaps
the best thing about this version of the oft-adapted stories of
Douglas Adams. This film is a pleasant experience but a
throwaway one. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
For me, THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY is getting to be
like a good joke that I have heard too many times. Come to think
of it, that is exactly what it is. I have heard the original
radio broadcasts, read the books, heard the records, saw the TV
show, played the video game, read the cereal box, saw the stage
play, read the comic, and bought the beach towel. (Come to think
of it, where is the beach towel?) Watching the film I had a
curious sense of deja deja deja deja deja deja vu. I not only
knew the gags ahead of time, I knew the plot that was coming up,
and I knew the mid-film allusions to the jokes I was just about
to hear. I think I can solidly recommend the film to people who
have experienced the story in at least one and not more than
three of the above media. You should have experienced none of
the media versions any more than three times. If this is your
first experience with THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY you
risk being completely lost, and if you have dragged through it
too many times you risk falling asleep to the tune of gags you
can recite in your sleep.
Douglas Adams's humor may not be well suited to visual media. In
the radio version Adams has one throwaway joke in which Ford
tells Zephod that the extra head suits him. The TV series was
then obliged to put a stupid, lifeless head next to Zephod's
living one and the actor had to go through the whole series like
that. The new film version neatly side-steps the two-head
problem. I will give it credit for that. But it takes longer
for a visual dramatic medium to establish a setting than it does
on radio and this slows down the gags and eliminates some of the
nice dialog. This is a much chopped-down version of the plot and
the clever one-liners become leaden production numbers. One
clever Adams bon mot becomes an entire Broadway-musical-style
song to run under the opening credits. It is like casting an
ethereal haiku in double-thick iron plating. Even in this
hobbled version the brightness of the Adams humor comes through
and we can occasionally pretend a bit that we are hearing these
jokes for the first time. It is a pleasant if empty experience.
I should say something about the plot, though if you are not
already familiar with the plot you may be a little lost in the
film. (Now how do I say it without ruining the gags?
Particularly because the plot is densely packed with gags.)
Arthur Dent is a poor hapless nebbish who cannot get a date and
whose house [gag reference deleted] because [gag reference
deleted]. He then finds out from his friend Ford Prefect that
aliens called Vogons are going to [gag reference deleted] because
[gag reference deleted]. Before he knows what is happening he
and Ford are on board a Vogon spacecraft with nowhere to go but
the inky blackness of space.
The film has most of its rewards in its visuals. The vision of
the Vogons as a big, lumbering, oafish race is a very nice piece
of translation to the screen. A great deal of effort probably
went into making the words fit their big, rubbery lips or really
vice versa. But here it is a mistake in translating to the jokes
to a visual medium. English words should not fit Vogon lips.
The Vogons speak their own language, and the [gag reference
deleted] allows the humans to hear in English. It should look to
humans like a badly dubbed movie. Scenes toward the end of the
film are spectacular and there is even time for a visual nod to
THINGS TO COME and another to STAR TREK. There is an extended
new sequence centering on a new character named Humma Kavula and
played by John Malkovich. The sequence is not really a very
productive one, but Humma Kavula is a visually clever idea for a
strange alien. I checked and Humma Kavula is not actually a line
from the song "Bippity Boppity Boo" like I thought it was. I
did, however, correctly recognize Marvin's voice as being that of
Alan Rickman. But even outside of a Hitchhiker's context
Rickman's voice always had a sort of Marvin quality. It was a
good casting choice even if visually Marvin was not my image of
the lugubrious robot. Another good casting choice was the choice
of Bill Nighy for a character who appears late in the film.
Nighy has been a good character actor for years, but I think
audiences saw him entirely anew after he was the best thing in
the film LOVE ACTUALLY.
Seeing THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY as a film was not the
experience I was hoping for, but it kept me smiling. I rate it a
+1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR NORRELL by Susanna Clarke (2004,
Bloomsbury, $27.95, 782pp, ISBN 1-58234-416-7) (book review by
Joe Karpierz)
It's that time of year again--my annual review of the Hugo
nominees. So, forward, into the past . . . literally.
So, a few months ago, one of my neighbors, a science fiction and
fantasy fan, gives us this doorstop with the statement "Gwen
might like this". Gwen, for those who don't know, is my
daughter, and "this", was a book called JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR
NORRELL (and no, that's not a typo--there's no period after Mr).
I'd not heard of the book up to that point, but not long after
that I started noticing rave reviews for it, especially in Locus'
year end recommending reading list. Well, I think you guys all
know me by now. It's a fantasy, and I don't read fantasy as a
rule not because I don't like it as much as because there's so
much science fiction out there to read that I'd rather read the
science fiction than the fantasy.
So, in come the Hugo nominations, and in I go to Gwen's room to
ask her for the book to read.
Folks, I don't see what all the hype is about. To be sure, it's
a very well written book. The use of the language and spelling
of the period (early 1800's) is phenomenal. Clarke obviously did
her homework in setting up the story in the period and location
in which it is set. She also creates a rich enough history so
that you feel like it's a very *full* tale, if you know what I
mean. Everything is sketched out, and even minor points have
some very full backgrounds. But I have two major problems with
the novel:
1) It's slow, moving at almost a glacial pace, and
2) She uses footnotes, for Pete's sake, to tell some of the
story. When you write a 780+ page novel, you really shouldn't
be using footnotes in smaller type than the main story to fill
out the background.
My neighbor said, "Nothing happens until about page 200". At
page 210 I confronted him with the fact that nothing was
happening. He said, "Oh, maybe I was wrong, I think it was page
300". We played that game for awhile. I haven't seen him in
about a week, but I needed to tell him that it was about page 500
before anything interesting enough happened to pique my interest.
Oh, yeah, the story. Magic has disappeared from England. It
used to be a commonplace thing, this magic. And I'm not talking
about the pointy hat wizard type of magic, with guys in flowing
robes running around throwing lightning bolts and fireballs
(well, at least there were no flamboyant outfits), but almost
"gentlemanly" magic--it's hard to explain. There are still
magicians in the world, but they study magic--they don't perform
it. They are not practical magicians. In fact, there don't seem
to be any practical magicians anywhere in England until Mr
Gilbert Norrell is discovered in Yorkshire. He sets about trying
to restore magic to England, and since he's the only practical
magician in England, he can shape the restoration any way he
wants--until Jonathan Strange comes along.
Strange becomes Norrell's student, but the two of them couldn't
be any more different. Norrell is cautious, warning England
about the dangers of most magic, hoarding all the magic books so
that the power they hold and talk about can't be misused by
people who don't understand it. Strange is flamboyant, a risk
taker. He wants to explore magic and try all sorts of things
that Norrell never would. The main point of contention, it
seems, is that of the Raven King, whose more traditional name is
John Uskglass. Uskglass was a powerful magician who ruled the
northern portion of England several hundred years before the time
of the novel. He also ruled several other kingdoms, including
that of Faerie, where the fairies come from--no not like
Tinkerbell or anything like that, but sly, devious, and
treacherous creatures who look like men. Norrell wants to drive
the memory of Uskglass out of England, and remove his influence
entirely from the magic revival. Strange embraces Uskglass and
his teachings, claiming that if one removed Uskglass from the
magic, one would have no magic at all, because all magic comes
from Uskglass.
Clarke does succeed in making you feel at first one way, and then
another, about both Strange and Norrell. She also throws in the
normal things like prophecies, mysterious characters, scoundrels,
and all the other trappings of fantasy, but manages to make it
more palatable than the typical sword and sorcery stuff.
However, it just never hit home for me--maybe it will for you.
[-jak]
[Note: The lack of the period following "Mr" is because that's
how the British punctuate--or fail to punctuate--that honorific.
-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: SF: EPISODE I (SAMURAI FICTION) (film review by Mark
R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: With its light touch, this is the most enjoyable samurai
film that I have seen in years. It is a deft and slightly daft
story of a valuable sword stolen by a by an enigmatic but
unstoppable swordsman. The unready son of the rightful owner is
forced to chase down an enemy whose fighting skills are far
superior to his own. The film features beautiful photography and
almost no blood. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
In 1616 Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu personally gave a gift of a sword
to one of his loyal retainers. Eighty years later that sword is
the treasure of one of the Japanese clans. But circumstances
cause an untried young samurai, Rannosuke Kazamatsuri, entrusted
with guarding the sword to instead steal it and run off with it.
The clan's chief official persuades his son Heishiro Inukai
(played by Mitsuru Fukikoshi) to chase down Kazamatsuri (Tomoyasu
Hotei) and get the sword back. But Kazamatsuri proves to be an
unstoppable swordsman and has he his own plan for the great
sword. Inukai is not much of a world-beater and is a little
terrified of his assignment. That is the bad news. The good
news is that Kazamatsuri is very reserved and generally fights
only those who try to stop him in his mission. The bad news is
nobody but Kazamatsuri seems to survive those encounters.
Hiroyuki Nakano directs and co-authored the script, giving it a
quirky touch of comedy. One of his approaches is a sort of
irreverent sense for when to mix in whimsical anachronism. For
example, a peasant plays a nice rendition of "Swanee River" on a
wood saw. A trio of friends is called the Three Stooges. But
the film centers on the enigmatic Kazamatsuri. Tomoyasu Hotei is
tall and thin and quiet, reminiscent of a MAGNIFICENT-SEVEN-
vintage James Coburn. In the cliched way of samurai film he
seems nearly defenseless and is instead formidable. Of course we
have to have the requisite scene with a bunch of who find that
not respecting this stranger is a fatal mistake.
The film is shot in black-and-white with occasional color
effects. Rather than showing any blood in the fights, when
someone has been killed the screen is drenched in red. But the
only blood we ever see is from a nosebleed. The photography is
done in a rich spectrum of black and white with scenes being very
well composed. The style conjures of memories of Life Magazine
photography. There are numerous nods to pop culture and the film
is orchestrated to a mostly rock and jazz score.
The title of the film is "SF: Episode 1", implying that it is the
beginning of a series, but seven years after the film was made
there is no sign of a sequel. That is a pity since this was for
me the most pleasant and enjoyable samurai film that I have seen
since SANJURO. I rate it a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or
8/10.
(Available on DVD.)
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I'm somewhat behind in my reading (and writing) because of
Passover, so bear with me.
Our science fiction discussion group discussed Robert A.
Heinlein's TUNNEL IN THE SKY (ISBN 0-345-35373-0) this month. It
was compared and contrasted to such works as ROBINSON CRUSOE by
Daniel Defoe, SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON by Johann Wyss, THE
MYSTERIOUS ISLAND by Jules Verne, and LORD OF THE FLIES by
William Golding. It is worth noting that the only books listed
in the "Customers who bought this book also bought" section of
amazon.com were five other Heinlein juveniles and Heinlein's THE
MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, and their "Better together"
recommendation is one of the Heinlein juveniles. While there is
certainly validity in those choices, TUNNEL IN THE SKY is far
more closely connected to the works listed above. The science
fictional content is minimal, merely a device to strand this
groups of teenagers on an uninhabited world. In fact, the main
character is convinced for a while that he is actually still on
Earth, possibly in Africa somewhere. One thing we agreed on,
though, was that Heinlein included a lot more politics than the
other "survival" novels. (One on-line reviewer said, "TUNNEL IN
THE SKY has variations of the themes covered in LORD OF THE
FLIES." He may not have realized that TUNNEL IN THE SKY predates
LORD OF THE FLIES by four years. It is even remotely possible
that Golding was writing in response to Heinlein.)
I am slogging my way through the thousand-plus pages of St.
Augustine's CITY OF GOD (ISBN 0-14-044426-2), but am finding a
lot to dispute. Well, the fact that Passover affected my
schedule should tell you something, but it's more than that. The
first part of the book is Augustine trying to explain why
Christianity is objectively provable as better than the Roman
religion. In I:6-7, for example, he says that while the Romans
would plunder Roman temples in the cities they were attacking,
the Romans and even the barbarians respected the Christian
churches. Well, even if this were entirely true then (which I
doubt), subsequent centuries have shown this to be an anomaly.
(And one reason it might have been true then was that the
barbarians--the Goths--of which he was writing were also
Christians.) In II:3, Augustine talks about all the "calamities
[that] befell the Romans when they worshipped the pagan gods."
Of course, since 413 C.E. when Augustine wrote that, lots of
calamities have befallen Christians, so that argument seems to
have caved in as well.
This is not to say that Augustine is not sometimes amazingly
topical. In II:11, he writes, "It is another mark of consistency
in the Greeks that they regarded even the actors of those stories
as worthy of considerable worth" and admitted them to political
office. (He thinks this is improper of them, because he
disapproves of the stories those actors performed.)
I may have more to say about CITY OF GOD when I get past the
Roman stuff and into the theology.
James Gleick's WHAT JUST HAPPENED: A CHRONICLE FROM THE
INFORMATION FRONTIER (ISBN 0-375-71391-3) was published in 2003,
but is a collection of articles over the preceding decade. As
such, a lot of the articles about the Internet, the Web,
electronic funds, and so on, are more nostalgic than cutting-
edge. It's a little like the feeling one gets when watching DIE
HARD 2 and seeing a woman on the airplane carrying a taser in her
purse. (Actually, I suspect even back in 1990 people could not
carry such items on board.) [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Life is one fool thing after another where
as love is two fool things after each other.
-- Oscar Wilde