THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/20/05 -- Vol. 23, No. 47 (Whole Number 1283)
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:
Travel at (Close to) the Speed of Light
Cars (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A Time of Endings: Star Trek (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (NEVER LET ME GO, A FIELD GUIDE TO
MONSTERS, and "The Monsters Are Due on Maple
Street") (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Travel at (Close to) the Speed of Light
Travel through Tuebingen at the speed of light at
http://www.spacetimetravel.org/tuebingen/tue0.html.
===================================================================
TOPIC: Cars (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was involved in a dinner conversation that got around to sports
cars. Expensive ones. Someone noticed that I was not saying
anything. I drive a Toyota Corolla. I know nothing about
expensive cars. It occurred to me to ask myself why I drive a
Corolla. I guess it expresses who I am. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: A Time of Endings: Star Trek (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Well, last week an era came to an end when the last episode of
"Star Trek" was broadcast. I suppose it is time to think about
my take on the series. I remember when nobody had heard about
"Star Trek" and TV GUIDE had on their television news page that
there would be a new program that would be a sort of "Wagon Train
to the Stars." Remembering "Wagon Train", I guess they thought
it would be human-interest stories that took place in space. I
was into rip-roaring space opera at the time, but human-interest
stories would be okay also, I thought. I remember the first
episode was about the very human problem of how could humans
combat a salt vampire. I thought I coudl live with that. I
judge the series as not as interesting as "The Twilight Zone" or
"The Outer Limits", but it was worth watching and probably the
high-point of my week. I remained ambivalent toward the series
and its spin-offs its whole life.
"Star Trek" was sort of the McDonalds of science fiction. It
wasn't the best, it wasn't the worst, and lots of people had
experienced it. I never loved an episode of "Star Trek", but
there were enough good episodes that I kept coming back. The
series brought a lot of people to science fiction. Back in the
mid-1970s, active fan Cy Chauvin told Evelyn that she was the only
female science fiction fan he knew that did not get interested in
science fiction by watching "Star Trek". "Star Trek" was a very
strong influence in the field. I am firmly convinced that
"Babylon 5" was a better series, but that it was by borrowing
what was good about "Star Trek" and by noticing what was bad
about "Star Trek" and by making sure they did not make the same
mistakes.
What were the mistakes of "Star Trek"? First, there was the
infamous "reset button." It is generally easier to sell a
television series to syndication if the episodes can be seen
re-arranged in any order. The local station just gets a bunch of
episodes and shows them however they happen to fall. The problem
is continuity. The producer has to be certain that nothing
permanent happens in an episode. This was fine with the Lone
Ranger, since he fought a different villain each week. It does
not matter if you know the Lone Ranger is going to win. That did
not work so well with hour-long "Star Trek" episodes. It robbed
the stories of dramatic tension knowing nothing important could
happen in a given episode. You always knew the Enterprise would
win its conflicts. Is Jean-Luc Picard really a Romulan agent in
disguise? You knew without seeing the episode that the answer
would be "no". So why bother watching? Fans started talking
about how at the end of an episode the writer hit the "reset
button," and things went back to what they were at the beginning.
It took the producers way too long to understand the importance of
a story arc in which something happened each week to keep people
tuning in each week.
A related idea was the problem that the Enterprise was
invincible. It won every fight. Finally the producers realized
what was going wrong and invented the Borg. They were a stupid
visual design for an alien--they were as ugly as a fresh car
crash--and their cubic ships were just as bad. But the idea was
to show the Enterprise crew that there was a race out there that
could easily pound the ship and its crew to a fine paste and serve
it on Ritz Crackers. This was a great idea. It added danger to
the universe that we had not seen since the earliest episodes.
This was exciting stuff. Then they mortgaged what they had by
staging a rematch and showed that once they got their bearings,
the Enterprise could beat even the Borg. Oh, boy! The "Star
Trek" universe was again safe and secure and totally lacking in
dramatic tension. The ultimate death of the good idea was when
they turned a Borg into a sexy babe in a skin-tight costume. That
worked so well they gave Vulcans the same treatment, making a
Vulcan a sexy babe in a skin-tight costume. Finally you have
Vulcans and humans getting it on together in revealing shower
scenes. I am happy to say that it should at least be clear to
anyone that the flagging ratings of "Star Trek" does not
necessarily correlate to a lessening of interest in science
fiction. The writing just got horribly mediocre.
The characters in the original series were people with character
flaws who did not always get along. They sometimes needled each
other. As the series of series progressed the personalities of
the characters became more and more sketchy. The commander was
nearlyalways a pile of virtues in human form. No alcoholics. No
drug users. Nobody who was tight with money. Nobody with
prejudice. After the first couple of series I seem to remember
the actors were all white or approved affirmative action
minorities or fictional aliens. Were there any Slavs?
Spaniards? Italians? Native Americans? Asian Indians?
Koreans? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? None that come to mind for
me. Well, I guess there was nobody of any existing religion at
all. I don't remember a whole lot of actors who were not Chinese,
maybe Japanese, black, or white. I don't remember a whole lot of
characters who were not Chinese, maybe Japanese, black, or white
people, possibly with plastic appliances on their faces. They had
a reputation for being inclusive that really only the first series
met in any meaningful way giving the years each series was
broadcast.
But through it all, there was a sort of optimism of the series.
And that is what I think was admirable. There was a feeling that
we would get past our current problems and move on to brave new
problems. Yes, there would always be problems, just as there had
always been. But the message was that the human species was a
survivor. It had a message that humanity would not be stopped and
that we would reach the stars. We have to work for it, but
eventually we will be travelling at high warp speeds and passing
stars like mile markers. And that thought is the true legacy of
"Star Trek". It is that I will miss. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The last "Star Wars" film bursts on the screen in an
explosion of high melodrama. The final piece of the story falls
smoothly into place as the origins of the 1977 film we saw become
clear. As the episodes go, Chapter III seen this year is second
only to the impact of Chapter IV as seen from 1977. Rating: +3
(-4 to +4) or 9/10
The three worst things about STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF
THE SITH are: 1) George Lucas cannot get a good performance from
anybody. He has some good actors and the best that can be said
is the acting does not get in the way of the story. For example,
Samuel L. Jackson should be embarrassed by how bad Lucas let his
performance be. 2) The crack Imperial Troopers seem to be
useless for any known tactical purpose, as usual. 3) The John
Williams has written a pretty good score. (Sorry, I know that
was not a negative. I am fresh out of negatives.) This is the
best sequel (or prequel, or follow-up, or whatever) of the whole
"Star Wars" series.
What is interesting is that everybody has known the basic plot of
STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH for years. Yet
somehow it is hypnotic and at the same time satisfying just
seeing it happen. You say to yourself, "Oh, so this is why
Anakin is turned to the dark side of the Force. Ah, that
explains why Leia's last name is Organa." All (or nearly all)
the fiddley little loose ends are tied up. Yet nothing seems
forced like the title of the new THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE is.
REVENGE OF THE SITH is the logical successor to ATTACK OF THE
CLONES and the logical predecessor to A NEW HOPE. The only
difference is that it is more visually spectacular than either.
This is the dramatic highpoint of the entire series. One leaves
the theater wanting to see it again, or perhaps to go home and
watch STAR WARS: EPISODE IV again. And scenes we have been
seeing for 28 years--Jeez, is it really that long?--now look
different and have deeper meaning.
This is the story of how Anakin Skywalker, a loyal Jedi Knight,
becomes disenchanted with the Jedi Order and falls under the
influence of the Dark Sith Lords. It is the story of how he gets
the new name of Darth Vader and how he is nearly killed in a
volcano and ends up in the walking iron lung that is his famous
suit. We see that he is not so much disloyal to the Jedis (or in
Chapter VI to the Sith), but always placing his family and
friends above his responsibilities. It fits very nicely with
Chapter V where his son does the same. Sure, it is all
melodrama, but it is great melodrama. Lucas borrows from the
best. There is something of Milton's Lucifer in Anakin's
choosing the power of the Sith rather than a subservient role in
the Jedi. There is also some Dickensian license in Lucas giving
villains names like Sidious and General Grievous.
In an opera, if you do not like the story there is always the
music. Here, there are always the visuals to see. This film is
a sketchpad of intriguing ideas brought to life. We have
throwaway ideas like a spaceport made from the ribcage of what
must have been a creature of Godzilla proportions. We finally
get to visit the Wookie home planet which we were originally to
see in the 1983 film. We see a world of advanced technology
based on animal life. Sometimes the film goes overboard. Lucas
can put more images on the screen than the mind can take in. The
opening sequence battle scenes may have just such a problem.
Lucas apparently thinks that while less can be more, much more is
always much more. The climactic duel inside a volcano is the
most spectacular martial arts sequence in memory.
There have been some complaints that this is the only "Star Wars"
movie to receive a rating higher than PG. This chapter gets a
PG-13. This is a darker film and the fans have known for a long
while sooner or later Lucas had to show Darth Vader getting the
injuries that would force him to wear the support suit. That is
not the stuff that young children might want to see.
In years to come George Lucas's farewell to his STAR WARS series
may be considered his finest entry. It is true, however, that
the impact of this film at the time of its release cannot be as
great as the impact that the original film had in 1977. Still, it
exceeds all expectations. I rate STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE
OF THE SITH a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 9/10. Thanks,
Mr. Lucas. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Kazuo Ishiguro's NEVER LET ME GO (ISBN 1-4000-4339-5) is a
science fiction novel (and an alternate history novel), but is
not going to be found in the science fiction section of your
bookstore or library. (I say it's alternate history because it
takes place in the late 1990s and we find out that the technology
diverges from our world's some time in the 1950s, but its
alternate history content is minimal, and it could just as easily
have been set in the near future.) Ishiguro doesn't reveal this
technology or his premise until well into the book, but by now
most reviewers have talked about it. If you want no spoilers,
stop now. Okay, if you're still reading, here goes. Ishiguro
posits a sub-class of donors (and carers) who are actually clones
raised for the purpose of donating organs. Ishiguro seems to
understand cloning, and also knows all the *mis*-understandings
that the public seems to have. He uses the first to construct
his characters, and the second to construct the public policy
that drives the world these characters live in. As a science
fiction book, this is remarkably spare in its technological
details, spending its time looking at the social effects of
technological advances. And so it is perhaps a purer science
fiction novel than many which have a lot of technology, but very
little about the effects of that technology. "A story which
could not have taken place without the scientific content." Yep,
that about describes it.
There are, of course, parallels to slavery and other oppressions
which attempt to justify themselves by making their victims less
than human. But those arguments no longer carry as much weight
with the population as a whole, at least as literally taken,
while Ishiguro's premise (alas) does. And Ishiguro presents a
solution to this, when the main character accuses another,
saying, "[Marie-Claude] never liked us. She's always been afraid
of us. In the way people are afraid of spiders and things." To
which another character replies, "Marie-Claude has given
*everything* for you. She has worked and worked and worked.
Make no mistake about it, my child. Marie-Claude is on your side
and will always be on your side. Is she afraid of you? We're
*all* afraid of you. I myself had to fight back my dread of you
almost every day I was at Hailsham. There were times I would
look down at you all from my study window and I'd feel such
revulsion . . . . But I was determined not to let such feelings
stop me doing what was right. I fought those feelings and I
won." This, it seems to me, is the ultimate answer to prejudice,
the bridge between the generation that can feel such revulsion
and future generations that do not.
Dave Elliott's A FIELD GUIDE TO MONSTERS purports to be a serious
book about monsters, in the style of field guides to poisonous
snakes or mushrooms. It looked like it could be a humorous
tongue-in-cheek book, but was so riddled with errors that I found
it more annoying than humorous. For example, the location
indicated on the map for the Amazon habitat of the Creature from
the Black Lagoon is nowhere near the Amazon; the shark in JAWS
was not a "mutated fish, lizard, or dinosaur"; sharks appeared as
monsters in films before 1976; the Loch Ness Monster appeared
first in THE SECRET OF THE LOCH in 1934, years before the 1996
film LOCH NESS Elliott gives as it first appearance; and
Tyrannosaurus rex appeared pre-dates Elliott's citation of the
1996 JURASSIC PARK by over sixty years, having appeared in the
1933 KING KONG. And I only got as far as page 47. Not
recommended.
Non-book note: I just saw "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street"
(from THE TWILIGHT ZONE). It's really sad that this doesn't seem
at all dated. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
You need only reflect that one of the best
ways to get yourself a reputation as a
dangerous citizen these days is to go about
repeating the very phrases which our
founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles Austin Beard, historian