THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
07/29/05 -- Vol. 24, No. 5, Whole Number 1293
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:
Revolutionary Hot Sauce (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Reviews (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Sobering Thoughts (letter of comment by Tony Pszeniczny)
I. F. Stone (letter of comment by Joseph T. Major)
WAR OF THE WORLDS by H. G. Wells (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
DOING TIME, DOING VIPASSANA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (INTRODUCING FOUCAULT,
INTRODUCING SCIENCE, THE MANY WORLDS OF BARRY
MALZBERG) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Revolutionary Hot Sauce (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I guess this is what happens to unsuccessful revolutions today.
The Huey P. Newton Foundation wants to use the Black Panther Party
slogan "Burn, Baby, Burn" to sell hot sauce. (Huey Newton was one
of the co-founders of the Black Panther Party.)
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/slogan20e_20050720.htm
I particularly feel heartened that they are working within the
system to provide for a tangible public good, namely hot sauce.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Reviews (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was discussing film and my film reviews with a friend recently
and the friend asked me whether I ever change my rating of a
film. My friend was taken aback when my enthusiastic response
was, "Oh, yeah. I do it all the time." I guess it is a little
disconcerting to people who rely on my rating to then find out
that I consider there is nothing sacred about the numbers I give
to the quality of film.
This coincidentally comes just shortly after Roger Ebert answered
in his "Answer Man" column a related question about his ratings.
He was asked how he could give a three-star rating to a recent
popcorn film and give only two and a half stars to a film that is
probably a classic. His response is that the reader should look
at what he says in the text of the review and not the rating
number to know what he thought.
I would say with my reviews both that the rating is what is
important and also that it is subject to change. Sorry, that is
just how it is.
Doesn't the text say what I think of the film? Well, usually it
does. But what I want to tell people about a film is what they
will not find elsewhere. I want to give readers something to
think about when they see the film. The example I usually give
is my review of the 1997 film TITANIC. There was a lot to like
about the film and my numerical rating was high. But there were
a lot of reviews to give the positives on the film. Nobody
seemed to notice the negatives like the water raising parallel to
the ceiling in the compartmentwhere the main characters were
trapped while scenes of the deck showed the ship tipping. Nor did
most notice the anachronism of having that a young woman raised in
polite society in 1912 knowing the uni-digital sign of contempt,
much less give it to someone else. The review left ambiguous my
overall assessment of the film, but the high numerical rating gave
my positive overall impression. For me the rating gives my actual
impression.
But still my rating is very subjective. In TITANIC, should I let
the negatives dominate my opinion of the film? Should I weigh
more the technical achievement of the film or the melodrama of
the love triangle with the evil and the good suitor? How I feel
about the film at the moment will be important in choosing a
rating. Another time my attitude might have been different. I
have said many times that my rating represents one viewer's
attitude on my most recent viewing.
Will my attitude change from viewing to viewing? Absolutely.
Mood hopefully will be only a small part of it. But it is a poor
work of art that appears exactly the same on every viewing. I
have never heard much of a discussion of how film criticism has
been affected by the common practice of putting commentaries on
DVDs. A film like DARK CITY I enjoyed in a theater and probably
rated well, but had no idea why Roger Ebert picked it as the best
film of its year. After hearing his DVD commentary I have to
admit that I see a lot more in the film. While I still don't call
it the best of its year, I am convinced I erroneaously low-rated
it.
Other films that I think I should have rated more highly were
include RESTORATION and JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO. My first viewing
of A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS led to a lukewarm opinion. Luckily I
was not writing reviews regularly at that time. Today I would
say it is one of the three best films I have seen. Recent films
that I would already up-rate based on the commentary and viewing
again would include DE-LOVELY and THE AVIATOR. HOUSE OF SAND AND
FOG on second viewing I gave one of my rare ratings of a full +4.
But it is not clear that it would be a service to my readers to
up-rate those film. Most viewers don't want to study a film. It
is not clear that a viewer wants to have an impression of the
film if it were studied. More likely what would be useful is a
first impression. That is usually the rating I give a film, even
if that impression may change with time. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Sobering Thoughts (letter of comment by Tony Pszeniczny)
Tony Pszeniczny responds to Mark's sobering thoughts in the
07/22/05 issue of the MT VOID [and mark's responses are
interleaved in brackets], "I mostly agree with your thoughts on
terrorism. I just have one thing to add about democracy for the
people as a way to counter terrorism: democracy means nothing if
you don't have a job." [-tp]
[When I was in China we saw people without jobs who really envied
our Democracy. -mrl]
"Everything above surviving is an extravagance. I think Benjamin
Franklin had it right when said something like: Freedom means
nothing without economic freedom. Will the Iraqi people achieve
this?" [-tp]
[I certainly hope so. It should be a high priority that they
have no less economic freedom than they had before. -mrl]
"Do you have any idea what the unemployment rate is right now in
Iraq?" [-tp]
[About 27% as of June. And if it doesn't come down then there
will be more people willing to take part in the insurgency. They
have to find work somehow. -mrl]
"What will it be after the US declares the war is over and a
'democracy' installed? Will there be enough satisfied-in-the-
belly people to: vote, speak out for reforms, fight for
injustice, and educate themselves to the point of being able to
make the critical decision to ignore politico crook candidates
and stand behind truly good leaders?" [-tp]
[Voting: There were quite a few at the last election.
Speaking out: I think that is happening now, but I don't have a
lot of information.
Fight for injustice: Oh, I hope not.
Educate themselves: Probably not. It would be a start if just
the United States could do that for
themselves. :-) -mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: I. F. Stone (letter of comment by Joseph T. Major)
Joseph T. Major replies to I. F. Stone's quote in the 07/22/05
issue of the MT VOID ("If you live long enough, the venerability
factor creeps in; first, you get accused of things you never did,
and later, credited for virtues you never had.") by saying, "The
problem is, regarding his work for the KGB, that most of the
people who admire him think that both apply to it." [-jtm]
Mark answers, "I know this is opening a can or worms. It is a
long way from having (quite legal) sympathies with the Soviets to
actually working for KGB. Do you know that he was an agent? My
sources say that he was only accused." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: WAR OF THE WORLDS by H. G. Wells (Bantam reissue 2003,
$4.95, 194pp, ISBN 0-553-21338-5) (book review by Joe Karpierz)
So I went to see the Steven Spielberg version of WAR OF THE
WORLDS during the movie's opening weekend, and realized (to my
undying embarrassment) that although I had seen the George Pal
version of the movie many years ago, I'd never read the novel.
So, I dropped what I was reading (an easy thing to do, as you'll
find out two reviews from now, since after I read WAR OF THE
WORLDS I went on to another big event book) and picked up a copy.
Now I know everyone around here has commented to death on the
movies, radio broadcast, and novel, so I don't think I can add
anything new in that regard--and in fact I'll probably duplicate
some of it.
What struck me about the novel as I read it was indeed just how
much different from, and yet the same as, the style and structure
of it is as many of today's novels. Different in the way that
folks have been complaining about SF for years and years--no
characterization whatsoever. We know that the narrator is
married, and there is a brief mention of his job, but that's
about it. Different in that it is short, sweet, and to the
point. There's no overly long setup that takes half the novel.
Within a few pages things start to happen, and there's no rest
from that point forward. There's no padding. Wells describes
the action and the devastation to the people and English
countryside without trying to drown the reader in overly
descriptive passages. And it moves quickly, unlike many of
today's novels.
And yet it is the same as today's books as it chronicles the
effect on humanity of the central subject--in this case, the
invasion. We do get passages describing the actions of the
Martians and their machines and the destruction of the English
countryside, but we also get lengthy descriptions of the
invasions effect on the English people and society.
Of course, other than an invasion by aliens, it's consequences,
and the ending, the novel doesn't really resemble either movie.
Or should I say, the movies really don't resemble the novel, and
I suppose we shouldn't expect them to. However, this is one
novel that still reads well 107 years after its initial
publication. If you've never read it, read it. If you've read
it, read it again. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: DOING TIME, DOING VIPASSANA (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: DOING TIME, DOING VIPASSANA is an intriguing, but
ultimately unconvincing, documentary about an experiment to teach
Vipassana transcendental meditation to prisoners at what had been
India's most notorious prison. The results appear to be
impressive, with many of the prisoners being reformed and gaining
a much better world-view in just ten days. But the film left me
wanting to see more coverage of long-term results for the
prisoners. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
In 2000 there was a serious bid by Presidency by candidate
Dr. John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party. Part of his platform
was that prisons should have a mandatory program to teach
Transcendental Meditation to prisoners. It was an unorthodox
approach and one that made Hagelin look like a kook too much of
the public. In fact, his ideas may well have been based on the
experiments at Tihar Prison in New Delhi, India. Indian prison
reformer Dr. Kiran Bedi, the Inspector General of prisons for
India, had come to Tihar Prison, one of the most notorious
prisons in India. Inside, the administration was losing the
battle for control of the prisoners. Actual gunfights would
break out between prisoners, and drugs were easily available.
Rather than being reformed, inmates would come out with an
education in crime. Dr. Bedi had a history of instituting prison
reform (as well has being a former all-India and all-Asian tennis
champion).
Dr. Bedi came to the prison in May 1993. She was faced with the
problem of what to do about conditions that were bad for the
prisoners, bad for the jailers, and bad for society after the
prisoners were released. She took a suggestion of one of the
guards to try to teach Vipassana to the inmates and staff. What
is Vipassana? It is the oldest form of Buddhist meditation, and
it is always taught the same way with a ten-day course of
silence, meditation exercises, and self-contemplation. DOING
TIME, DOING VIPASSANA is an Indian Israeli film directed by
Eilona Ariel and Ayelet Menahemi. It is a 52-minute documentary
telling the story of the experiment and some of the results. The
effects of the training were so successful that the classes were
offered more and more frequently and to larger groups. Part of
the prison became an ashram. Eventually the prison had at least
one class of 1000 prisoners, all meditating in unison.
The film gives a few tantalizing impressions of what the regimen
actually is and how students come to meditate and look within
themselves. They begin by concentrating on their breathing and
the feeling of the air passing the patch of skin under the
nostrils. (One wonders if mouth-breathers have a problem with
this part.) They try, unsuccessfully at first, to block out all
other thoughts. They then concentrate on how all things,
including pain and pleasure, come and go. After ten days they
are reputedly much more mindful of their place in society and
much more willing to function within society's rules. The
filmmakers might have been spent more effort in distinguishing
this experience from brainwashing. It is impossible for them to
simulate the experience, though they do try a few camera tricks
to convey some of the feeling. In the end the filmmakers cannot
recreate or communicate the experience and can only document it.
It is a little hard to tell if the result is as successful as the
film wants us to believe. Certainly it is impressive to see
formerly hardened criminals coming out of their tenth day weeping
and hugging their jailers. What is difficult to tell is the
long-term effect. A ten-day session of nothing but meditation
may have this effect on the human mind. It is hard to
distinguish the mental state of the trainees who had just
completed the program from one that could have been induced by a
drug. But a drug would wear off and the claim is that the
training does not. Where the film breaks down is in not doing
studies of the results months and years later for the prisoners
who took the course. Certainly more than a decade has passed
since the initial students took the course and there should be
statistics as to how permanent their reform has been. Presumably
the results have been convincing since reportedly several
American prisons are trying the same approach.
This is an appealing approach to the problem of criminal reform,
though DOING TIME, DOING VIPASSANA could have made a more
convincing argument for its efficacy by doing more follow-up
study. I rate the film a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I found most of the "Introducing" books from Totem Books/Icon
Books to be quite good, but recently I've run across a couple
that seem to have a very different idea of what "introducing"
means. For example, Chris Horrocks and Zoran Jevtic's
INTRODUCING FOUCAULT (ISBN 1-84046-086-5) has statements like the
following: "'Archaeology', as the investigation of that which
renders necessary a certain form of thought, implies an
excavation of unconsciously organized sediments of thought.
Unlike a history of ideas, it doesn't assume that a knowledge
accumulates towards any historical conclusion. Archaeology
ignores individuals and their histories. It prefers to excavate
impersonal structures of knowledge." (page 64) It does cover
Foucault's life fairly thoroughly, but fails (I think) in
explicating his philosophy to a beginner. (For one thing, it
frequently compares and contrasts Foucault's ideas with those of
Hegel or Heidegger, but assumes that the reader is already
familiar with the latter. This book might be good for someone
who has a strong background in philosophy, particularly 20th
century French philosophy--but then again, those people might not
need it.
Ziauddin Sardar and Borin Van Loon's INTRODUCING SCIENCE (ISBN
1-84066-358-9) is another book in the "Introducing" series that
did not live up to expectations, because it didn't introduce
science, but instead introduced philosophies of science. There's
nothing wrong with that per se, but when one is expecting an
overview of science and the scientific method and instead get a
comparison of the different philosophical attitudes toward
science--what it is, how it is done, what is permissible, and so
on--in different cultures, it is a bit jarring. Had it been
called INTRODUCING PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE, I might have been
more positive towards it. But it is ironic that on one page the
authors decry the Western attitude that only Western science is
important and on the next say that nothing happened in science
between the Greeks and the Renaissance! And when on page 101,
they explain that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is
"ethnocentric and racist", I decided that even as an explication
of different philosophies, it left a lot to be desired. Then
again, I suppose that the authors may have an explanation for
this when they claim that "both claiming and maximizing cultural
neutrality is itself a specific Western cultural value."
Barry Malzberg's THE MANY WORLDS OF BARRY MALZBERG (ISBN
0-445-00298-?) is a 1975 collection of eleven short stories by
one of my favorite authors. In his introduction at that time,
Malzberg wrote, "I have resolved to write no more or at least
very few short-stories...." Luckily, this resolution was
abandoned, because Malzberg has written many very fine short
stories since then. Why do I like Malzberg's writing? Because
he writes with passion. His stories are not written as exercises
in elaborate plotting, but as character portraits and as a means
of conveying emotion. This is probably why he has written mostly
short fiction--even his novels are much shorter than the current
norm. (I believe he has never written a work longer than two
hundred pages.) An example of his writing: "Carrying gods around
like baggage means after a certain point they become as familiar
as underwear and nearly as negligible in the imagined scheme of
things." This volume may be hard to find; there is another,
later collection titled THE BEST OF BARRY N. MALZBERG (ISBN
0-671-80256-9) which may be easier to find. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
It is amazing what you can accomplish
if you do not care who gets the credit.
-- Harry S Truman