THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/18/05 -- Vol. 24, No. 21, Whole Number 1309
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:
A Question for Bird Experts Out There (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
My Thoughts on Gambling (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Still Too Clever by Half (comment by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Blood Types (letter of comment)
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CITIZEN DOG (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading ("The Cold Equations") (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: A Question for Bird Experts Out There (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
In our neighborhood we seem to have a lot of very clumsy birds.
I feed them on the back patio and this may mean we have a lot of
birds taking flight very near the house, but they seem all the
time to fly into our patio window. You think of birds being
graceful in flight, but in New Jersey we must have the most inept
and maladroit birds in the world. We hear a bang on the window
and when we go to look there is nothing to see. The bystanders
are all trying to look dignified and pretending that no thing
happened. I am supposed to assume the house is settling or
something.
It is not like they are getting confused because the curtain is
open and they think that the glass is clear air. In fact, it
usually happens when the curtain is closed. From the outside the
window looks like a wall. They are not getting confusing data,
they are just dumb, clumsy birds who fly into windows. They are
not very bright in general even with two feet on the ground. We
will come home and find a lot of bird dropping on a backyard wall
that were not there before. They were just playing some stupid
game and we are left with the mess.
Is there any special sort of seed we should be getting to put on
the patio that will attract a more erudite class of birds? Or
are we forever to be lumbered with these losers? (Note I am
carefully avoiding the standard cliched anti-avian epithet "b--d
"br--ns.") [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: My Thoughts on Gambling (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
My friend says that she has taken up playing a few games of
Bingo. Somehow that is not my kind of game. I don't think of it
as much of a game at all. Think about what you do when you play
Bingo. You have a set of cards and people call out numbers and
you look at your cards to see if the number appears there. If
the numbers appearing there line up to form a very simple pattern
on your card and they do it before anyone else's do, you have
won. Other than the element of luck and the very slight
mathematical excitement of seeing a bunch of spots that form a
straight line, it is looking for numbers in a list. It is like
clerical work. It is worse than clerical work. If you had a job
looking down lists to see if numbers appear there or not you
would think it is dehumanizing, demeaning work. Because you have
a lucky number finder who gets a prize it is considered great
fun.
Maybe there is a lesson there. Well, a lot of people moiled for
gold. That was difficult, painful, laborious work, but some
people won a prize at the end so they figured it was worth it. In
fact, Bingo is not the only example. There is a whole industry in
New Jersey in which you provide people with a machine. They sit
there putting in their own quarters--*their own quarters*--in the
hopes that the tumblers on the machine will come up matching. And
if one of a few patterns comes up they will get some quarters
back, usually no more than they put in. But because there is a
chance that they will get a bunch of quarters back and at the same
time hear loud noises from the machine, they keep doing it. And
it is even considered "a good time."
If you think about it, most gambling games have little strategy.
It is just sitting there doing some demeaning laborious task,
like you do on a slot machine. Some give the feeling that there
is some strategy. Take Roulette. There are all sorts of people
who think that there is some secret mathematical strategy. Well
you have two cases. One is that the gambler is deluding himself
or herself. The numbers that come up are totally random, and the
house makes the profit on the law of large numbers. The rules for
payoff are what would be fair if there were not zero and
double-zero slots. Because there are those slots, the
mathematical expectation is that overall it will make a certain
percentage on average on each bet that is placed. Then the
casino just sits back and waits for the mathematical Law of Large
Numbers to fill their pockets. For every $38 bet they will pay
out $36 and pocket $2. There may be some intervals of time in
which they are not making as much due to statistical anomalies,
but they will be balanced against statistical anomalies in their
favor. The casino doesn't care. Over the long run they will
make very close to the expected profit. And they are in it for
the long run. And the gambler is really just living a dream that
there is some sort of formula there.
But I said there was another case. There may in fact be some
ways to beat the odds on a roulette wheel. You don't want to
play that sort of roulette wheel unless you are sure that
somebody like Humphrey Bogart is going to come out and ask you if
you have bet *on 22 tonight*? If you don't have a Humphrey
Bogart guardian angel, you don't want to play roulette with that
kind of a wheel. Without the angel you are better off on a
purely random wheel. I would say that in places like Atlantic
City the wheels you are likely to run into are not this sort of
roulette wheel, but I bet that there are some fixed wheels that
are used on the public in Atlantic City. And that is one bet I
think I am likely to win. There is an attitude in gambling that
cheating that you are not caught doing does not count as
cheating. This in itself would be enough to discourage me from
playing.
There are, of course, games of gambling in which you can
significantly improve your odds. There is a strategy to poker
and part of it involves good acting. That probably makes poker a
more interesting game, but not so interesting that it is
something that adapts well to television broadcast. We were
getting a sandwich at a local sub shop and they had on a
celebrity poker game. BOR-ING. They finally found a televised
game that is duller than golf. There is a difference between
what makes a good game and what makes a watchable game. Unless
you are deeply into golf or poker, you probably would do better
watching test patterns. (Can you still get test patterns on TV?)
There may be a lesson in that for American management in the fact
that people are willing to go through demeaning boring tasks in
the hopes of winning something. More rewards might motivate
employees more. Actually these days my message to American
management would be that actually delivering on the pensions they
promised would be a big motivator. Because these days the real
high-stakes gambler is the corporate employee who has gambled his
future on the integrity of his company. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Still Too Clever by Half (comment by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Another note on "Law in a Flash: Torts" ('95-'96 Edition)
(described in the 11/04/05 issue of the MT VOID):
Card 259 says, "Pliny is driving his chariot through Pompeii, and
negligently bumps into Unfortunius, injuring him. As Unfortunius
hobbles away in pain, Mount Vesuvius erupts nearby. Had
unfortunius not been injured, he could easily have run to the sea
and escaped the wrath of the volcano; in his injured state,
though, he is buried in lava and dies. Is Pliny liable for his
death?"
First of all, it's not clear that reaching the sea would save
Unfortunius--he would still have to contend with the suffocating
ash and poisonous fumes. But the writer also doesn't deal with
the question of what it means for Pliny to be liable--since he is
also dead. Pliny, in fact, was one of the earliest recorded
"martyrs to science", being overcome by the fumes of Vesuvius
when he went ashore to determine the cause of the eruption.
[-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Blood Types (letter of comment)
As a follow-up to his letter in the 11/04/05 issue of the MT
VOID, our anonymous reader and Mark had the following exchange:
AR: "Back to the vampire thing . . . human blood donors and
acceptors . . . . The reason your argument works with versions
of Microsoft programs is because Bill Gates is an "intelligent
designer" (God) who controls the content of the programs and who
insists on compatibility testing."
MRL: "That is not how I picture it working. He keeps the old
code (maybe tightening it a little) and adds new code for the new
features."
AR: "Suppose Bill Gates out-sourced his software upkeep work to a
zoo-full of monkeys sitting at computer keyboards. If a
Microsoft program were subjected to modification by random
change, then, ignoring "child" programs that are unable to
operate at all, many child programs would be unable to "receive
donations" from the original, parent, program."
MRL: "Not necessarily. It would be true if they were writing
from scratch each time. That is now what is happening. The old
documents are compatible with the new software because the old
code is part of the new code."
AR: "Features in the parent program may be non-existent or
inoperable in a child program, causing the child program to
"crash" if it were to be used with data from a parent program."
MRL: "In neither software nor evolution does this happen.
Generally you get positive changes by small tweaks that add up
over time."
AR: "What other than a need to be compatible with older versions
of the program would cause a user to throw away an otherwise
perfectly operating version of the software?"
MRL: "A desire for the new features. In the genetic sense the
new features come by mutation and there is no choice."
AR: "Incompatible later versions of the software would not be
"selected against" in the Darwin sense."
MRL: "I cannot say I follow your argument. What point are you
making."
AR: "Similarly, in human blood types what constrained the random
mutations over the thousands of years of evolution to be limited
in such a way that we now have 'universal donors' and 'universal
acceptors?'"
MRL: "They don't have to be constrained at all to have this.
Occasional random mutation does this. If one line of descent
developed A factors, they are in the blood and they do not work
in systems that do not have them. They may still be able still
to receive blood that does not have them, but their blood is
tainted with the A factors and can be given only to other people
who can handle A factors."
MRL: "Another, perhaps simpler example. Suppose when I get a
plate of food I always douse it in hot sauce. I can accept food
from anyone in my family and getting food from them I also
immediately douse it in Agonies of Death Hot Sauce. I am a
universal acceptor. But once the food has touched my plate,
anyone else who tries it thinks their mouths have been attacked
by ravenous army ants. I can only donate to someone else as
masochistic as I am and who also douses their corn flakes or
whatever in Agonies of Death Sauce. Suppose Gertrude (not
Evelyn's real name) likes her food bland. Anything much spicier
than Cream of Wheat bothers her. Gertrude is a universal donor.
Anyone can eat what was on her plate even if it is boring. She
cannot receive from me but I can receive from her."
AR: "I can only think of vampires - or maybe cannibalism."
MRL: "That's a peculiar neurosis. What happens when you try to
think of something else?"
===================================================================
TOPIC: PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This film would be a pleasant experience at the movies,
but it suffers greatly from all of the competing versions.
Pretty ladies, pretty photography, and a cute story that may have
been filmed too often. This is a redundant adaptation of a story
available in so many versions. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
As I left the theater I told my wife that she could see the next
two adaptations of Jane Austin's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE without me,
and by then I would probably be ready to see another. (This is
not to imply that she was really pleased with this adaptation
either, though several other people I talked to were.) Earlier
this year the same story was done Bollywood style as BRIDE AND
PREJUDICE. There was a 2003 version also. This version is more
like the excellent BBC production. It is a pretty as a cinematic
greeting card and has nice music. That would make it a very good
version if there were not so much competing with it.
One thing I have to blame this film for is making me dislike
Keira Knightley, an actress I have liked up to this point. This
production is built around the acting talents of Ms. Knightley.
She is an attractive presence, and I had liked Ms. Knightley
everything I have seen her in to this point. While watching her
in this role I soured on her. She knows only too well that she
has an attractive smile and in this film draws her lips back in
every scene she possibly can. Nobody smiles that much.
Knightley is letting her nice smile become an irritating
liability rather than an asset.
Seeing that problem, other things started bothering me about this
film. It is set in 1797, intentionally the same year the novel
was published. Yet the daughters all seem to wear much makeup
including heavy mascara. I started asking myself how do two such
short-necked parents have such long-necked daughters? Everything
in this film is manipulated to make the characters so cute and
charming and pretty. The ball scenes are sumptuous. Eventually
it just cloys. Matthew MacFadyen's Hugh D'Arcy is just as
earnest, unpleasant, and unsmiling as his first impression. My
wife was quick to point out that the final scene is not at all in
the style of the book.
That said, this film does right a lot that a Jane Austin film
should. The photography is greeting card beautiful. Some of the
extended tracking shots are done expertly. The musical score by
Darlo Marianello envelopes lulls the viewer. The subtle humor of
Austen comes through very nicely with Donald Sutherland very nice
as the gentle and wise father. He seems a little pre-occupied,
but then Sutherland always seems a little pre-occupied. Brenda
Blethyn plays the mother without giving into the temptation of
making her too much of a comical caricature. Rosamund Pike as
the eldest sister actually upstages the star's grace and beauty.
Jena Malone has been giving good performances since CONTACT and
does no less here. Judy Dench as an unpleasant aunt adds some
dignity to the production and probably not a little prestige.
Director Joe Wright claims to have never seen a film version of
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but he seems to have the requisite if
standard aesthetics.
This is a very manipulative film with a story that is adapted
more often than it merits. Those who are not bothered by the
repetition or who have never seen a previous version will find
this version perfectly serviceable. In truth, there is little
wrong with this film that would not have been excusable if it
were the first version in two decades rather than six months.
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE is competently made, but in my opinion I can
rate it only a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. (I would
swear in one scene we see a photograph over a fireplace, but
nobody else seems to have noticed it. It does seem an unlikely
goof.) [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: CITIZEN DOG (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Thai writer-director Wisit Sasanatieng adapts the
farcical novel by Koynuch. The story is a chain of strange
events and ideas. The ideas are like happy people have tails and
Teddy bears smoke cigarettes. This all probably works better in
Thailand than in this translation. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10
Comedies of the silent era, the ones featuring the likes of
Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin were more universal because
they were more visual and did not rely on words. I don't imagine
Monsieur Hulot loses much when his films are shown in the US.
Humor is a very delicate thing. Even within a single language
what is funny to one person will not be to another. One man's
laugh riot is another man's Adam Sandler. Wit is even more
perishable when translated into other languages. It frequently
does not survive the transition gracefully. One finds little
uproarious in the English translations of CANDIDE, for example.
It is hard to imagine that the radio version of "The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy" would have the same nuances in some other
language. On the other hand apparently Jerry Lewis comedies get
something of a comic boost when translated into French.
It is easy to imagine the humor of CITIZEN DOG played well in
Thailand. It seems like a sort of conflation of a number of
farcical premises that easily could be funny. But it has serious
problems crossing the language barrier. Having a character
believe the weird idea that all happy people have tails and later
finding out it is perfectly true is a concept. Handled properly
it might be funny. But the handling is done by a translator who
gets the idea across but very probably not the all-important
tone. It is about as funny as telling someone that two men hide
from the Mafia by dressing as women and playing in an all-girl
band.
The main character is a sort of naïve country boy not unlike
Candide. Mahasamut Boonyaruk plays Pod who escapes his difficult
rustic life to come to the city. In Bangkok he works in a
sardine factory. Life would be bad enough there but a less-
tragic-than-you-might-think accident happens and he loses his
finger. Somewhere in Thailand there is a can of sardines with
Pod's finger and he sets out to find it. There he meets and
loves Jin (played by Saengthong Gate-Uthong). Jin is a rabid
book-reader who tells Pad that you know which people are happy
because happy people have tails. Jin's Bangkok is a much
stranger city than the real Bangkok, though at least in this
version is not really any more interesting. Jin is an
environmental activist.
The film is complete with strange musical numbers. The
cinematography by Rewat Prelert heavily distorts the color. The
script by Wisit Sasanatieng is full of little bizarre digressions
much in the style of AMELIE. There are several irritatingly
noticeable product placements, signs for a well-known Thai brand
of beer. Wisit Sasanatieng, whose only other film is the popular
TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER, directed the film. Amusing, perhaps,
but not funny. CITIZEN DOG (MAH NAKORN) rates a 0 on the -4 to
+4 scale or 4/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Our science fiction discussion group discussed several stories
from THE SCIENCE FICTION HALL OF FAME, VOLUME I, edited by Robert
Silverberg (ISBN 0-765-30537-2). The story that generated the
most discussion was, not surprisingly, Tom Godwin's "The Cold
Equations". As part of my preparation for the meeting, I read
the article on "The Cold Equations" in wikipedia.com I also read
Andy Duncan's article ("Think Like a Humanist: James Patrick
Kelly's 'Think like a Dinosaur' as a Satiric Rebuttal of Tom
Godwin's 'The Cold Equations,'") in "The New York Review of
Science Fiction," June 1996. And then afterwards I re-read two
other stories written in response to Godwin--"The Cool Equations"
by Deborah Wessel (UNIVERSE 2, edited by Robert Silverberg and
Karen Haber) and "The Cold Solution" by Don Sakers ("Analog",
1991)--and also watched the "New Twilight Zone" episode based on
the Godwin story. (There was also a made-for-television movie
which I did not see, but my feeling is that the story does not
bear extension to a feature-length movie. Even the "Twilight
Zone" episode seemed padded.)
For those unfamiliar with the story, the premise is this: On an
emergency spaceship, a stowaway is found. The rules insist all
stowaways be jettisoned, because emergency ships do not carry
enough fuel for the additional weight. But this stowaway is a
teenage girl trying to visit her brother.
I will start by saying that the story is engrossing, and has not
lost its effect in the half century (!) since it was written. It
clearly affects readers in a way that a badly written story would
not. But there are still some major flaws in it. From a
literary standpoint, the characters are one-dimensional and the
writing uninspired. But even more interesting--considering its
popularity among hard science fiction fans--are the technical
faults.
Richard Harter has done a long analysis of the Godwin story in
which he says, "The trouble with this story is this: From the
internal evidence of this story the heroine did not die because
of the cold equations of nature; she was the victim of criminal
bureaucratic stupidity. . . . The flaw in the story is that a
failure in government, in administration, is tacitly treated as
though it were a law of nature." Specifically, even though
stowaways will be killed, no particular precautions are taken to
keep stowaways out (other than a fairly standard "Keep Out!
Danger!" sign which does not indicate what the penalty is), and
in fact the penalties for stowing away are kept secret from
society in general. In addition, no one even bothers to check
for stowaways before taking off.
Another flaw, as Hal Clement said ("Analog", July 1991), is that
"it is the height of irresponsible engineering to build an
emergency ship with so little, if any, margin of safety. The
slightest fault in any subsystem could destroy the ship and the
people its mission was to save."
And there seems to be a lot of superfluous material in the ship
that could be jettisoned instead of a stowaway. In fact, this
latter problem is the basis for both the "response" stories. Of
the two, Saker's is clearly the more serious of the two, but is
spoiled by a "trick", where some fairly critical information is
not given to the reader until the very end. Wessel's is more
light-hearted, but ironically treats the situation much more
rigorously.
If you haven't read "The Cold Equations", you really must. It is
part of the basic vocabulary of science fiction the way that a
story like "The Purloined Letter" is part of the basic vocabulary
of the detective story. Even stories that don't respond directly
to it have references that readers are expected to recognize.
And if you have read it, seek out Saker's and Wessel's stories as
well. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Free advice is worth the price.
-- Robert Half