THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/03/06 -- Vol. 24, No. 32, Whole Number 1320
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:
Ad
X-treme Language (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
REVOLVER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CHILDREN OF DUNE by Frank Herbert (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
This Week's Reading (DAYS OF INFAMY, END OF THE BEGINNING,
"In the Rialto", THE GREATEST BOOK IN THE WORLD)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Ad
This week's MT VOID is brought to you by Nimwat Books, publishers
of FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION: THE SEARCH FOR PERPETUAL MOTION by
Phyllis Stein and Rosetta Stone.
===================================================================
TOPIC: X-treme Language (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Evelyn got a new kind of bread. It is called "Extreme Wheat
Bread." Now most people would not give that a second thought. I
am not most people. I am not sure what makes bread extreme. They
show sweaty football players on the bag. Not a sight I like to
look like over breakfast. That makes the bread experience not so
much extreme as repugnant. I did notice that the bread seems to
lead an unnatural life. This stuff can be weeks old and it still
feels fresh. The other loaf of bread sitting next to it went
stale very quickly. It, in fact, was a newer loaf of bread but it
got older faster. And there were two funny holes in the neck of
the wrapper. It is most mysterious. Meanwhile the extreme wheat
bread stayed fresh and happy beyond its time. The loaf of bread
gets kept in a breadbox that has a layer of dirt from the field
where the wheat was grown. That keeps it fresh indefinitely.
I'm stretching the truth a little, of course, but I wonder what
it really means to be such extreme wheat bread? Bakers have been
making wheat bread for centuries, probably millennia. But until
recently they have never gotten beyond simple wheatness. There
is only so far you can go in wheatitude. But now there is
extreme wheat bread. I am sure that if they do now have extreme
wheat bread it is a sign either that science has gotten smarter or
the consumer has gotten dumber. Now this new wheat bread is not
just wheat bread but goes all the way to being extreme wheat
bread. I think that the special wheatness controls at the bakery
now go to eleven.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you want really extreme wheat
bread what you really want is matzoh. That is just wheat and
water. You can't get much more extremely wheat than that unless
you are simply going to shovel wheat flour into your mouth. If
they really wanted to express extreme wheatness on the bread bag
they should show guys in peyes and fur hats, not football
helmets.
But this use of extreme seems less wheat than just all wheat.
Now that I look at the label and the extreme wheat bread has in
it other things like Pyridoxine Hydrochloride and Magnesium
Oxide. I am sure these do all sorts of yummy things for the
bread, but does any of it really increase the wheatness? Does it
make it more extremely wheat? Or does putting the name extreme
on it mean it will be less so? These are the people who have the
wheatiest bread around.
I am reminded of when our book discussion group was reading Mary
Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN. Somebody bought and read a book whose
title was MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN. That turned out to be a
very different book. Simply calling the book FRANKENSTEIN helps
to assure that it really is Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, but
calling it MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN guarantees that it is not
Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, but a novelization of a film script.
Actually, in the book world MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN is less
Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN than is FRANKENSTEIN. However, in the
film world MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN is more Mary Shelley's
FRANKENSTEIN than is FRANKENSTEIN. But MARY SHELLEY'S
FRANKENSTEIN is less Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN than is TERROR OF
FRANKENSTEIN. TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN really is very much Mary
Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN and deserves to be called MARY SHELLEY'S
FRANKENSTEIN, but that was not what it was called. It was called
VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN and then renamed for television. (I could not
say that on the radio, and I am not sure it will make sense even
here.)
Looking back at my loaf of bread I realized that I had not been
honest with you. And I should always be honest. In actual fact
the bread is not Extreme Wheat Bread. It is "X-treme Wheat
Bread". That is not quite the same thing. These days if you
misspell a word it is taken to mean that you are even more
sincere about it than if you spelled it correctly. I think the
idea is that the speaker is supposed to be a "homeboy" who is less
intellectual and is therefore speaking more from the heart. Of
course, the name homeboy is itself a misnomer. Most people who
consider themselves homeboys are not really saying that they are
people who tend to stay at home. Homeboy sounds like someone who
is homely, in the original meaning of "homely." Homeboys are not
noted to be people who sit in their homes on Saturday night with
not much to do but watch the Sci-Fi Channel movie (which might
indeed be MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN). This may be the image
that the name "homeboy" conjures up, but it does not really fit
most people who call themselves homeboys. At least that is my
impression of Homeboy language. If my Homeboy is bad I'm moded.
It would be def of you not to 86 me. My bad. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: REVOLVER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: REVOLVER, written and directed by Guy Ritchie, comes off
like Jim Thompson crossed with Philip K. Dick. It is hard to say
if it will go better with a crime audience or a science fiction
audience. Con games. Chess games. Mind games. They all mix in
the hands of a villain you will not guess. This is a weird and
unpredictable crime film, which is understating it. Ritchie
regular Jason Statham and Ray Liotto star in a story of revenge,
violence, and puzzles. I liked it, because of the audacious
solution, but I suspect that not many other people will agree.
Sam Gold is for me the new Keyser Soze. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or
7/10
Would you give everything you have to get everything you want for
three days? That is the question that Mr. Green (played by Jason
Statham) must decide. Just out of seven years in prison he wants
retribution on the men who had cheated him. He has gone back to
his old haunts to get his revenge, but it is just not working.
That is it is not working until two men offer to help him in
return for everything he has. Normally that would not be such a
great deal. But these two men seem infallible. They seem to
have a supernatural knowledge of the future. They are not just
infallible; they also seem to be able to bend reality to do
anything they need to do. But is it still not a good enough
deal? How about after Mr. Green finds out he will die in three
days anyway from a rare blood disease? His own independent
doctor confirms he is dying. Now the strange offer starts to
make sense. Maybe it does. But what is really going on? Is
what appears on the surface real? It can't be. Mr. Green does
not know whom to trust. And I seriously doubt that any first
time viewer is going to guess what is going on either.
In SNATCH and LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS, Guy Ritchie
gave us two crime films that were fast-paced and witty. But they
also were a little weird and most of the public seemed to like
it. REVOLVER is a whole lot weird and I strongly suspect that
Ritchie is going to be disappointing those who like his crime
films but who will not take to the reality bending.
This is a very tricky mystery with a heavy dose of philosophy and
not a little fantasy. Ritchie has some strange touches like
suddenly going to anime. There are little quotes at the
beginning. Mark them well. They turn out not to be just lessons
learned, but integral parts of the film.
REVOLVER is getting a lot of bad reviews. Perhaps most people
will not be open to the weirdness of this film and of the
solution of the puzzle. It was in front of me all the time, and
I never suspected it. I don't think most people will. Okay, I
am going to rate this film high, but that is not the same thing
as a recommendation. This is a film for a narrow audience. I am
not sure I understand the whole thing. When it comes out on DVD
I will give it another try, because I like a film that has a new
idea and does something new. I just am not sure what it is that
it does. I rate REVOLVER a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Be
warned. There is a very good chance your mileage will vary.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: CHILDREN OF DUNE by Frank Herbert (copyright 1976, Berkley
Putnam, SFBC edition, 410 pp) (book review by Joe Karpierz)
As I mentioned when I started reviewing the books in the "Dune"
series, I was rereading them because I wanted to have the entire
saga fresh in my mind when the "final" (in quotes because you
never know what will happen) books in the story come out this
year and next. But it has turned into much more than that. It
has turned into a rediscovery of the story and a resetting of my
thoughts about these original books.
Those of you who read these reviews will remember my rereading of
Arthur C. Clarke's CHILDHOOD'S END and my subsequent
disappointment with the facts that the book not only didn't hold
up well over the years but wasn't as good as I remembered it. I
have discovered that the reverse is true of CHILDREN OF DUNE.
Not only does it hold up well, but now that I read it as an adult
I find that I understand it and appreciate it more than I did
back when I read it nearly thirty years ago.
CHILDREN OF DUNE logically completes the original "Dune" Trilogy.
I honestly don't know if Frank Herbert had intended to write a
trilogy when he wrote DUNE. However, the three books do
constitute a powerful story about ecology, religion, politics,
and power.
Paul Atreides, blind, walked into the desert at the end of Dune
Messiah, presumably never to be seen again. His sister Alia is
now Regent of the Empire, holding down the fort until Paul's twin
children, Leto II and Ghanima come of age. Alia is married to
the ghola Duncan Idaho, and she has destroyed what Paul has
built. The Lady Jessica, Paul and Alia's mother and grandmother
to the twins, comes to Dune. Alia fears that the Bene Gesserit
plot against her, and wants Jessica killed. The twins realize
that more than that is at stake, and concoct a plot of their own
to overthrow Alia, who is Abomination--a preborn that has been
possessed by one of the people who reside within her--in this
case, it's the evil Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Farad'n, who is
the son of Jessica's sister and who lives on Salusa Secundus, is
being prepared by her mother to take back the throne. Irulan is
here too--she has sworn to watch over the twins until their time
comes. And there is the mysterious and enigmatic Preacher, come
out of the desert to be a wild card in all the goings-on.
It seems that everyone has a plan for the twins, but nobody
bothers to ask them what they want. As you might expect, they
have their own idea --which involves faking Leto's death so as to
facilitate Leto enabling the human race to embark upon the Golden
Path, the vision of the future that will save humanity. It is a
vision which Paul saw and was afraid of, but Leto has no such
fear. He begins by undergoing a physical transformation that
will change the course of history.
CHILDREN OF DUNE blends the themes of ecology and political
intrigue into a highly effective story that is a fitting
conclusion to these three books. It is not, however, without its
flaws. The pacing seems a bit off now and again--I kept
wondering when Herbert would get on with it. And the book is
heavily slanted to the side of Leto. This may be CHILDREN OF
DUNE, but it ought to have been entitled "Leto of Dune with a
Dash of Ghanima Thrown In". I understand that the focus needed
to be on Leto, but I think that Ghanima got the short end of the
stick. All in all, it was much better than I remembered.
After the usual one book break, I'll return with a review of GOD
EMPEROR OF DUNE. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
DAYS OF INFAMY by Harry Turtledove (ISBN 0-451-21307-9) is an
alternate history set in a timeline where Japan does not just
bomb Pearl Harbor--it invades and occupies Hawai'i. It is the
first of a two-book series and seems at times padded out,
sometimes unfortunately. For example, it is not entirely clear
who the narrator is who muses about Hawai'i, "You admire the
turquoise sky and the sapphire sea and the emerald land. Strange
tropical birds call in the trees. You savor the perfect weather.
. . . You want to be a beachcomber and spend the rest of your
days there. If you find a slightly brown-skinned but beautiful
and willing wahine to spend them there with you, so much the
better." One assumes it is a white male of the era (no one today
would say "slightly brown-skinned but beautiful"), but it is
clear that the audience the narrator is writing for does not
include women. I would not say that I am offended by this, but I
do find it a bit off-putting.
END OF THE BEGINNING by Harry Turtledove (ISBN 0-451-21668-7) is
the conclusion of the story. (In Britain, this probably would
have been one large volume, but here it is split in two, with the
result that the entire story--if entire it is, costs the reader
over $50. The story itself is interesting but Turtledove's
writing is so predictable, at least across his various "alternate
America wars" books that I find it impossible for me to read any
more. And his turn of the wrong phrase seems consistent--on page
four, he has a paragraph that says, "Genda had had his first
birthday in 1905. Like any of his countrymen, though, he knew
what the Russo-Japanese War meant. It was the first modern war
in which people of color beat whites." From complete political
incorrectness in the first book to an overdose in the second is
quite a swing, yet Turtledove hits both extremes. (This is all
too common in his works. In RULED BRITANNIA, he has refers to a
"dentist" 150 years before that word was invented.)
After a while, all of Turtledove's series seem the same --pick a
war the United States was involved in, create as many characters
as needed to fill an x-volume series, write their stories with
way more description than is needed, and shuffle them together.
I sometimes feel he could take the characters from one series and
shuffle them into another with no problem. (RULED BRITANNIA does
not fit into this mold, by the way, though it has its flaws as
well.) I still like his shorter works, but he seems to have
become someone who writes something good/successful and then just
keep writing it over and over, until everything original or
interesting has been squeezed out of it.
"In the Rialto" by Connie Willis was nominated for a Hugo Award
for 1989, and everyone talked about how the problems and
situations at her "International Congress of Quantum Physicists
Annual Meeting" were so like science fiction conventions. But no
one seems to have commented on how similar the underlying ideas
are to a book from 1974, THE FUTUROLOGICAL CONGRESS by Stanislaw
Lem (translated by Michael Kandel, ISBN 0-156-34040-2). One can
argue, I suppose, that the notion of a conference where things go
very strangely is not an unusual one--BORGES AND THE ETERNAL
ORANGUTANS (reviewed in the 01/20/06 issue) is set at a
conference, for example. But the use of the word "Congress"
reinforces my notion that Willis had read THE FUTUROLOGICAL
CONGRESS at some point before writing her story.
As proof that everything fits together, the previous week our
other discussion group read the Book of Job, and this week the
science fiction group read THE FUTUROLOGICAL CONGRESS, which
refers to the Book of Job. It also has connections to the Philip
K. Dick works we have been reading, such as when Lem has one of
his characters say, "A dream will always triumph over reality,
once it is given the chance."
It is, however, a translator's nightmare. I do not have the
original Polish, but just the last ten lines on page 84 has the
following words in English: locomotors, cyberserkers,
electrolechers, succubuts, incubators, polypanderoids, multiple
android procurers, high-frequency illicitation solicitrons,
osculo-oscilloscopes, synthecs, gyroflies, automites, army ants,
and submachine! Hats off to Michael Kandel (who has translated a
lot of Lem's works).
I also love the Lem's inclusion of the quote from some
(unidentified and possibly fictional) French philosopher: "It is
not enough that we are happy--others must be miserable."
Arthur C. Clarke, in the early 1950s in CHILDHOOD'S END, thought
that over five hundred hours of radio and television every day
was an enormous number (it's the equivalent of about twenty full-
time channels). Here Lem (in 1971) uses forty channels of
television as an over-whelming number of choices.
Published in 1925, THE GREATEST BOOK IN THE WORLD by A. Edward
Newton is so old that not only does it not have an ISBN, but the
copy I got on inter-library loan has one of those old octagonal
spine labels with the call number hand-lettered by fountain pen.
To a book collector, this book would be scorned--worn, scuffed,
dirty, and full of library stamps or stickers. However, I'm just
interested in the contents. (Actually, the fact that the book is
not in pristine condition is a bit of a plus--I'm not afraid to
read it.) Newton is known as a writer of essays about books, but
he writes about more than just books, although it is always
something connected with words. While his chapter on the Old Vic
did not make me want to rush out to re-read (or even re-watch)
Shakespeare, his comments on Gilbert & Sullivan did make me want
to hear their operas again. Newton was in his time a well-known
author of works about books, and he is still recommended by book
collectors when asked who to read about books. Unfortunately, he
is pretty much out of print. Luckily one of the libraries in our
system has many of his books.
Of particular interest to science fiction readers would be
Newton's long chapter "Skinner Street News", wherein he recounts
the story of William Godwin; Mary Wollstonecraft (Godwin); her two
daughters (half-sisters) Fanny Imlay and Mary; the second
Mrs. Godwin; *her* daughter Mary Jane Clairmont (also known as
Jane, but calling herself Claire); Percy Bysshe Shelley; Harriet
Westbrook (Shelley); and Lord Byron. The fact that three major
characters in this drama are named "Mary" is certainly confusing.
But the important one from a literary standpoint is Mary
Wollstonecraft's daughter, who was eventually to become Mary
Wollstonecroft Shelley, to write FRANKENSTEIN, and to become the
Mother of Science Fiction. Newton mentions FRANKENSTEIN, and says
that when the name was used to refer to the German army, this had
"such sinister meaning that few of us stopped to remember that
Frankenstein was the creator of the demon and not the name of the
monster." (Note that this was before the Universal "Frankenstein"
movies, so one cannot say that they were what popularized the
term. However, he also says of Mary Shelley's literary work that
it was "of no great literary value." This, of course, depends on
one's definitions, but FRANKENSTEIN has certainly had both staying
power and literary effect, and has become part of the culture in a
way that her more literary husband's work has not.
And of interest to alternate history fans are Newton's musings on
Prince Henry, the eldest son of King James I of England. He was
a book-collector (hence in Newton's field of interest) and much
beloved of the people. However, he died (probably of typhoid
fever) in 1612, leaving his brother Charles as heir to the throne.
This paved the way for Newton to write, "Let us close our eyes to
the world around us for a moment and speculate as to what would
have happened had Prince Henry lived to come to the throne instead
of his brother, Charles First. Let us assume . . . that he had
sense enough to keep his head upon his shoulders and his crown
upon his head. There would certainly have been no Cromwell, no
stupid and cowardly James the Second, no four German Georges,
perhaps no George Washington. Is it too much to say that no
death in modern history has so influenced and changed the course
of the whole world?" [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Fools admire, but men of sense approve.
-- Alexander Pope