THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/26/06 -- Vol. 24, No. 48, Whole Number 1336
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:
Delightful Page of Photoshop for Fans of Fine Art and
Horror Films (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Rational Dualism (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Real James Bond (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Men and Clothing (letter of comment by Pete Brady)
OLD MAN'S WAR by John Scalzi (book review by Joe Karpierz)
THE NEW WORLD (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (THE GOSPEL PROBE and PEARL HARBOR
IN THE MOVIES) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Delightful Page of Photoshop for Fans of Fine Art and
Horror Films (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
http://tinyurl.com/rq4ch
Scroll down and enjoy. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Rational Dualism (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
One form of faith is the willingness to hold two mutually
contradictory ideas and believe both fervently. For example, we
were hearing a news item that there was a poll on whether people
believe that pets will go to heaven. Now I think that this just
shows the ignorance of people that this discussion should even
take place. First of all it should be obvious to any rational
mind that heaven is only a metaphor. Heaven is not a real place.
It is a philosophical construct. And it should be equally
obvious that of course pets will be allowed in. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Real James Bond (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
In a recent conversation I referred to James Bond as a super-
hero, at least in the films. Not everybody agrees with me that
Bond is a super-hero. He is supposed to be just very proficient
at doing whatever he does. It has been a while since I have read
the books. I am not sure what I say here applies to the books,
but in the films I think that Bond is a super-hero and that his
powers are luck and coincidence. I am not just talking about at
cards. Though of course he almost never loses at cards. (He
lost only once and that was to make a joke on "unlucky at cards,
lucky in love.")
Also, his enemies are surprisingly stupid and that too is part of
his power and his luck. Let's take the most popular of the James
Bond films GOLDFINGER. The villain is planning a huge coup
against the West but Bond gets involved with him just to find out
why some poor sucker keeps losing at gin rummy. What are the
chances?
Later Goldfinger has a laser ready to cut Bond in half from his
crotch up. What saves Bond? He happened to have heard the words
"Operation Grand Slam" by spying at the right place at the right
time, a location and time he could not have possibly known in
advance. So what happens? Goldfinger spares him to find out
what he knows and then forgets to interrogate him. Bond escapes
from his cell and what does he stumble into but Goldfinger
telling a bunch of hoods all about the Fort Knox job (and then
killing them for reasons never explained)? Again it is sheer
luck. It seems contrived to give Bond the plot.
Now you would the writers would say this is getting a little hard
to take. You would think they would be saying they were hitting
luck and coincidence just a little too hard. So how does the
next film start? Bond goes to a health farm and there he just
happens to run into someone involved in a plot to steal a nuclear
bomb from NATO and use it to extort huge sums of money on a
threat of destroying Miami. He is in the right place at the right
time. Things just seem to fall into his lap the way women do.
What happened at the end of DR. NO? He flicks the right switch
or something and without even realizing he is doing it he manages
to blow up Dr. No's island. I mean, c'mon.
Ever notice the gadget thing. He needs just the set of special
weapons Q has given him. Whatever Q has given him is just what
he needs. He never needs the tools that Q gave him the last
film.
Now admittedly Bond uses some skill also. (He only twice in the
films uses his license to kill when it was not a matter of
self-defense, speaking of use.) But he does use some skill.
Well, yes, he does--too much in fact. He skis like a world
champion, shoots skeet like he has been doing it all his life,
etc., etc., etc. And I suppose luck favors the prepared mind.
Still, it doesn't just favor him, it gives the game away to him.
These films have become classics of sorts, but if you really look
at them the plots are about as believable as children's
television.
Well, you know there is a reason for that similarity to
children's television. At one point early in his career Ian
Fleming really did want to write a children's television show.
This was in the post-war years when he had spent some time in
British Intelligence but now was at loose ends and was not sure
what to do with his life. It struck Fleming he could write a
children's TV series. He wrote a script for it. The series was
to be called Captain Jamaica. Captain Jamaica was to live in
Jamaica, where Fleming wanted to live. This way he could make
living in Jamaica part of his work. Captain Jamaica would fight
evildoers who come to Jamaica. He wrote (I believe) one half-
hour script but could not sell anybody on the idea. Well, it
seems a little cornball, when you think about it. He had this
dynamite story in which his comic book hero fought a comic book
villain. The name of the villain was Dr. No. (This anecdote is
repeated from an article several years ago in “Variety”.)
Obviously what he did was to take Captain Jamaica and wrote a
bunch of stories sold not on the plot value really but on the
sophistication of the character. He was writing in post-war
Britain where it was still taking a while for the country to get
past rationing and onto its feet. People wanted to read about
this super-hero who lucked his way out of situations the way that
other children's heroes did. And who lived in luxury. And
because they were nominally no longer children's stories he could
put in an element of sex. He decided that instead of the
flamboyant name of Captain Jamaica he would give the character a
tasteful and bland name. If you are a Bond fan you probably have
heard that he found the name James Bond on a birding book.
He wrote a few novels about this character and had moderate
success. In the United States John F. Kennedy liked to read them
to relax and mentioned this to the press. And that was that.
In any case astounding luck makes for bad fiction and good non-
fiction. If you want to read about heroes who also had amazingly
good luck, read about the Battle of Midway. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Men and Clothing (letter of comment by Pete Brady)
In response to Mark’s article on men and clothing in 05/12/06,
Pete Brady writes, “Mark, you evidently were never exposed to the
old IBM culture. In the mid ‘60s, an IBM friend of mine had a
party in his apartment. There may have been 15 men and 15 women
present. Almost all the men worked at IBM (I was at Bell Labs
then). The party split up into two basic groups: men and women.
The women talked about women things, households, maybe even
books, whatever. The exclusive topic of conversation among the
men, for almost the whole evening, was clothing. Where they
bought it, how much it cost, the style, etc. And the real joke
about this was that the IBM management at the time was pretty
rigid about what men wore to work. Suits, plain and dark-
colored. No sport jackets. So, what was there to talk about? I
had nothing to say on that topic, and pretty much still don't
have anything to say. [-ptb]
Mark replies, “In my experience real men would more willingly eat
quiche than talk about clothes. But in the business culture you
do what you have to in order to succeed. These are the people
who also get excited about really good embossed business cards.”
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: OLD MAN'S WAR by John Scalzi (copyright 2005, Tor, $12.95,
320pp, ISBN 0-765-31524-6) (book review by Joe Karpierz)
OLD MAN'S WAR is John Scalzi's first SF book, and like Charles
Stross and others before him he winds up with a Hugo nomination
the first time out. It's a well-deserved nomination.
The book's title is derived from the fact that the Colonial
Defense Forces only take recruits that are seventy-five years old
back on Earth. Let me back up a minute. Humanity is new to the
space colonization game. There are races and species out there
that are older and more experienced at it, and are ruthless and
brutal. The name of the game outside the Solar System is
survival. War for colonial planets are constant, and those that
aren't up to the task are soon destroyed.
The Colonial Defense Forces, or CDF, exist for the sole purpose
of aiding humanity in its effort to colonize the galaxy. As I
said, they take only take seventy-five-year-old recruits. The
catch is that once you enlist, you can never go back. Your
citizenship on Earth is revoked, you no longer have any personal
possessions, and, well, you're considered dead. You have an
initial two year term which can be extended to ten, after which
you can choose to be a colonist or you can re-enlist--if you live
that long. But how does a seventy-five-year-old human fight a
war? They don't. They are rebuilt, using their original genetic
makeup as a starter set. CDF soldiers are essentially the super
soldier that we've all read about throughout the years in SF and
comics. And they need to be, given what they are up against.
So, OLD MAN'S WAR is the story of John Perry, seventy-five-year-
old widower who enlisted with his wife ten years prior to the
beginning of our story. The thing is, his wife died, leaving him
with a hole in his life. So, he visited her grave and went to
become a soldier.
This is a great romp of a novel. It's funny, entertaining, and
fast moving. It's told in three parts. The first describes
John's enlistment and basic training, and is the funniest portion
of the book; the second delves into the war itself, recounting
various battles and encounters with gruesome and not so gruesome
aliens; the third details John's exploits while aiding the Ghost
Brigade, a CDF Special Forces unit whose members are more souped
up even than standard issue CDF soldiers. The novel has a very
nice beginning, middle and end, and the end nicely wraps things
up into a neat standalone novel--even though Scalzi's next book
is called the Ghost Brigades. The book is touted as being in the
style of Robert Heinlein, and I guess it is, at that.
OLD MAN'S WAR is a terrific first novel and a great story. If
Scalzi continues to write this way, he's got a great future in
front of him. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE NEW WORLD (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Terrence Malick writes and directs the classic story of
John Smith and Mataoaka (nicknamed Pocahontas) and later John
Rolfe. Malick's script reinforces some of the unlikely myths
like Mataoaka's romance with John Smith and Mataoaka dramatically
risking her life to save Smith's life. But like most Malick
films it is also a finely painted portrait showing the smallness
of man in nature. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
When Terrence Malick releases a new film it is a major event. He
is a very private person who directs films of a sort of haunting
beauty in which perhaps the most important character is usually
nature. In his films one has the feeling that humans are
interlopers in nature. His best known films to date have been
BADLANDS, DAYS OF HEAVEN, and THE THIN RED LINE. Oddly enough,
his story here had been done not long before (well, sort of) as a
Disney animated musical. His story is the relationship between
John Smith and Mataoaka. The latter had a nickname of Pocahontas
which means wild or spoiled child. Historians tell us that Smith
and Mataoka were probably never romantically linked. When they
met Smith was 28 and Mataoka was 11. In 1607 the English
settlers who colonized this part of what would be Virginia were
even less tolerant as today we would be of a relationship between
a 28-year-old man and an 11-year-old girl. Did Mataoka
dramatically risk her life to save John Smith? If so nobody
noted it at the time. Many years later John Smith told three
different such stories, none ever substantiated.
The film opens to the Rhine music that begins Wagner's “Der Ring
Des Nibelungen”. This music starts so quiet it is nearly
imperceptible and it builds and grows and compels the listener.
While we hear this music we see the landing of ships from England
and their being discovered by the native population on the shore.
John Smith (Colin Farrell) arrives in chains and is sentenced to
be hanged for insubordination. He is however pardoned because he
is too valuable as an explorer. In specific, the English
government wants him to look for an easy route to bypass the
Americas and sail to the Pacific. But first Smith becomes an
emissary to the Algonquians. He is taken with the sheer alien
nature of the local population. And they are really alien.
Smith is particularly taken with the unnamed woman whom we know
as Mataoka or Pocahontas. For a long time the English and the
native Americans live amicably together, with the Algonquians
even saving the colony. Then the English refuse to leave and
relations sour.
The script's sympathetic treatment of the native population as a
part of nature is reminiscent of Malick's treatment of the
natives in THE THIN RED LINE. The story slowly but the visuals
of the beauty of nature are stunning and give the film an
ethereal quality. Malick always has strong sense of nature in
his film and the moods of nature become the mood of the film.
The actors speak historically believable dialog. We leave nature
only for scenes set in London, scenes unusual for Malick. His
scripts are not compelling and usually move at what is today a
very slow rate, but his visuals always are hypnotic and create
the texture of the film. One almost has the feeling of visiting
the time and place of the setting.
Q'orianka Kilcher stands as the center of the as the quiet and
enigmatic Mataoka, but the film has an impressive cast including
Christopher Plummer, Christian Bale, David Thewlis, and Wes
Studi. Algonquians are shown being as strange and alien as any
Native Americans are in any film I can remember, but they are
always treated respectfully and in a visually beautiful way.
This is a strong, mesmerizing, and authentic-feeling view of a
time and place lost to history. Malick's pacing is a taste I
have not quite acquired and his history has some faults. But the
film is a memorable experience for anyone with a healthy
curiosity about the feeling of history. I rate it a +2 on the -4
to +4 scale or 7/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I recently read THE GOSPEL PROBE by Myron Curtis (ISBN
0-595-36327-X), published by iUniverse. iUniverse publishes
books that cannot find other publishers; it is what used to be
called a "vanity press" (though I am sure they would protest the
term). The book was sent to me as an alternate history, and there
is indeed an alternate history aspect (which I will not reveal
here). But it is minimal, and--the book is mostly a time travel
story of representatives from what is apparently the Roman
Catholic Church in the future going back to 30 C.E. to check on
the accuracy of the Gospels (and others trying to stop them,
etc.). It then also has a secret history aspect at the end. I
found the plotting disjointed, but it is also technically poorly
written. It is full of typographical errors ("Ok" for "OK" or
"Okay" [page 8]), spelling errors and/or wrong homophones
("effect" where "affect" is meant [page 37], or "in a lighter
vain" [page 53]), and just bad writing. For example, Curtis
defines acronyms *within* direct speech, e.g.:
"You must understand ...," said the secretary.
"If we make no effort to satisfy the Lobby for
Judeo-Christian Traditions (LJCT) which is
pressuring the council, ...." [page 18]
He also coins the name "Palistisraelia", where "Palestisraelia"
is more likely (if either could be considered likely!). And he
gives long Latin or Italian names for committees, objects, and
such, immediately translates them, and then never uses the Latin
or Italian again.
It did make me realize that however bad I think proofreading as
become in major publishers' books, it is close to non-existent in
publishers like iUniverse.
While we were on vacation in Hawai`i, we bought a copy of PEARL
HARBOR IN THE MOVIES by Ed Rampell and Luis J. Reyes (ISBN
1-56647-506-6). The subject matter is of interest, and the
authors' opinions on the accuracy and subtexts of the movies
worth reading. But the research and (again) the proofreading is
so bad . . . (and the publisher, while not a major, is not a
vanity press either).
For example, the book does not mention at all the Takei "Twilight
Zone" ("The Encounter"), but does include such peripheral films
as RADIO DAYS. They use the term "AJAs" without defining it (I
eventually realized it stood for "Americans of Japanese
Ancestry"). It has awkward juxtaposition of sentences, which
sometimes make no sense at all. Of the filming of WACKIEST SHIP
IN THE ARMY, they say, "Filmed mostly on location on Kaua`i, the
company then moved to Pearl Harbor for some location scenes, to
find the harbor full of the necessary Navy craft. The fleet,
which had been there the entire company was on Kauai [sic], had
sailed out the night before they arrived in Pearl Harbor." [page
92] Are they saying that the fleet had been in Pearl Harbor, but
left the night before the film crew arrived? But then the harbor
would not have been full of Navy craft. Are they saying the
fleet had been in Kaua`i, but had sailed to Pearl Harbor? But
there is no place at Kaua`i for the fleet to be.
They write "American Movies Classic" [pg. xxi] or "American
Movies Classics" [pg. 2], when the correct name is "American
Movie Classics". They fail to capitalize "Nazi" [pg. 3]. And a
particularly irritating gaffe is that the list of video sources
at the end is missing all titles starting with 'J' through 'L'.
On page 51, Rampbell and Reyes say, "Twenty-plus years after
PEARL, there is no Holly Nagata." But it is not until page 103
that one reads about the mini-series PEARL and its character
Holly Nagata, meaning one is completely baffled by this sentence
for fifty pages.
You can tell this book was written pre-9/11. Rampbell and Reyes
talk about Pearl Harbor and President Kennedy's assassination as
defining moments, and then says, "Perhaps succeeding generations
mark their life calendars by the untimely death of rock stars
like Elvis or John Lennon. Or might the events be the tearing
down of the Berlin Wall, the Gulf War, the O. J. Simpson trial or
the turn of the century? The immediacy and rapture of a nation
gripped in a sense of loss by life-changing events has not
happened in several generations." Well, now we know what at
least one generation will use to mark their life calendars.
Even with my reservations about the book, however, it is the only
source I know of on the subject, and Rampbell and Reyes's
analyses of the accuracy of the films, and of social attitudes
shown in and by the films, makes it worthwhile for those
interested in those aspects. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
I exist between the superficial security
adopted by the mainstream and the grave
reality of the outer fringes. I do not fit
into either category, but I am their mediator.
-- Eli Khamrov