THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
MT VOID 3/02/07 -- Vol. 25, No. 35, Whole Number 1430
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
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:
Classic SF Films Free Online
Movie Star Double Standard (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Customer Service Blues (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
THE ASTRONAUT FARMER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
BREACH (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
AMAZING GRACE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
The French Language (letter of comment by Patricia King)
KIM (letter of comment by Joseph T. Major)
Brain Damage (letter of comment by Paul S. R. Chisholm)
NOTES ON A SCANDAL, Brain Damage, and Rudyard Kipling
(letter of comment by Taras Wolansky)
Brain Damage, C.S.A., CHASM CITY, NOTES ON A SCANDAL, and
a New Zine (letter of comment by John Purcell)
This Week's Reading (THE OMNIVORE'S DILEMMA,
WHY TRUTH MATTERS, and BOOKSTORE: THE LIFE AND
TIMES OF JEANETTE WATSON AND BOOKS & CO.)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Classic SF Films Free Online
The SCI FI Channel has 15 films and 3 serials available free to
watch at http://video.scifi.com/player/?id=0. Films include
"Le Voyage Dans La Lune", 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA" (1916),
METROPOLIS, KILLERS FROM SPACE, THE GIANT GILA MONSTER, ATTACK OF
THE GIANT LEECHES, and THE INCREDIBLE PTERIFIED WORLD. The
serials include "The Lost City", "Radar Men From the Moom", and
"Undersea Kingdom." [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Movie Star Double Standard (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I see our local theaters have started showing messages with big
name stars telling the audience to be polite and not talk during
the movie and not to use cell phones. It is a good suggestion.
I just want to know why when you see the Academy Awards and the
camera flashes to the big stars in the audience, how come so often
they are talking on cell phones or to people around them? [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Customer Service Blues (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I have been having some problems with my new digital camera and
have sent some questions off to Kodak Support. I am getting the
feeling that the people at Kodak Support are sort of "out there"
somewhere. "Out there" may be the planet Gredzup in the Kodak
nebula or it may just be some place like Bombay. The problem I
was having the battery warning icon always claiming the batteries
are fine right up to the point that the batteries run down and
the camera does not work. There really is no warning. So I
wrote to ask why have a battery warning icon never says the
batteries are running down.
The staff at Kodak Support advised me to "Make sure that you are
using a fresh and newly charge [sic] right [sic] battery for your
C340 camera." They are right of course. As long as I have fresh
new batteries in the camera I should never need the battery-low
warning. The question is how many pictures can I take before the
batteries start being no longer fresh and new. Somehow this
reminds me of the bank that offered absolutely free overdraft
protection as long as the customer maintained a minimum balance in
their checking account.
My problems communicating are as nothing compared to those of
George Vaccaro. Some of you may have heard something about the
problems that one George Vaccaro has been having dealing with
Verizon. (I think I referenced this incident in my editorial on
the value of mathematics in an education.) I am not sure I would
have believed the problem, but luckily in his frustration Vaccaro
has actually recorded his interactions with Verizon. Vaccaro was
in Canada and he wanted to know what was his connection fee in
Canada. He was quoted a rate of 0.002 cents per kilobyte. That
may seem very cheap, but George was not sure what was and was not
the expected rate. Comes the time he was billed and he was
charged $71 for the connection time. That worked out to be 0.002
dollars per kilobyte. Okay, it was more money, and he wanted to
call and get straight how much the rate was actually supposed to
be. He did not know what he was getting himself into. He told
them that he was quoted a rate of 0.002 cents per kilobyte. Yes,
that really is the rate. Okay, then he was charged 0.002 dollars
per kilobyte. Yes, that is the rate. Which is it? 0.002 cents
per kilobyte. Well he was charged 0.002 *dollars* per kilobyte.
Well, of course. Why "of course"? 0.002 dollars per kilobyte
*is* 0.002 cents per kilobyte. At this moment Vaccaro came face
to face with the mathematics teaching crisis that this country is
facing. That is not the exact conversation, by the way, but it
went on for something like twenty minutes with Vaccaro talking to
the woman at the desk and her manager. I think it later went
higher up the management ladder.
And what did Vaccaro find out? These people who deal with the
public and the rates all the time looked at only the number and
not the unit. Apparently they think that the number tells
everything you need to know about the rate and the unit you used
is just "cents" if you are talking about small quantities and
"dollars" if it is larger quantities. He was paying 0.002 per
kilobyte. That is the rate. Then you put on a unit which can be
either cents or dollars depending on if you are trying to make the
number seem small or large.
When I tell this story to people they always respond something
like, "Well, it is easy enough to fix. He should have just
explained it this way...." The answer is no. The
misunderstanding appeared to be genuinely fundamental. They
genuinely believed that "dollar" is just a word applied to larger
quantities of money and "cents" is a word you apply to smaller
quantities of money like "gale" and "breeze" differ only by how
hard the wind is blowing. This is an extreme form of the problem
I have mentioned many times in the VOID. My local grocery put the
price .59 cents on an item and they mean it to be $.59 or 59
cents. I actually had the manager there in the store and pointed
out the problem and he just turned heel and walked away. The
prices have not been fixed. These are probably people who said
that they would never use the mathematics that they were learning
in high school.
So what is the end of the story. Apparently somebody at Verizon
either knew mathematics or realized that there were a lot of
people in cyberspace who were laughing at Verizon. I think it
was the latter. They agreed to honor the lower rate this once.
Just as a follow-up George called Verizon again a few weeks
later. What is the rate? It was still being quoted as 0.002
cents per kilobyte for quite a while (though they *finally*
changed it just a short time ago). [-mrl]
[See http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ for more details.]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE ASTRONAUT FARMER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This film may involve rockets and exploration, but it
should play better with a non-technical audience. If somewhat
overly familiar and contrived at times this is a likable Capra-
esque story of a farmer who believes he has the smarts to build
his own low-cost orbital rocket. He finds he has to fight the
system to achieve his dream. The view of small town life will be
pleasing to some and cloyingly sweet to others. On balance this
is just okay entertainment. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
THE ASTRONAUT FARMER got a lot of the details very nicely. My
problems with the film are merely fundamental. It is the premise
of this film that one man--with nominal help from his wife and
son Shepherd--has the intellectual and mechanical abilities and
stamina to build in his barn his own orbital rocket, and he
believes he can fly it himself. Before one can enjoy this film
one has to make that great leap of faith. I am not an expert on
the subject, but I know that it would take several lifetimes and
a lot more money than a Texas farmer could possibly devote to the
project. A human can do some pretty amazing things, but it very
difficult to believe that one man has all the ability and
resources that that Charlie Farmer would need to accomplish his
goal and to make this film make sense. If he has that ability,
he would not have to be a poor Texas farmer. Selling his
expertise he could raise money for his project a lot more
effectively than he is doing by farming. Once one accepts the
fantasy world of this film, the story is pleasant enough, but one
has to suspend a great deal of disbelief to accept this story on
its own terms.
Billy Bob Thornton plays the aptly name Charlie Farmer. His name
was chosen to make the title work, I suspect. That name is the
first of many contrivances of this film. Farmer--even his wife
calls him by his surname--is a fanatic about space flight. He
was an aerospace engineer and an astronaut candidate, but
personal problems got in the way of his dream. He had to quit
the real space program only to start his own personal space
program. He has such a mania for space flight that he works his
farm wearing an astronaut flight suit. (Is that even possible?)
At first he seems to the viewer to be entirely off the wall. But
he is building his own variant on an Atlas missile, not unlike
one from the Mercury Program. His plan is to launch himself from
his barn into orbit. His dream has required all the money from
his farm, and it driving his family into bankruptcy. He is
oblivious to the pain he is causing as he single-mindedly seeks
his goal. Goals are very important to him. As he tells a
stranger, "You better know what you want to do before someone
knows it for you." Yet he insists that that his family share his
dream rather than have dreams of their own. His wife Audie
(played by Virginia Madsen) and family still love and support
him, but he seems to care little for the sacrifices he is asking
them to make for his private goal.
This is the most commercial film that Michael Polish has
directed. Previously he made the somewhat surrealist films TWIN
FALLS IDAHO and NORTHFORK. He co-authored ASTRONAUT FARMER with
his twin brother Mark. The two co-produced and Mark also appears
in the film as an FBI agent. One does not know quite what to
feel about Charlie Farmer. One has to admire his tenacity in
accomplishing his goal, but he pursues it to the point of
psychosis and requires that his family sacrifice just about all
to a dream they will be able to share in only vicariously. This
makes him a not very sympathetic character. At the same time the
government officials that are trying to impose themselves to try
to stop him have what seem like very valid concerns about
Farmer's project. During the course of the film Farmer
repeatedly and callously endangers people's lives without giving
a second thought. On one level this can be read as a sort of
Frank Capra story of a man determined to fulfill his dream, but
the film also has a very dark side. Farmer's town all seem to
know weird old Charlie, but also seem to let him get away with
some very impulsive, unpleasant, and anti-social behavior. Some
of his actions make little sense.
One sees little jokes that have been put into the film along the
way. FBI agents all look a lot alike in black suits and wearing
walrus moustaches. (Usually they appear more clean-cut in
films.) The café where Audie works is called CALF-A. There are
noticeable homages to THE RIGHT STUFF, including the tying of the
space mythos to the cowboy mythos. The supporting cast includes
a near totally redundant role for Bruce Willis as an ex-astronaut
sent by the government to check out Charlie's space project.
Also appearing are Bruce Dern, Tim Blake Nelson, and
J. K. Simmons.
It is hard to tell if this film is intended as the same sort of
exercise in surrealism that NORTHFORK was or if it is intended as
an inspirational tale of determination or if it is simply a
parable. If any of this is true it is not entirely successful.
As an interesting failure it is at least worth a look. I rate
THE ASTRONAUT FARMER a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0469263/
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BREACH (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The appeal of BREACH is the opportunity to look into the
mind of a man of genius who is betraying his country from within
the FBI. Some of the man becomes clear and some remains an
enigma to the new recruit to the FBI who is forced to bring him
down. Chris Cooper playing the traitor Robert Hanssen is most of
the show. He gets an excellent opportunity to show off his fine
talent as a very strange man who is a mass of contradictions.
Ryan Phillippe plays Eric O'Neill, smart himself, but strained to
just keep up with Hanssen, much less defeat him at his own game.
Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
On Monday, February 19, 2001, the FBI announced the arrest of
Robert Hanssen, an FBI analyst and agent who over an interval of
twenty-two years had done incalculable damage to the interests of
his country selling secrets to the Soviet Union. His spying from
within the FBI is considered "possibly the worst intelligence
disaster in US history. BREACH starts with the actual video
announcement and then flashes back two months to tell the story
of how Robert Hanssen was caught. Ryan Phillippe plays Eric
O'Neill is an FBI recruit trying to make agent so that he can
apply his intellect and computer skill. He is pulled out of
training for a less agreeable assignment. He is to be a clerk
for Robert Hanssen and at the same time spy on him to collect
evidence that he is publishing pornography on the Internet.
Robert Hanssen is not at all what he expected. Hanssen is a
fanatic Catholic who goes to church every day and prays in the
office. Hanssen is himself a computer genius and an overbearing
and demanding supervisor. He also decides to turn O'Neill into
another fanatic Catholic and insinuates himself into O'Neill's
relationship with his East-Germany-born wife. Juliana O'Neill
(Caroline Dhavernas) rebels at having Eric's supervisor
proselytizing her. Hanssen freely pontificates on whatever is on
his mind. When he finds mistakes or weaknesses in O'Neill's work
he turns on him in with a vicious anger, but he also seems to
want to father him.
O'Neill has to serve him and also secretly to serve the agent
investigating Hanssen, Kate Burroughs (played by Laura Linney).
By any standards but comparison to Hanssen she is a hard and
impatient master. O'Neill is disgusted by the clerical
assignment and worse by the spying on an FBI agent until he finds
out what Hanssen really is doing and why he is being
investigated. We move over a two-month period to Hanssen's
arrest.
While Billy Ray directs the film to work as a thriller, it is
also a character study of the Hanssen character. While Chris
Cooper looks very unlike the real Hanssen (see the link below),
he really creates the role. He makes us sense the intelligence
of the man and feel that intellect crumble as the snare tightens
around him. Actor Chris Cooper has a natural scowl that worked
for him as the stern father in OCTOBER SKY and works equally well
for him here. This is a man one would not want to cross, but of
course, crossing him is exactly what Eric O'Neill was sent to do.
Speaking of crossings, my wife noticed a point I would not have.
Hanssen berates O'Neill for not being devout. Perhaps he is
right in one sense. O'Neill is a Jesuit-taught Catholic, but
when he enters a church with Hanssen he incorrectly crosses
himself. (Forehead-shoulder-shoulder-stomach rather than a
cross.) Hanssen does it the proper way.
The film has recognizable actors in even some minor roles.
Dennis Haysbert is no stranger to political thrillers, appearing
in both television programs "24" and "The Unit". He is also
familiar from television insurance ads. Kathleen Quinlin play
Hanssen's wife, the real force behind Hanssen's religiosity.
Bruce Davison plays Eric O'Neill's father.
The one question that remains with the viewer is why would this
particular man turn into the country's greatest traitor. We get
some possible explanations, but since nobody really knows the
real answer, perhaps it is better that the film just suggests
what it might be. But the story by Adam Mazer and William Rotko
does not answer that most important question for the audience.
This is certainly a much tighter film about the intelligence
community than is the recent THE GOOD SHEPHERD. I rate it a +2
on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
Wikipedia on Hanssen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0401997/
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: AMAZING GRACE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: AMAZING GRACE is a second-class film on a first-class
theme, the life of the man who changed much of the world by
ending the British slave trade. This could be a very strong
experience. Unfortunately the film smolders for almost two hours
without ever catching emotional fire. Some enormous liberties
were taken with history. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Links for more information included at the end of the review.
"As soon as ever I had arrived thus far in my investigation of
the slave trade, I confess to you sir, so enormous, so dreadful,
so irremediable did its wickedness appear that my own mind was
completely made up for the abolition. A trade founded in
iniquity, and carried on as this was, must be abolished, let the
policy be what it might, - let the consequences be what they
would, I from this time determined that I would never rest till I
had effected its abolition."
- William Wilberforce, speech before the House of Commons, May
12, 1789
The hour before seeing Michael Apted's AMAZING GRACE I listened
to a BBC4 historical program on the life of William Wilberforce,
part of their "In Our Time" series hosted by Melvyn Bragg.
Shortly after, I read Michael Apted's article on the film in the
winter 2007 edition of FLM: THE VOICE OF INDEPENDENT FILM.
Curiously, both point up flaws in the film.
Michael Apted, it should be pointed out, is a very fine
documentary filmmaker. His series of documentaries 7*N-UP may
well be among the finest and most revealing documentaries ever
made. His dramatic film output is not of the same caliber.
AMAZING GRACE is an account of the efforts of MP William
Wilberforce to end Britain's slave trade. Apted takes liberties
with the history to make what should already be a dramatic story
even more dramatic and to remake Wilberforce into a dashing
romantic hero. And in spite of the jazzing up, somehow his film
grabs the viewer's attention but rarely grips the viewer as it
should. The film's most moving passages are in descriptions of
the slave trade we are told about second-hand but not shown on
screen. Wilberforce is played by 5'11" handsome Ioan Gruffudd.
Television viewers may remember him as the young Horatio
Hornblower. Actually Toby Jones, who also appears in the film,
might have been closer to being a physical match to the
historical 5'3" Wilberforce who also had a bent spine.
Apted really did not need a hunk in the role to make a hero of
the man who fought the British government, the then-powerful
sugar industry, and the King to end the moral abomination. After
a struggle of many years he convinced Parliament to pass laws
that ended the British slave trade (though not slavery itself).
That action had profound influence throughout the British Empire
as well as greatly affecting our own Civil War. Wilberforce
accurately presented would be a great real-life hero whose work
had a powerful influence over the world.
The film opens in 1797 when Wilberforce is in his mid-30s but has
already paid a heavy price in health for his struggle against the
slave trade. He retires to recover at the home of his friends
Henry and Marianne Thornton (played by Nicholas Farrell and
Sylvestra Le Touzel). While there he tells his story to kindred
spirit Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai). From there the film jumps
around a bit in time without clearly delineating what is
happening when. Apted says that he believes that it is love of
one sort or another that gives a film an emotional center.
However, according to the BBC, Wilberforce married the somewhat
frumpy Barbara Spooner late in life. His friends did not really
care for her. To make this relationship a center of the film
Apted turns the story into a grand romance and has Wilberforce
telling her his story in flashback. It convolutes the film and
misrepresents the history.
Wilberforce has a life-long and occasionally stormy friendship
with William Pitt the Younger (Benedict Cumberbatch), who became
Prime Minister of England at age 24, the youngest ever.
Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian and had to choose
between religious work and politics. In the film Abolitionists
suggested he could combine the two fighting slavery. In actual
fact it was probably Pitt who made the suggestion. Apted takes
us back and forth between the romance and the political battles.
Notably missing from the film is the climactic incident of the
campaign, Wilberforce's moving and stormy four-hour speech before
the House of Commons on May 12, 1789.
Albert Finney plays John Newton, who was Wilberforce's preacher
when he was growing up. Newton had formerly been a slave trader,
but he gave up the dirty business for religion. He is tortured
by the memories of his own barbarity, but took some comfort in
his religion. Newton wrote the hymn that became the anthem of
the abolitionist cause and which gives the film its title.
Michael Gambon is a Member of Parliament who, after opposing
Wilberforce, follows his conscience to support him. Also present
in the production are Ciarán Hinds, Rufus Sewell, and Bill
Paterson.
I suppose that at one time this film's liberties with historic
fact would not have been really bothersome. It probably is no
less accurate to the life of William Wilberforce than a film like
YANKEE DOODLE DANDY to the life of George M. Cohan. Somehow with
the history more easily available on the Internet, one almost
expects that filmmakers would feel obliged to try to stick close
to truth. This is not a bad film, but it is misleading in many
ways. I rate it a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0454776/
Film site including links to study materials
http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/
More on Wilberforce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
http://tinyurl.com/34qr66
The BBC Broadcast mentioned above
http://tinyurl.com/32ahzm
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The French Language (letter of comment by Patricia King)
In Mark's article on French in the 02/09/07 issue of the MT VOID,
he wrote, "I has been a while since my French class but shouldn't
it be CASINO ROYAL? Don't adjectives have to agree in gender with
nouns?" [-mrl]
Pat King responds, "As a Francophile, I'd like to make a comment
on the "Casino Royale" issue. You are correct, of course, that
"casino" is masculine and the adjective should be "royal." If the
casino were named "royal" then it should be called "Casino la
Royale." I guess we just have to assume that Fleming (and his
publishers) did not speak French very well." [-pk]
===================================================================
TOPIC: KIM (letter of comment by Joseph T. Major)
In response to Evelyn's comments on KIM in the 02/23/07 issue of
the MT VOID, Joe Major writes:
KIM: There was a boy born in India who took up a position as a
undercover spy, pretending to be someone he was not. He hearkened
to his Guru, and in his declining days was received in the land
which had been his true home.
However, as a ferocious anti-Bolshevik, Kipling would not have
been pleased with Kim Philby [Harold Adrian Russell Philby].
(His "guru" would have been his sometime case officer, the
ex-seminarian Theodore Mally, who was one of those who was
unmasked as a traitor, confessed his crimes, and received the
supreme measure of social self-defense.) [-jtm]
===================================================================
TOPIC: LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (letter of comment by Taras Wolansky)
In response to Mark's review of LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA in the
02/16/07 issue of the MT VOID, Taras Wolansky writes, "Reading
the review of Letters from Iwo Jima, which I still haven't
managed to see (it's not in my usual theater), a few lines stuck
out: 'The soldiers experience and personalities are not very
different from those of their American enemies. ... The majority
of those on both sides are just decent people hoping to survive
the war and to get back to civilian life. ... both sides are seen
as noble ...' In fact, we know from the history of World War II
that none of this is true. Japanese troops were much more prone
to atrocities and mass murder. Their racial ideology was perhaps
not as extreme as that of their allies, the Nazis, but it may
have been more widely held and ingrained, being of much, much
older vintage. They treated the Chinese and Koreans as subhuman,
slaughtering them, subjecting them to medical experiments, making
sex slaves of young women for the convenience of the troops."
[-tw]
Mark responds, "And if what you say is all true, and I think you
can make a case that it is, does it actually contradict
Eastwood's point of view that the majority on both sides are
decent? We are talking about a large population of people. I
don't see any contradiction in saying that the majority of
American soldiers are decent and moral people and at the same
time admitting that some Americans have been responsible for some
heinous atrocities in wartime. And this is no hair-splitting
technicality. It is very important in people's attitudes toward
the Japanese and the American people." [-mrl]
Mark continues, "This actually fits into my discussion of why
mathematics education and the logic it teaches is important. If
one person contends A is true and another says no B is true
instead the first thing you want to do is look to see exactly why
A and B appear to be mutually exclusive and decide if they
actually are. In this case I think a lot rides on whether they
are or not. Can atrocities be committed by a people the majority
of whom are well-meaning and decent?" [-mrl]
Taras continues, "[You wrote:] 'FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS was about
exploitation and dishonesty.' Clint Eastwood is a very smart
guy. He understands the liberalism of Hollywood and the even
more pronounced liberalism of movie critics. It was a difficult
trick to slide a pro-war movie past them, but he managed it.
(Though not entirely, I think: there was enough residual unease
about the movie that certain very left-wing reviewers trashed it,
and it was blacked out at the Oscars.)" [-tw]
Mark responds, "You seem to be both attacking and defending it.
I would like to think that in the final analysis the muck-raking
it did, accurate as it might have been, left a bad taste in
people's mouths. Certainly that was the case for me." [-mrl]
Taras continues, "Thus the 'dishonesty'--as if we should have
been honest, and lost the war! In reality, if one side in a war
practices propaganda to keep up morale, while the other side
always tells the truth and gives free rein to critics, the former
side will almost always win (as Abraham Lincoln understood). In
other words, Eastwood's point, overtly made during the movie
several times, is that the dishonesty was necessary. Though, as
I said, this slipped by many liberal viewers, predisposed to see
the United States in a negative light. Another piece of subtext:
7000 Americans were killed in six weeks on Iwo Jima, dwarfing the
death toll of several years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Conservative viewers were more likely to spot this than liberal
ones, because conservative commentators had been using the same
example." [-tw]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Brain Damage (letter of comment by Paul S. R. Chisholm)
In response to Mark's article on brain damage in the 02/23/07
issue of the MT VOID, Paul Chisholm writes:
Thalamotomy:
http://tinyurl.com/2k4jsv
"Thalamotomy is the precise destruction of a tiny area of the
brain called the thalamus that controls some involuntary
movements...."
Microlesion effect:
http://www.newhopeforparkinsons.com/web/pid/79/
"Many times, patients enjoy a 'honeymoon' period--also called the
microlesion effect--of temporary improvement after surgery ...
caused by the effect of electrodes passing in and out of the
area."
Steven Gulie, "A Shock to the System" (WIRED, March 2007): "...
the microlesion effect. Apparently just the swelling from the
poking around is enough to make things better for a while."
And in the contemporary-fiction-is-stranger-than-science-fiction
department:
http://tinyurl.com/2mbz2h
"An episode of HOUSE featured a patient who is treated with ECT
... to remove his memories of being in love with [a] woman."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_and_Deeds (warning: spoilers
in article!)
Hope this helps. [-psrc]
===================================================================
TOPIC: NOTES ON A SCANDAL, Brain Damage, and Rudyard Kipling
(letter of comment by Taras Wolansky)
In response to Mark's review of NOTES ON A SCANDAL in the
02/23/07 issue of the MT VOID, Taras Wolansky writes, "I didn't
like the clever and subtle way it normalizes pedophilia. We're
manipulated into sympathizing with Cate Blanchett's character,
who is guilty of statutory rape, and despising Judy Dench's, who
is merely guilty of not reporting the rape immediately. I'm
curious about the people who got the film made, and made this
way." [-tw]
Mark replies, "This is a film about one woman who does something
criminal and wrong. The film never takes a viewpoint that she is
right. In the end she is punished very severely for her
behavior. But the focus of the film is another woman and how in
her jealousy she exploits the situation. In THE SHAWSHANK
REDEMPTION imprisoned criminals are exploited by a warden. The
film focuses on the evil done by the warden and our sympathies
are with the prisoners. This in no way suggests to me that their
crimes were any the less bad." [-mrl]
In response to Mark's article on the upside of brain damage in
the same issue, Taras writes, "You will recall Vernor Vinge's
sinister masterpiece, A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY. Controlled brain
damage is used by a profoundly evil civilization to create
autistic savants." [-tw]
In response to Evelyn's comments on Rudyard Kipling in that
issue, he writes, "Two interesting notes from the Wikipedia
article on Kipling [found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudyard_Kipling]:
[On his political incorrectness:] Those who defend Kipling
from accusations of racism point out that much of the
apparent racism in his writing is spoken by fictional
characters, not by him, and thus accurately depicts the
characters. An example is that the soldier who (in 'Gunga
Din') calls the title character 'a squidgy-nosed old idol.'
However, in the same poem, Gunga Din is seen as a heroic
figure; 'You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.'
[-wikipedia]
[On his influence on SF:] Kipling seems to have developed
indirect exposition as a solution to some technical problems
of writing about the unfamiliar milieu of India for British
and American audiences. The technique reaches full
development in KIM (1901), which influenced Heinlein's
CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY. [-wikipedia]
Taras aadds: "Maybe you need the skills of an SF reader to
appreciate Kim today." [-tw]
Evelyn responds, "The claim that it is Kipling's characters who
are racist and not Kipling is apparently made by people who have
not read Kipling's 1911 book, KIPLING'S POCKET HISTORY OF ENGLAND
(co-authored with C. R. L. Fletcher). As I noted in my comments
on it three years ago in the 10/10/2003 issue of the MT VOID
[http://fanac.org/fanzines/MT_Void/MT_Void-2215.html]:
"The last chapter's discussion of the Empire can only be called
at best raging jingoism, and at worst outright racism. For
example, they say, 'In Canada we had really little difficulty in
making good friends with our new French subjects, for they hated
and feared the pushing Americans.... In Australia, we had
nothing but a few miserable blacks, who could hardly use bows and
arrows in fight.' Referring to Africa, they say, 'The natives
everywhere welcome the mercy and justice of our rule....' And
most egregious is their description of the Caribbean: 'The
population is mainly black, descended from slaves imported in
previous centuries, of mixed black and white race; lazy, vicious
and incapable of any serious improvement, or of work except under
compulsion. In such a climate a few bananas will sustain the
life of a negro quite sufficiently; why should he work to get
more that this? He is quite happy and quite useless, and spends
any extra wages which he may earn upon finery.'" [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Brain Damage, C.S.A., CHASM CITY, NOTES ON A SCANDAL, and
a New Zine (letter of comment by John Purcell)
In response to Mark's article about brain damage in the
02/23/issue of the MT VOID, John Purcell writes, "This was the
strangest thing. The same day that I read about the film THE
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND in your zine, that danged
film was a question on "Who wants to be a Millionaire"? Very odd
coinky-dink. Not only had I never heard of the film--and I
certainly wish I had; it sounds quite intriguing--but the title
comes from a poem by Alexander Pope, which I likewise did not
know. And me, a college English teacher, to boot. This all just
goes to prove that there is so much to learn in life that it is
impossible to know it all." [-jp]
Mark replies, "I would say that ETERNAL SUNSHINE is the best
science fiction film so far this decade. It was written by
Charlie Kaufman, who is probably best known for his BEING JOHN
MALKOVICH. I definitely recommend it." [-mrl]
John continues, "The ethical questions you raise here are
excellent. It is such a science fictional concept that to think
that we actually have the capability to perform such a surgery is
astonishing. Your concluding question, "Who would be willing
[to] intentionally damage brains for a positive effect?" is not a
real stumper. People being people and thus motivated by the all-
mighty dollar, there will be those doctors with scruples loose
enough to perform such a procedure for a profit. Even accepting
human nature as a given, the thought that it can be done is
something that still amazes me. We truly are living in the
science fiction future we read about as kids." [-jp]
In response to Evelyn's review of C.S.A.: THE CONFEDERATE STATES
OF AMERICA in the same issue, John writes, "Hey, now I really am
going to have to lay my hands on that film, C.S.A.: THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA. First off, I am a bit of a Civil
War buff; simply fascinated by the history of it, causes,
results, and the horror of it all. Evelyn's write-up of "CSA"
has really gotten me interested. Gotta check out the Netflix
listing again. Good thing my daughter subscribes to it!" [-jp]
Mark replies, "I have a slightly different take on the film than
Evelyn's. You can make up your own mind. I think the point that
it is making is *not* that we are living in a totally different
world, but that the world we are living in is too much the same.
You are supposed to be amused at the racism of this alternate
world and then be shocked that this racist history is taken from
our world." [-mrl]
And Evelyn adds, "Even if you don't have Netflix, you can get it
in Target (of all places!). And by a completely different world,
I suppose a large part of what I meant was that every aspect was
looked at, instead of just saying that the CSA won, but
everything else in the world is the same." [-ecl]
In response to Joe Karpierz's review of CHASM CITY in the same
issue, John writes, "Same result after reading the review of the
Alastair Reynolds book. Now I really *must* read some of his
books. They sound so danged interesting. Stop this! I am so far
behind on my leisure reading it's silly. Now with my dissertation
looming before me, that stack is going to be gathering dust for a
while. *sigh* At least the end is in sight. Sort of." [-jp]
John also writes, "Last night I caught the last twenty minutes of
the Academy Awards and saw that Judi Dench was nominated for her
role in NOTES ON A SCANDAL. The movie certainly sounds
fascinating, and I have always admired Judi Dench as an actress;
Cate Blanchett is no slouch, either. What a pair, and what a
timely story. Another DVD to rent via Netflix." [-jp]
Mark adds, "That is another worthwhile choice." [-mrl]
John concludes, "Nothing else to really add, except to say thank
you for some thoughtful reading material again. Keep your eyes
posted for my new zine, "Askance", due to hit the streets in the
third week of March." [-jp]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE OMNIVORE'S DILEMMA: A NATURAL HISTORY OF FOUR MEALS by
Michael Pollan (ISBN-10 1-59420-082-3, ISBN-13 978-1-594-20082-3)
started with an interesting idea. Pollan was going to trace four
different meals from their origins to his mouth. The meals were
a fast-food meal, two different "organic" meals, and a hunter-
gatherer meal. The problem I had with most of the book was that
it jumped around a lot, and introduced too many people to keep
track of. (For example, Pollan would talk about Joe Smith's
small farm, and then fifty pages later say something like, "Smith
would not have agreed.")
The part that I do recommend is the middle section. Yes, a book
about four meals has a middle section, because it started as
three meals. Then Pollan discovered that "organic" was too broad
a term. There are what people think of when they hear the word
"organic": a small farm that doesn't use any chemical fertilizer
or insecticides and lets its chickens roam around the farm yard.
However, the government's definition of "organic" means that 1)
there are a lot of mega-farms that can call their product
"organic", and 2) there are a lot of small farms that the average
consumer would consider "organic" that aren't. The mega-farm can
claim its chickens are "free-range" if they "have access to the
outdoors," which could be a small door at the end of a large
chicken coop that is unlatched an hour a week, and then only for
the last two weeks of the chicken's life. The small farm may be
ecologically sound and humanely run, but if the feed they buy for
the chickens is not certified as organic, they cannot call their
products organic either.
Pollan uses Whole Foods Market as an example of the "mega-
organic" food chain. He points out that a large chain cannot
survive buying small amounts from a lot of small farmers, and so
drives the mega-farm production. The mega-farms, in turn, have
lobbied the government to define "organic", "free-range", etc.,
in terms that are most favorable to them. Pollan says if you
want "traditionally organic" (my term, not his), you need to shop
at local farms or farmers' markets. This is nice in theory, but
since the "farmers' markets" around here seem to carry all sorts
of packaged goods as well as produce clearly grown elsewhere (New
Jersey is not known for its oranges), this is not always
practical.
And in addition to the food itself, one must consider the cost to
the environment in getting it to market. Pollan gives examples
of how much petroleum is used to transport a steer, for example,
from the farm to the slaughterhouse to the store. Which brings
me to my Whole Foods Market experience. A few days after reading
the book, I stopped in a Whole Foods Market to buy two habanero
peppers. (No one else around here carries them.) First of all,
they are clearly not a local New Jersey product, especially in
February. (There is not enough market to operate a hothouse for
them.) And to buy them, first I needed to put them in a plastic
produce bag designed to hold a half dozen apples, rather than a
smaller, less wasteful bag. And after I paid for them (all of
twenty cents!) the cashier asked if I wanted a bag to put them
in. I suppose they have to ask, but talk about how wasteful!
Oh, and what is the omnivore's dilemma? Well, as Pollan notes,
the koala has no dilemma about food--if it looks and smells like
a eucalyptus leaf, it's food; if it doesn't, it's not. But an
omnivore has so many choices for food, what to eat becomes a
dilemma.
[And after I wrote this column, the "New York Times" ran an
article, "Is Whole Foods Straying From Its Roots?", which can be
found at http://tinyurl.com/ytmxe6, registration necessary, but
you can usually find passwords at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com.]
WHY TRUTH MATTERS by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom (ISBN-10
0-8264-7608-2, ISBN-13 978-0-826-47608-1) has what they claim as
the answer on the back: "Truth matters because we are the only
species we know of that has the ability to find it out." This is
clarified inside as "we have the kind of brain that can
conceptualize reality as existing independent of us." But first
of all, whether we are the only species who can do this is
certainly arguable, and second, having said this on page 21, the
authors are left with the rest of the book to discuss the various
ways in which people marginalize truth (e.g., wishful thinking,
cultural relativism, etc.). It is all a bit unstructured, and
with a lot of mentions of modern philosophers, scientists, and
events that assume the reader is familiar with them. Continuum
Press seems to publish books on philosophy, but I would say they
are aimed more at the serious student of philosophy than at the
general public.
BOOKSTORE: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JEANETTE WATSON AND BOOKS & CO.
by Lynne Tillman (ISBN-10 0-151-00425-0, ISBN-13
978-0-151-00425-6) is a paean to the independent bookstore Books &
Co. that existed in Manhattan from 1978 to 1997. It is not a
narrative, but a series of recollections by Watson, people who
worked at the store, people who shopped at the store, authors, and
others. All extol the virtues of the independent bookstore, where
the owner and staff love books, know just what to recommend to the
regular customers, encourage new authors and marginal fields such
as poetry, give fabulous parties for signings and readings, and
generally are wonderful people. Woody Allen used the store as a
setting in EVERYBODY SAYS I LOVE YOU, because he loved it so
much. But somewhere towards the end of the book, we discover that
this utopia is built on sand--it survived as long as it did only
because Watson (and her family) kept subsidizing it. The Whitney
Museum of American Art was their landlord, and came under fire,
first for not giving them a lower-than-market-price rent, and then
for not taking over the bookstore and continuing to run it the
same way. The fact that the Whitney also had to deal with
financial issues, and was an art museum, not a literary
organization, seemed to elude most people.
Poor commercial planning caused many of the store's apparently
unending financial problems. They include renting space next door
to store books, paying Madison Avenue rent for what was
effectively a warehouse. They spent more on refreshments for a
reading than the increased sales would cover. And they had entire
orders of hard covers signed by the authors *before* they
were sold (meaning the store could not return unsold copies).
But almost everyone seems to want to blame the store's demise on
the chains. Some independent bookstores are still going (*), so
there are ways to compete, but the business model used by Books &
Co. was not one. Books & Co. was undoubtedly a wonderful store
run by idealistic people, but it was not a sustainable business
venture.
(*) Shakespeare & Co. still has three stores, including one
uptown, indicating that rents are not the only factor. But they
have books that appeal to more people, while still concentrating
on something other than best-sellers. Books & Co. seemed to try
to have the most literary, the most edgy books and that had
to limit their clientele a lot. (There were a lot of authors
interviewed with whom I am not familiar.) And Michael Powell, of
the still-successful Powell's in Portland, says, "Powell's had the
strength of the used-book world; we can keep focusing on used and
out of print, and that's something that Borders and Barnes &
Noble don't have, and that gives us strength." This is ironic in
two ways: Borders used to be one of those wonderful independents
(one store in Ann Arbor in the 1970s), and Barnes & Noble used to
carry used books, back when they had only three locations, all in
Manhattan. Powell also says, "We are not prejudiced against any
class of books . . . we are not prejudiced against pop fiction,
romances, history. We wanted to treat all customers, all
readers, as serious people." [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?
-- Vince Lombardi