THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
MT VOID 03/16/07 -- Vol. 25, No. 37, Whole Number 1432
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:
Not Again! (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Are You Listening, George Romero? (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
Don't Drink to Forget . . . Take Drugs (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Principle Malpractice (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
FLATLAND: THE FILM (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
SCORPION'S GATE by Richard E. Clarke (book review
by Mark R. Leeper)
ZODIAC (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
ADAM'S APPLES (letter of comment by Fred Lerner)
BLOOD MUSIC (letter of comment by David Goldfarb)
Godzilla, Casting, Pet Rocks, and Slavery (letter of comment
by John Purcell)
This Week's Reading (KING KONG IS BACK! and A HAIRCUT IN
HORSE TOWN) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Not Again! (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was watching GODZILLA: TOKYO S.O.S. Tokyo Tower had been
destroyed for about the eighth time in the Godzilla films. I
guess they just keep rebuilding it back just the same way it was
before. Then the kaiju come along and have a monstrous battle and
knock it down again. I guess they feel that if they don't rebuild
it exactly the same way each time then the kaiju have won. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Don't Drink to Forget . . . Take Drugs (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Apropos of our recent discussion of brain damage to erase
unpleasant memories, it apparently can be done with drugs, as this
article published recently says: http://tinyurl.com/yqh75w.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Are You Listening, George Romero? (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
It has now officially debunked. You may have heard the myth that
the earth's population has grown so much that more than half the
people who have ever lived are alive today. It is shocking,
scary, and nobody was sure it was not true because nobody had done
the calculation. Now somebody has. "Scientific American" has
published an article that says the dead, whom incidentally Homer
dubbed "the Silent Majority," are still the overwhelming
majority. See http://tinyurl.com/3apbqd. In fact, it is
doubtful that the living could ever come anywhere close to
out-numbering the dead. There are a lot more of Them than Us.
We could be at a serious disadvantage if it ever comes to all-out
war between Them and Us. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Principle Malpractice (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
When the Hiroshima Bomb exploded people were shown that the laws
of advanced physics were not just curiosities and theoretical
possibilities but very real and applicable to the world in which
we live. Laws of theoretical physics crossed over into the world
of philosophy. People realized that the laws of physics were
verified, at least to the extent that the bomb really did explode,
so there had to be validity and relevance there. Principles of
physics started showing up in academic and philosophical
arguments. As would be expected, when people tried to take these
tools of mathematics and physics and apply them to the real world,
they were misapplied. This does not mean that the laws of physics
were shown to be wrong in other contexts. It is just true that
one has to be certain that one is properly applying the
principles.
I am currently in e-mail discussions with two different members.
(I think they will know who they are.) Ironically, in one
discussion I am arguing a pro-atheist viewpoint and in the other
I am arguing an anti-atheist viewpoint. Perhaps I should just
have them argue with each other. (People who do get into
philosophical discussions with me should be cautioned that the
point of view I espouse is not always my own.) In any case, my
pro-atheist correspondent says, "The Universe makes sense without
God, who becomes that excess hypothesis lopped off by Occam's
Razor."
He refers to what is considered a principle of nature. It says
if you have two hypothetical explanations for an observed
phenomenon and one is simpler than the other, it is the simpler
explanation that tends to be the correct one. This may be a
familiar argument for atheism. In fact, in the film CONTACT the
character Ellie Arroway uses this argument as a defense of her
atheism (assuming it needed defending).
I would contend that Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is a
principle, often misunderstood, and not a law. I am not sure it
is even given the weight of a principle. Occam's Razor does not
remove any hypotheses and never did. The principle just says
that most frequently the simplest explanation is the one most
likely correct. It is a suggestion of which to try to verify
among competing explanations. In fact, this may not be a good
place to apply Occam's Razor at all. All Occam's Razor says,
arguably, is that it may be easier to show there is no God than
that there is, but it definitely does not tell you to throw out
the Existence-of-God hypothesis. Here we are talking about
theological matters in any case. I would be nice to apply the
rules of physics, but my suspicion is that the universe does not
give us credible tools to test either hypothesis: existence or
non-existence, so there is no value in pointing to one hypothesis
or the other as more likely.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is another physical
principle that is frequently misused outside of the realm of
science. The principle says that you cannot simultaneously
determine the position and momentum of an electron. My
interpretation is that it just says that there are limits to
observability in our universe.
The principle has been incorrectly (I believe) reinterpreted to
say that you cannot observe something without affecting it in
some way. One book gave the example that when you see a football
in flight over a stadium you actually affect the flight of that
football by merely observing it. My assertion is that you
probably do not.
This assumption would be useful at times. Frequently we want to
discredit the observations of others. And nobody denies that
sometimes observers really do affect results. It is convenient
to say that an observed behavior would not have happened if it
had not been observed. And it lends credence to such a claim to
say that it is a universal principle that things cannot be
observed without being affected. However, that is not what
Heisenberg said. And that restatement can be easily disproved
with what I contend is a counterexample.
In 1572 Tycho Brahe recorded observing a super-nova. That is it.
That is a counterexample. Tycho may have observed the supernova
in 1572 but that was just when the light from the supernova
reached the Earth. It probably came hundreds of millions of
light-years to reach the Earth which means that supernova went
out of existence hundreds of millions of years before Tycho was
born. Unless this strange principle allowed him to circumvent
causality and go back in time he was way too late to affect the
supernova. The football flying over the stadium gives off
photons. If your eye intercepts one of those photons, you have
not affected the football. Observe footballs all you like.
Now don't get me started on Godel's Proof. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: FLATLAND: THE FILM (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Edwin Abbott's 1884 fantasy is adapted to the screen.
Like the book the film seems deceptively simple. In Flatland the
inhabitants are figures from plane geometry who do not believe
there ever could be a third dimension. Abbott's political satire
is updated for the screen, but the story loses none of its charm
or its bite. This is a unique animated film that takes on race,
gender, class, and political corruption while entertaining and
perhaps even teaching a little mathematics. Rating: +2 (-4 to
+4) or 7/10
Fantasy stories have created many lands that have become as
intriguing in themselves as characters. There is Swift's
Lilliput (among other worlds of Gulliver), Carroll's Wonderland,
Baum's Oz, Hilton's Shangri-La, and Tolkein's Middle Earth.
Flatland is one land best known to mathematics and technical
students as well as people interested in science fiction's 19th
century prehistory. The planar land appeared in 1884 in
FLATLAND: A ROMANCE OF MANY DIMENSIONS, a strange short book
written by Edwin A. Abbott, initially published under the name of
the book's main character, A Square.
The inhabitants of Flatland are lines and polygons living in a
flat plane. The men are all polygons, generally each with one
side more than his father had. The more sides a polygon has the
greater status he has in society. Women, on the other hand, are
all straight-line segments. That means they have little status.
However, since a line cannot be seen edge-on and is thinner than
a knife, can easily stab and injure men--intentionally or not--so
they are very dangerous. Being dangerous gives them some power.
We see this Flatland through the eye (singular) of the lawyer
aptly named A Square.
Most polygons in Flatland are white by law and that is how many
want it, but there is a growing "Chromatist" movement in the
society for the liberating effects of color. (Note that a
similar idea cropped up in PLEASANTVILLE more than a century
after Abbott wrote about it.) A Square is called on to defend a
woman/line falsely accused of being a Chromatist. Soon a
Chromatists' rebellion has Flatland in an uproar and fleeing a
rebellion A Square hides in his home. There he sleeps and has a
vivid dream of Lineland, a one-dimensional land in which all the
inhabitants are line segments. They do not believe there can be
a second dimension. This dream happens to be fortuitous, because
the gentle, bewildered A Square is about to be discovered by the
somewhat overbearing A Sphere, a strange spherical visitor from a
three-dimensional world, Spaceland. That world is as
incomprehensible to A Square as A Square was to the lines
segments of Lineland. A Square is allowed to visit Spaceland
with his new friend, a person of some prominence in his own
world. He finds Spaceland a world very different from his own,
mostly because it has the extra dimension. But at the same time
this bewildering world is similar enough to be on the brink its
own devastating war.
Tom Whalen's script removes much of the Victorian caricature and
replaces it with satire of our time. That is at least arguably
an accurate approach since it makes the film as timely to its
audience as the book was to its initial readership. Remember
George Pal's THE TIME MACHINE, another hyper-dimensional novel,
also brought up contemporary fears of nuclear war that were not
in the original story. Like Pal's THE TIME MACHINE, this film
has the essence of the book while taking some liberties with the
plot.
Some of the topics this film addresses are class, race, political
power, and nuclear war. That is quite a bit even for this is a
feature film of 95 minutes. The story moves from being generally
whimsical to more serious to even grim in the later parts of the
story. But there is always wit, even in the closing credits. As
with the book GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, the apparently whimsical themes
of have serious intent. The film maintains a running commentary
on itself by a mechanism borrowed from some silent films, the
witty title card insert.
The film's creator and director, Ladd Ehlinger, Jr., has given
the film a very original feel. In fact, Abbott's illustrations
for his book and his vision of his characters is really a little
plain for a current animated film. One might think that the time
for an animated version of FLATLAND might almost seem to have
passed. There is not much in the story to allow a production
designer use much more than rudimentary computer animation. Even
the exalted priests of Flatland--circles--look like little more
than Pac-Man eaters are. But Ehlinger is able to improve quite a
bit on the Abbott illustrations for imagination, showing us
stylized internal organs. The visuals of the film rise to be of
no more than moderate interest, but it is impressive that this
production could do even that much with them. One minor problem
with the visuals: toward the end when the storytelling becomes
more complex, the images we see are occasionally hard to
interpret. For viewers with a mathematical bent the
illustrations may be of a little more interest. However, time
does seem to be running out for animated versions of this film.
That may be why a competing production is being made, directed by
Jeffrey Travis. In spite of having a familiar voice of Martin
Sheen, it is unlikely this film will be able to steal the thunder
from Ehlinger's version. There were two previous screen
adaptations in 1965 and 1982. Neither seems to have made much of
an impact or even escaped obscurity.
Probably in an attempt to keep prices down in what had to be a
low-budget effort, no familiar actor voices were employed. Nor
are they missed. Instead, it appears from that credits that
Ehlinger has used the voices of his family and friends.
Occasionally there are impressions of familiar voices like Ed
Wynn, Ted Kennedy, and perhaps comedian Paul Lynde. While there
is an original score, it quotes from existing sources such as
Richard Wagner and (I believe) THE INCREDIBLES.
FLATLAND may not appeal to those who want the sort of animated
action that was in THE INCREDIBLES or those who want fuzzy
animals. The film apparently had a low budget and needed no
more. The result is a delectable animated confection with claws
in it paws. I rate FLATLAND +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
One minor note, this film takes place in the year 2999 and 3000
and claims that the millenium has changed in that interval. A
script on such a mathematical theme should get right that the
millenium actually changes between 3000 and 3001.
Note: this film seems some places, including the IMDB, to have
been renamed FLATLAND: THE FILM, probably to distinguish it
unambiguously from the other adaptation this year FLATLAND: THE
MOVIE.
The film's website: http://www.flatlandthefilm.com/
The short novel on-line:
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ (illustrated)
or plain text at
http://tinyurl.com/245roq
YouTube Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=FlatlandTheFilm
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0972374/
===================================================================
TOPIC: SCORPION'S GATE by Richard E. Clarke (copyright 2005,
Putnam Adult, $24.95, 320pp, ISBN-10: 0-399-15294-6, ISBN-13:
978-0-399-15294-8) (book review by Mark R. Leeper)
I actually came upon this book looking for another book by
Richard E. Clarke, BREAKPOINT. Clarke has written two fiction
books, though he is probably better known for his non-fiction
books on terrorism, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES: INSIDE AMERICA'S WAR ON
TERROR--WHAT REALLY HAPPENED and DEFEATING THE JIHADISTS: A
BLUEPRINT FOR ACTION. Clarke is a government consultant on
intelligence, cyber-security and counter-terrorism. He was an
advisor to Reagan, Clinton, and the two Bushes. But he retired
in 2003 and apparently turned to writing fiction on the subjects
he knew so well. I thought reading his novels would be a
painless way to learn about current politics and terrorism. I
expected his book to be an education in the same way that Tom
Clancy books are textbooks on the American military machine.
The book takes place in the near future. At this point the
Americans are out of Iraq. But more interestingly, the Saudis
are out of Saudi Arabia. At least they are out of the country
formerly known as Saudi Arabia and now re-named Islamyah. The
Saudis have been forced out of power and fled the country.
Sunnis have replaced them with a new government it is finding how
and how not to operate. Meanwhile, there is a prize of one third
of the world's petroleum supply at stake. The Americans and the
Chinese are vying for that oil. The real villain, however, is
the Iranian covert Qods Force that is trying to destabilize the
Sunnis, particularly in Islamyah and Bahrain.
Clarke has spent much of his career in that part of the world and
discussing what he has found. He can present a lot of characters
with some authenticity. Unfortunately I cannot say that
SCORPION'S GATE works as a novel. Most of what is good about the
reading would have been better in a non-fiction book. We do get
a lot of points of view in seemingly endless café conversations
and briefing room meetings. The book has more characters than I
could manage to remember and most are not there to move the plot
along but to present their take on the politics on the Middle
East. For a while all the conversations are of interest but very
soon too many abbreviations and names of Jihadist groups and
defense organizations creep in and the conversations become
opaque. Perhaps the dialog is too realistic for the book's own
good.
Because this is a fiction book, one is not quite sure which of
these are real acronyms and real organizations and which, if any,
were invented for the fictional plot. There is no character to
care much about like we care for Clancy's Jack Ryan. There are
people we keep coming back to, but not for long enough to make
their characters interesting. Perhaps Clarke had too great an
ambition to educate the reader, but the story too long remains a
camel caravan of expository lumps. The book might very well have
done with a glossary, but perhaps the glossary would be of more
interest than the story itself. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: ZODIAC (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The unsolved case of the "Zodiac" serial killer is the
basis of David Fincher's thriller, based on a book by one of the
unofficial participants in the investigation. This is the story
of the investigation that stretched over decades. The
investigation and the film are both long and the final conclusion
the film reaches is dubious. Still, it makes for a tense if grim
true-crime thriller. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
In the ten months from December 1968 to October 1969 a flamboyant
serial killer preyed on the San Francisco Bay area. He wrote
letters to the newspapers, often including codes as puzzles to be
solved promising clues to his identity. In spite of the clues he
sent taunting the police, the case still remains officially
unsolved. Robert Graysmith, at the time of the murders a
cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle, became fascinated
with the case. He himself was an avid puzzle solver and so was
intrigued first by the newspaper puzzles the killer wrote and
later by the larger puzzle of who the killer actually was.
Graysmith eventually wrote two flamboyant books recounting his
own investigation and that of the police, all leading up to his
theory of the identity of the killer. This film is based on his
book ZODIAC. From the point of view of the film, he had almost
entirely solved the case, but frustratingly no action was taken.
It should be remembered, however, how many different books there
are about the Kennedy assassination, each with different theories
of who was behind the killing. Britain has the same phenomenon
with the Jack the Ripper killings. Many experts point in
different directions. Graysmith's solution may well be the most
popular, but it is still a matter of speculation. Of interest is
that this is the second crime film based on a Graysmith book. He
also wrote the book AUTO-FOCUS about the murder of actor Bob
Crane that was made into a film of the same name.
Director David Fincher previously made the horrific serial killer
film SE7EN. Here he is more limited in how he can portray the
killer, since he cannot show any unmasked character as obviously
being the killer. So this film is less like SE7EN and at least a
bit more like IN COLD BLOOD. The film concentrates on the
investigation and on the effects that the presence of a serial
killer has on the people directly involved and the general
public. The film is 158 minutes long, and yet the viewer learns
little about any character but Graysmith (played by Jake
Gyllenhaal). The young Graysmith clearly would like to get the
job of working with the investigation, but that dubious honor is
given to reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) whom Graysmith
sees as a weak man and who is eventually thrown off the paper for
his drinking and his irresponsibility. Though Avery helps and is
helped by Graysmith, Graysmith seems to have little respect for
Avery.
Mostly the film is all about the private and public
investigations. During the course of the film Graysmith meets
Melanie (Chloë Sevigny), whom he marries, but we see little of
the romance or the marriage. That would take too much time from
the story of the investigation. We do see that later Melanie had
problems with the amount of time and personal sacrifice that
Graysmith puts in on his obsession with the killer. Officially
on the case are police inspectors David Toschi and William
Armstrong, played respectively by Mark Ruffalo and Anthony
Edwards. Mostly the film is about the frustration of the
investigation and what it does to the men working on the case.
With both the police and with Graysmith the viewer follows a lot
of blind alleys and false leads. Questions raised in the film
are never answered. The puzzle-solving aspect of the film is of
interest, but we see a lot of investigators going through what
has to be drudgery in the investigation with a stupefying volume
of evidence. Arguably the film did not need its length and could
have been cut down to a more standard length with just an
allusion or two to some of the wasted effort. Instead it become
an exhausting experience for the viewer.
This film is a dark and atmospheric account of the efforts to
capture a man who could strike nearly anywhere and disappear.
Perhaps that makes the film particularly relevant right now. I
give ZODIAC a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. One point I
did notice, though it was never mentioned in the film. Zodiac
was apparently a weekend killer. Every date given for a killing
was a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Add that to the list of clues
that point nowhere.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0443706/
===================================================================
TOPIC: ADAM'S APPLES (letter of comment by Fred Lerner)
In response to Mark's review of ADAM'S APPLES in the 03/09/07
issue of the MT VOID, Fred Lerner writes, "Is ADAM'S APPLES one
of those Danish 'Dogma' films? If so, that would explain why it
makes no sense." [-fl]
Mark responds, "Strange is not the same thing as not making
sense. This film just has some weird characters and plot twists.
For that matter 'Dogma 95' films do make sense. While I do not
especially like the 'Dogma 95' restrictions, I do tend to like
the films made under its restrictions. Most of the restrictions
of 'Dogma 95' seem to be to make films more like stage plays.
The word 'organic' comes to mind. I will add that rarely does a
'Dogma 95' film follow all the rules. I believe rules 2 and 10
are always broken. [-mrl]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95
===================================================================
TOPIC: BLOOD MUSIC (letter of comment by David Goldfarb)
In response to Evelyn's comments on BLOOD MUSIC in the 03/09/07
issue of the MT VOID (in which she said, "Our science fiction
group read BLOOD MUSIC by Greg Bear.... This was expanded from a
shorter piece, and both won Hugos."), David Goldfarb writes, "The
shorter piece won a Hugo, but the longer was only nominated,
it didn't win. (ENDER'S GAME won that year.)" [-dg]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Godzilla, Casting, Pet Rocks, and Slavery (letter of comment
by John Purcell)
In response to various items in the 03/09/07 issue of the MT
VOID, John Purcell wrote:
A few things to pass along to you before I get back to zining for
an hour or so this morning. Firstly, I am glad you're enjoying
GODZILLA: TOKYO S.O.S. This is one of the films in the canon that
I am not aware of. It certainly sounds suitably wretched, which
means I'd love it immensely. In response to that one character
who believes a "dying Mothra can stop Godzilla", all I can say is
that we all have to remember one key thing about Godzilla films:
it ain't over until the midget twins sing. [-jp]
[This is the second to last film in the third series. It was
released in 2003. -mrl]
Like you, I admire Jack Lemmon as an actor. He is a wonderful
comic actor, and can handle serious roles as well--witness his
work in SAVE THE TIGER and TRIBUTE--but I agree with your
assessment that his demeanor was too middle-class, twentieth-
century American. Part of this problem is the body of work he
amassed over the years. Lemmon would fit right into World War I
and II dramas, also Eisenhower-era roles, but he strikes me as
not a very Elizabethan face. Some people can pull off the
historical switcharoo, like Chuck Heston, who could do past (EL
CID, et al), present (MIDWAY, CHINA SYNDROME, etc.), and future
(SOYLENT GREEN, the "Apes" movies). But not Lemmon. Again, I
think this is probably because he's performed roles that
solidified his cinematic persona. Loved him and Matthau in all
of their films, especially their two "Grumpy Old Men" flicks.
Those were so much fun. [-jp]
[As I said in my article I suspect a good enough director could
have made Lemmon work in HAMLET. At least he could have worked
as well as Micheal Keaton in MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. I think it
was Kenneth Branagh's error not to recognize that Lemmon was not
working. -mrl]
In the end, though, when it comes down to casting actors and
making the final call as to who works and who doesn't, that
should come down to the producer and director. Like you say,
it's ultimately the producer's fault. As a dog owner--we have
three of these beasties here in the Purcell Petting Zoo--I can
attest to their curiosity. But dogs aren't as inherently nosey
as cats; for them, there's an ulterior motive involved: food.
That and their nose for other dogs if you've been around some.
Dogs are quite territorial in nature, and cats are too, it's just
that cats are sneaky about it and way cool. Cats have attitude.
Dogs have enthusiasm. [-jp]
[That may be why I prefer dogs (though I can think of a lot of
other reasons). -mrl]
Also, I have to pass along that your throw-away comment about
"designating stones to be Pet Rocks" hurt Philbert's feelings.
He's been part of my life for almost thirty years now and we are
quite attached to each other. I just spent the last twenty-seven
minutes consoling that little fella, trying to make him feel
better. Geez, Mark; stop taking my Pet Rock's feelings for
granite! [-jp]
[I actually independently invented a pet rock in 1968, as Evelyn
can attest. Inspired by an episode of "The Outer Limits" in
which rocks do talk, I drew a face on a stone and would speak for
it saying "MY NAME IS IRVING, AND I AM A ROCK." I would say it
with a tight throat to create a voice very much like the voice of
the Warner Brothers cartoon Martian. I still have Irving
somewhere. -mrl]
Finally, it needs to be told to American students that Africans
did, in fact, enslave other Africans. There's a lot more to this
than I really have time for at present, nor all the facts about
the subject; however, this is a truth that has been long over-
looked in the American history classroom, perhaps deliberately
so. [-jp]
[Those who are most blamed for anything are frequently not the
worst offenders, but who are convenient to blame. I don't know
if there are figures available but I have heard that the volume
of African and Arabic slave trade was very much greater in volume
than the European and American trade, and it has still not been
entirely suppressed. I cannot quite place the source, but a
British film I saw recently brought up the subject of witch-
hunting. Somebody asks, what do you think this is, Salem? Salem
has become associated as the center of witch-hunting. Actually
Salem is remembered because this practice which was rampant in
Europe HAD EVEN spilled over into the New World. There was
almost none in the Americas. It seem strange that the country
that was home to people like Matthew Hopkins would come to
associate witch-hunting and witch-burning as being an American
practice. Incidentally witch-burning did not happen at all in
the Americas though it was a very common practice in England and
Europe. The few people executed for witchcraft in American
history died by the relatively merciful method of hanging. -mrl]
Discussing this touchy subject in today's classroom isn't a
matter of revisionist history, it is merely a matter of setting
the record straight. The more we know the correct information
about something past or present, the better informed decisions we
will make. That is the theoretic goal of education, you see.
[-jp]
[In theory that is true. Frequently the line is not drawn
between education and indoctrination. Political agendae in what
is taught seems to be running rampant. -mrl]
Well. That takes care of that. I thank you for the zine again,
and now it's on to finishing off my SNAPS zine so I can get onto
my dissertation work this afternoon. That and doing yard work.
Oh, and starting to work on clearing out and organizing the
garage during Spring Break. It is going to be a busy week off
from school. [-jp]
[Any vacation you do not return from exhausted was wasted. -mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
KING KONG IS BACK! edited by David Brin (ISBN-10 1-932100-64-4,
ISBN-13 978-1-932-10064-8) is a mixed bag of essays on King Kong
(duh!). Even within a single essay, there can be highs and lows.
For example, Nick Mamatas's "Over the River and a World Away" is
strong in the way Nick describes how WOR's annual Thanksgiving
telecast of KING KONG was a classic. But then he says that
MIGHTY JOE YOUNG is forgettable, and also implies that KING KONG
VS. GODZILLA had different endings in Japan and the United
States. The latter has been disproven. And there are certainly
many of us who have not forgotten MIGHTY JOE YOUNG.
There is at least one other error, where Robert A. Metzger in
"Dragon's Teeth and Hobbits" gives the location of Skull Island
(2 degrees south, 90 degrees east), and then says, "which we are
correctly told puts them west of Java (the large, northernmost
island of present-day Indonesia)." Actually, the "large
northernmost island of present-day Indonesia" is Sumatra, and
this point is definitely west of that. However, then Metzger
goes on to say that there is nothing southwest of this point for
thousands of miles, and says "taking a direction due southwest of
the west coast of Java would carry their ship across better than
a thousand miles of the Indian Ocean, finding no islands, until
they eventually hit Western Australia." No matter whether they
left from the west coast of Sumatra or of Java, if they headed
southwest they would be headed *away* from Australia. In fact,
unless they were headed more like west-southwest, they would miss
Africa entirely as well and make landfall somewhere on
Antarctica.
Perhaps the most interesting essay was "Divided Kingdom" by
Robert Hood. Hood begins by asking who is the true king of the
monsters: King Kong or Godzilla? To answer this, he looks at the
history of giant monster movies, including the 1950s cycle and
Japanese "kaiju eiga". He notes, among other things, that the
whole "giant monster" story was invented by Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle. [This comes as a surprise to those of us who have read
about giant monsters in the Arabian Nights and Greek mythology.
-mrl] Poor Doyle--he always thought his lasting legacy would be
his historical novels, but instead he is known as the creator of
Sherlock Holmes, and secondarily as the "Father of the Giant
Monster Movie" (it has always worked better in movies than in
written form, I think). No one reads THE WHITE COMPANY these
days.
While the essays are, as I say, a mixed bag, there is enough to
make it worthwhile for Kong fans. And aren't we all Kong fans
after all?
A HAIRCUT IN HORSE TOWN by "Click and Clack" ("the Car Guys")
ISBN-10 0-756-76423-8, ISBN-13: 978-0-756-76423-4) is a
collection of puzzles and associated quips by the National Public
Radio car repair duo. Apparently, they started doing a puzzle on
each show. For example, (stripped down to its basics) one is as
follows: you have fifty black balls, fifty white balls, and two
boxes. You are allowed to distribute the balls between the two
boxes any way you want. Then the boxes are shuffled. You then
pick a box, and (without looking) a ball out of that book. Is
there any way to improve your odds of choosing a black ball to
more than 50%?
The puzzles fall into two categories: those that will be familiar
to any veteran puzzle fan, and those having to do with cars which
usually do not give you all the necessary information, *and*
which assume a more detailed knowledge of cars than most people
have. The transcripts are funny enough into parts, but as a
puzzle book, it is a disappointment. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Mistakes are the portals of discovery.
-- James Joyce