THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
03/30/07 -- Vol. 25, No. 39, Whole Number 1434
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:
Little Heroes (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Fantastic Art of Ron Turner (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
300: The Reaction (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
2007 Hugo Award Nominations
300 Confused Critics (film review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
THE LAST MIMZY and 300 (letter of comment
by Joseph T. Major)
Persephone, Starlings, 300, Heisenberg Principle,
Schroedinger's Cat, and Edward Rutherfurd
(letter of comment by John Purcell)
Starlings (letter of comment by Lorraine Kevra and friend)
This Week's Reading (book sales) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
This issue featuring discussions of the film 300
===================================================================
TOPIC: Little Heroes (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The new film 300 makes a number of strange artistic choices in
its depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae. One struck me as
particularly strange. I should explain that there are giants and
very big people noted in Greek and Roman myth and history. There
is no mention of midgets and dwarfs. Bigness was noted,
smallness was not. The same is pretty much true of the Bible.
Who were the very small people? Obviously they were there but
being small was not considered notable. The Greeks never noted
Xerxes as being notably tall, and it is the kind of thing they
would have noted if it were true. Hence we can conclude that he
was not tall enough that it would get any special note. He is,
however, in the film much taller than the Spartans. Leonidas
barely comes up to his belly button. In the film all the
Spartans we see must be barely three feet tall, if that much.
The Spartans shown must be all the size of hobbits. It shows you
do not have to be tall to be macho. I thought that was an
interesting artistic choice. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Fantastic Art of Ron Turner (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Many of you know science fiction art, but fewer probably know of
Ron Turner. He did the cover of British books and magazines
mostly in the 1950s and early 1960s. His art work might be
considered less photo-realistic and might better be described as
"enthusiastic". The books he illustrated seem to owe much to the
tradition of the Penny Dreadfuls. The stories he illustrated
were attributed to such authors as Volsted Gridban and Vargo
Statten (both pennames for the prolific John Russell Fearn). You
can see a show of Turner's artwork at
http://tinyurl.com/39b8mf. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: 300: The Reaction (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The most talked about film of the year is no longer the long-
titled BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT
GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN, but is now the much more briefly-
titled 300. I for one say, "Thank goodness" (and not just
because 300 is much faster to type and I don't even need to hit
the caps-lock). 300 is certainly for me the more interesting of
the two films.
300 seems to have become one of the surprise hits of the year.
Audiences are being thrilled by this overly imaginative retelling
of the story of the battle of Thermopylae from 480 B.C. This is
not history like people snoozed through in school. The
filmmakers have completed the task begun by Herodotus, using
exaggeration and probably downright lies to make this battle a
pulse-pounding exciting epic. And it is working. The film seems
to have mostly a young audience so aflame they are yelling at the
screen. Now that is a mixed blessing, since this film is far
from even Herodotus's telling of the story and contains elements
that nobody should take seriously. This plot of this film is
somewhat impressionistic. At a high-level it looks very much
like the accepted accounts of the story of the battle. Get up
close and the details are no longer anything near accurate and
are at times laughably absurd.
It is interesting that this film has enraged the self-appointed
guardians of political thought from both the right and the left.
A friend I saw this film with was absolutely outraged at the film
because, as she said, the film was going to get people killed.
The film is such a thrilling a portrayal of war that people were
going to go out and enlist because of it. They would be sent to
Iraq and that would be the end of them. A film should not be
making such underhanded political statements, my friend thought.
The film is a distortion. I asked her about DR. STRANGELOVE and
discovered to my surprise that she considered the Kubrick satire
to be a fair and balanced portrayal of the military.
Somehow ancient Greek histories do have a power to heat the
blood. Years ago there was a similar reaction to a film about
gang warfare in New York. THE WARRIORS was set in its present,
but the story was really that of THE ANABASIS, Xenophon's account
of his retreat from Persia across Asia Minor some 79 years after
Thermopylae. (Xenophon and his 10,000 men had been hired by
Cyrus the Younger, who wanted to seize Persia from King
Artaxerxes II, his brother.)
Bloggers and others on the left have interpreted 300 to be a
rabble-rousing, blood-thirsty, pro-military film in which the
heroes are whites and come from Europe while the villains are
nasty Persians. The film glories in killing sub-human enemies in
the name of patriotism and freedom. One just has to look at the
end-credits spattered with blood to get the point of the film.
The film is will supposedly turns the viewers into aggressive
hawks. The people who hold this opinion rarely seem to speak out
against the passions unleashed by football or soccer matches
worldwide. Those are generally accepted as a healthy part of
society. But 300 is going to turn people into rabid killers.
Meanwhile, these people's opposite numbers on the right are
complaining about a film in which the villain, Xerxes, is the
nasty head of a huge invading military force. The heroes are
people who blithely go to their deaths on the promise that they
can take large numbers of the enemy with them. It is a rare film
that the right considers too left and the left thinks is too
right.
My attitude is that I will start worrying about 300 when I
actually start hearing about people complaining that they got all
excited about the film, signed up for Iraq, and were maimed as a
result. Frankly, I do not see that as a likely scenario. The
political influences I worry about in film are a good deal
subtler than anything--and I mean anything--is in 300. How often
in films do you see a conflict between a man and a woman, and it
is the man who is in the right and the woman wrong? How often is
a white correct the right when in conflict with someone from a
minority? It happens, but it is a small percentage of the
occurrences. I saw HAPPY FEET last night. The colony of
penguins are ruled by repressive males. Then we find a bigger
villain and it is humans from the United States or possibly
Europe or Australia. The latter may not be unrealistic--my
sympathies are on the side of conservation--but so many films
have these little subtle messages that it becomes wearing after a
while. I am not bothered by 300 because there are subtle
messages planted in it. I don't think there are such messages.
The people who made 300 do not do very well with subtle. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: 2007 Hugo Award Nominations
Congrats to regular contributor Joseph T. Major, for his
nomination in the "Best Related Book" category.
Best Novel:
EIFELHEIM by Michael F. Flynn (Tor)
HIS MAJESTY'S DRAGON/TEMERAIRE by Naomi Novik (Del Rey)
GLASSHOUSE by Charles Stross (Ace)
RAINBOWS END by Vernor Vinge (Tor)
BLINDSIGHT by Peter Watts (Tor)
Best Novella:
"The Walls of the Universe" by Paul Melko (Asimov's,
April/May 2006)
"A Billion Eves" by Robert Reed (Asimov's, October/November 2006)
"Inclination" by William Shunn (Asimov's, April/May 2006)
"Lord Weary's Empire" by Michael Swanwick (Asimov's,
December 2006)
"Julian" by Robert Charles Wilson (PS Publishing)
Best Novelette:
"Yellow Card Man" by Paolo Bacigalupi (Asimov's December 2006)
"Dawn, and Sunset, and the Colours of the Earth"
by Michael F. Flynn (Asimov's, December 2006)
"The Djinn's Wife" by Ian McDonald (Asimov's, July 2006)
"All the Things You Are" by Mike Resnick (Jim Baen's Universe,
October 2006)
"Pol Pot's Beautiful Daughter" by Geoff Ryman (F&SF,
October/November 2006)
Best Short Story:
"How to Talk to Girls at Parties" by Neil Gaiman (FRAGILE THINGS)
"Kin" by Bruce McAllister (Asimov's, February 2006)
"Impossible Dreams" by Timothy Pratt (Asimov's, July 2006)
"Eight Episodes" by Robert Reed (Asimov's, June 2006)
"The House Beyond Your Sky" by Benjamin Rosenbaum
(Strange Horizons September 2006)
Best Related Book:
ABOUT WRITING: SEVEN ESSAYS, FOUR LETTERS, AND FIVE INTERVIEWS
by Samuel R. Delany (Wesleyan University Press)
HEINLEIN'S CHILDREN: THE JUVENILES by Joseph T. Major (Advent)
JAMES TIPTREE, JR.: THE DOUBLE LIFE OF ALICE B. SHELDON
edited by Julie Phillips (St. Martin's Press)
COVER STORY: THE ART OF JOHN PICACIO by John Picacio
(MonkeyBrain Books )
WORLDCON GUEST OF HONOR SPEECHES by Mike Resnick and Joe Siclari
(ISFiC Press)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form:
CHILDREN OF MEN (Universal Pictures)
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST (Disney)
THE PRESTIGE (Warner Brothers/Touchstone Pictures)
A SCANNER DARKLY (Warner Independent Pictures)
V FOR VENDETTA (Warner Brothers)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form:
Battlestar Galactica, "Downloaded"
Doctor Who, "Army of Ghosts" and "Doomsday"
Doctor Who, "Girl in the Fireplace"
Doctor Who, "School Reunion"
Stargate SG-1, "200"
Best Professional Editor, Long Form:
Lou Anders
James Patrick Baen
Ginjer Buchanan
David G. Hartwell
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Best Professional Editor, Short Form:
Gardner Dozois
David G. Hartwell
Stanley Schmidt
Gordon Van Gelder
Sheila Williams
Best Professional Artist:
Bob Eggleton
Donato Giancola
Stephan Martiniere
John Jude Palencar
John Picacio
Best Semiprozine:
ANSIBLE, edited by Dave Langford
INTERZONE, edited by Andy Cox
LADY CHURCHILL'S ROSEBUD WRISTLET, edited by Gavin J. Grant
LOCUS, edited by Charles N. Brown, Kirsten Gong-Wong,
& Liza Groen Trombi
THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION, edited by Kathryn Cramer,
David Hartwell & Kevin J. Maroney
Best Fanzine:
BANANA WINGS edited by Claire Brialey & Mark Plummer
CHALLENGER edited by Guy Lillian, III
THE DRINK TANK edited by Christopher J. Garcia
PLOKTA edited by Alison Scott, Steve Davies & Mike Scott
SCIENCE FICTION FIVE-YEARLY edited by Lee Hoffman, Geri Sullivan
& Randy Byers
Best Fan Writer:
Chris Garcia
John Hertz
Dave Langford
John Scalzi
Steven H Silver
Best Fan Artist:
Brad W. Foster
Teddy Harvia
Sue Mason
Steve Stiles
Frank Wu
John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer:
Scott Lynch
Sarah Monette
Naomi Novik
Brandon Sanderson
Lawrence M. Schoen
===================================================================
TOPIC: 300 Confused Critics (film review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
Based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, 300 is taking a
trashing from some critics. There seem to be several schools of
thought:
1) The movie was paid for by George Bush and is a Nazi-style
propaganda vehicle.
2) The story has no nuance and is hyper-idealized.
3) The story has many odd details and scenes that are absurd or
ahistorical.
4) The movie is misleading historically.
5) The movie is a blood feast.
It is unusual that I pay this much attention to critical thought,
but here the criticism seems to be a big part of the story.
Unfortunately, critics often fail to appreciate or understand
films made from comics or influenced by anime styles. I fear 300
falls into this category. I also suspect that some professional
film critics are unhappy with the popularity of super-hero and SF
films in general, and take a sadistic delight in tearing into
small errors and difficulties, while completely forgetting that
the film is much better than dozens of historically well regarded
action pictures of the 1950s and 1960s.
First let's take the matter of the political bent. This is an
uncompromising, politically-incorrect film. It states boldly
that all cultures are not equal, that some things are worth
dieing for, that freedom is not free, and that evil can sometimes
only be fought with great violence. It is not in any sense a
propaganda film in the Nazi style. The events in the movie
follow those in real life rather more closely than is typical for
this kind of historical film. The Spartans are portrayed as
being brave, honorable, polite, courageous and skillful, while at
the same time utterly ruthless and overly bound by foolish
traditions and a corrupt religion. Anyone who watches the movie
and sees it as a mere whitewash of the Spartans isn't watching
the whole movie. The point is not that we ought to be the
Spartans or that everything the Spartans did was good, but that
on this one day, 300 Spartans did something that was brave and
unique, and that really did make a difference in our lives today.
Now we come to the supposed lack of nuance. For a movie filled
with splatter, this is actually fairly subtle. The Spartans are
portrayed in a spare and subtle fashion, often without extensive
exposition. The acting is professional and believable; everyone
stays in character and it feels real. The critics that are
complaining about a lack of nuance are really objecting to the
movie on a political level. They want some hint that Leonidas
had a child-hood death wish, that death in battle is foolish
rather than honorable, etc. This sort of "nuance" is not to be
found, and thank the stars above. There have been so many anti-
war "war" movies made, bursting with contempt for their "heroes"
that it feels incredibly refreshing to see a direct, strong, and
honest case made for the martial values.
Another set of critics fail to understand the anime-influenced
film-making style. In anime, "subjective view" is used to show
visually how the characters *feel* about things. Thus, in 300,
Xerxes, the Persian king, is portrayed as being a giant with a
lot of piercing. This is clearly not intended to be a
historically accurate picture, but represents how the Spartans
*saw* Xerxe--as a huge menace from a foreign place. The critic
at the LA times complains about an early scene where emissaries
of Xerxes are pushed into a seemingly bottomless well in the
Spartans' capital. He wonders if the Spartan kids ever fall in.
Leaving aside the fact that if such a well existed, the Spartans
would not cry over any kids stupid enough to fall in, the well is
another example of subjective view--to those being pushed in, it
*seems* bottomless!
I have also seen a number of complaints that the movie is not
historically accurate. If the viewer focuses on the subjective
view shown on the screen, this may seem to have some truth.
After all, Xerxes was not 8 feet tall! However, when these
scenes are ignored, the general plot of the movie follows fairly
closely the historical record, at least as I have found in my
reference books. The touch of having a crippled at birth Spartan
be the traitor is not historically accurate, but seems to me to
have been added to show graphically how the Spartans rigid
adherence to their values in the end led to their downfall. Many
of the lines that seem contrived, such as "Tonight Spartans, we
dine in Hades," really *are* attributed to Leonidas.
Finally, 300 is extremely violent. This, however, is part of
its charm. It is an honest look at fighting with swords, and
with the exception of the blood-spattered closing credits, never
seems gratuitous in its lopped off arms or grunting collisions of
bodies. It must be added that 300 is a beautiful film, with
great action sequences and amazing visuals. Some have
characterized this as the story of the 300 Spartans as written by
Robert E. Howard and illustrated by Frank Frazetta, and this is
not far off from the truth. This is more than an action picture--
it is the stuff of legends.
In conclusion, 300 is a surprisingly good film, but not for
everyone. I rate it a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. Compared to Sin
City, 300 is a much better film and far more watchable. This is a
real R film, with lots of violence, grotesque images, and some
sex--clearly not for the kids. However, what you remember when
you leave is not the gore or the weird executioner, but that 300
Spartans died so that we could sit around our dinner tables and
discuss the meaning of life, and that freedom has never been
free. [-dls]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE LAST MIMZY and 300 (letter of comment by Joseph
T. Major)
In response to Mark's review of THE LAST MIMZY in the 03/23/07
issue of the MT VOID, Joe Major writes, "THE LAST MIMZY: I
stipulate all you say but this movie does have one good thing about
it. THE BEST OF HENRY KUTTNER was re-released." [-jtm]
Evelyn notes, however, "Matthew Cheney decries the omission of any
mention of C. L. Moore as a co-author of 'Mimsy were the
Borogoves'. The story originally appeared with the by-line of
'Lewis Padgett', which was used for the Kuttner/Moore
collaborations." For more details, see
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2007/20070326/cheney-c.shtml."
[-ecl]
In response to Mark's review of 300 in the 03/23/07 issue of the
MT VOID, Joe writes, "THE 300: You cite 'One historian's take on
the errors:' Here's another's:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0307/hanson.php3." [-jtm]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Persephone, Starlings, 300, Heisenberg Principle,
Schroedinger's Cat, and Edward Rutherfurd (letter of comment by
John Purcell)
In response to the 03/23/07 issue of the MT VOID, John Purcell
writes:
Thanks for the groaner starting off your latest zine. That one
ranks right up there with the upcoming interview with the veteran
Kamikaze pilot.
Anyway.
I can't stand starlings either. They have gotten so bad down
here in College Station that some locations--such as the Kroger
parking lot, which in 2005 I dubbed the Alfred Hitchcock Memorial
Parking Lot--have such a huge starling population problem that
they have installed these very loud and annoying "bird avoidance
devices" that are probably more aggravating than the birds
themselves! Heckuva trade-off. The birds seem to be gone--for
now. In fact, they've seemed to simply relocated half a mile
down the road to the Wal Mart/Albertson's parking lot. There are
so many of these fershlugginer starlings that they literally
cover the lot--and trees and buildings and cars and etc.--that it
looks like a living lake of black feathered water. The power
lines sag from the over-abundance of starlings on the wires.
Very dangerous, indeed. I won't even mention the bird-droppings
that are everywhere. . . . Whoops! I guess I did mention it,
didn't I?
[Mark replies, "I am not sure I meant that I could not stand
starlings, but it would improve the fauna of my back yard if they
decided it was time to move one to other neighborhoods." -mrl]
Despite the historical inaccuracies of "300", I would still like
to see the movie. The History Channel documentary, "The Last
Stand of the 300", is really quite informative and interesting; I
learned things about the background causes leading up to this
pivotal event in Greek/Persian history, plus the repercussions of
it (Alexander's conquest of Persia, for one), from this
documentary that I've barely known about. I agree with your
assessment that this is the sort of gory, hack-'em-up kind of
flick that would probably get teenagers interested in learning
history. Heck, it might even get kids reading, period.
[Mark replies, "The documentary was very good and very well-
timed. I wonder if they produced it to release at the same time
as 300 or if it was an old documentary and they just decided this
would be a good time to rerun it. It did confirm, what was my
impression, that the pass between a rock and and wet place. The
film showed it as being a pass between two walls of rock. The
suggestion about getting kids interested in history was semi-
autobiographical. I am sure my interest in history started as an
interest in historical films. I remember in junior high history
giving an excited and exciting account of the Battle of Marathon.
Mr. Burns was impressed that I had researched it so well. Years
later I discovered that it was not so much accurate to the actual
battle but to the film THE GIANT OF MARATHON." -mrl]
As far as the discussion in MT VOID about the Heisenberg
Principle and Schroedinger's Cat, there's nothing I can really
add here since by the time I finish this sentence my stance will
have probably changed, and besides, I'm not really sure about
what observations I might be able to make. The sands of time are
shifting underfoot again...
[Mark adds, " Well, any observations on the subject would
probably change the subject. Once the subject had been changed
we could no longer discuss the original subject. As for the
sands of time shifting, I hope it isn't because some jerk stepped
off the path and crushed another butterfly. Apparently we are
having that problem fairly frequently recently, 70,000,000 years
in the past. (That is the kind of sentence only science fiction
fans understand.)" -mrl]
Book-wise, for my birthday three days ago, I received three more
Edward Rutherfurd books to add to my collection: RUSSKA, FOREST,
and THE PRINCES OF IRELAND. He's one of my current favorite
writers. Rutherfurd may be long-winded--these books are HUGE in
page length--but always interesting, enlightening, and
entertaining. SARUM was my first exposure to Rutherfurd, and
hooked me. Currently I'm reading London when I have the time.
Another fine zine, Mark. Thanks again for posting it my way.
[-jp]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Starlings (letter of comment by Lorraine Kevra and friend)
In response to Mark's article on starlings in the 03/23/07 issue
of the MT VOID, Lorraine Kevra writes, "Thought you might enjoy
reading this email from a friend of mine named Mary who used to
be one of the few animal rehabilitators in our area until they
started charging an outrageous licensing fee to do a very
thankless and time-consuming job. Thanks to the stupidity of the
gov't, we have even less animal rehabbers left, and injured and
baby animals must be turned over to our state agency resulting in
the animal having little chance to survive (but don't get me
started :-) . It looks like Mary's baby starling was named Buddy
. . . . [-lk]
Lorraine, I could understand that from most people's point of
view. However if anyone ever raised a Starling they would
love them. Starlings are fun, devilish, and can speak just as
clear as a human. I adopted one out just when we moved here
almost ten years ago. Buddy just died. Buddy had a
vocabulary like a human. Every morning when Grandma would
come down the stairs, he would ask Grandma if she was going to
have breakfast. The whole family loved him so much. They had
a cockatiel also, but Buddy was special. Now my niece has one
named Trouble. It is legal to keep a Starling in captivity.
They are a brilliant> bird. Also Starlings are big Grub
eaters making them enviromentally safe.
Only time I actually couldn't stand them was when I had 80 all
at once. I think it was the year of the Starling. I thought
when I released them, the sky would turn black. It took me
a while before I could actually enjoy getting a baby Starling
in. They have a very loud voice when they cry for food.
Multiply that by 80 and it was excessive. I was also trying
to build them a separate cage in between feedings which there
was no in-between. When I was done with #80 it was time to
feed #1 again. We laughed about that for a very long time.
When they are raised like that, they are not friendly and do
not talk. [-mary]
Mark responds, "The fact that they are so intelligent probably
contributes to starlings being pests. They are smart enough to
make trouble. I don't actually give much an opinion on the birds
in my article. (I do poke a little fun at them comparing them to
a motorcycle gang.) I like birds and have several times written
about bird intelligence. Individually I like starlings, but when
they come en masse they are bad news for the other birds I see in
my neighborhood." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
It's book sale season! As the snows melt and spring arrives, the
various organizations (around here, anyway) have their annual
book sales. This year, in one week the two biggest in the area
(the East Brunswick Friends of the Library and Bryn Mawr) had
their book sales. The time was that I would have bought huge
stacks of books, but the realization that we have more books than
we can ever read, combined with increasing prices at the sales,
have resulted in more focused buying.
At the East Brunswick sale, I was appalled to see that the
science fiction section was 90% "Star Trek" and "Star Wars". I'd
like to think that means that people are keeping their other
science fiction, but I suspect that is not the reason. On the
other hand, when we went back on the last day, it seemed as if
most of them were still there.
[I would love to have a time machine to go back to just after
Gene Roddenberry received his cancellation notice from NBC during
his third season. I would take him to a book sale and show him
with a really huge proportion of the science fiction books for
sale bear the words "Star Trek". Not only did his series not
really fail, it ate a very big piece of the science fiction
genre. --mrl]
I ended up buying a dozen books total, but four (making up half
the volume!) were as gifts for other people. The rest included
two high-quality guide books to Rome (I still plan to get there
some day), as well as ECCENTRIC AMERICA. Another travel book of
sorts I bought was John Steinbeck's THE LOG FROM 'THE SEA OF
CORTEZ'. The one really thick book I bought was Brian Wilkie's
LITERATURE OF THE WESTERN WORLD (Volume I). I would not have
bought this by itself, but it turned out that I had bought Volume
II (a while ago) for a dime at the local thrift shop, so I
decided to complete the set. I also bought two books I already
had: Balthasar Gracian's THE ART OF WORLDLY WISDOM, and Neal
Stephenson's QUICKSILVER. At fifty cents each, it was worth
getting a copy of the former that I could carry around without
worrying about it getting beat-up, and for the latter, the
paperback will be more portable to read than the large hardcover.
And rounding out the books was Marc Sautet's NIETZSCHE FOR
BEGINNERS, which I found in the "Religion" section. (That
section also had Isabel Allende's ZORRO, Brian Jacq's "Ramses"
series, and Charles Dickens's "Christmas Stories". The last
almost makes sense.)
We also bought three DVDs, but even these were literary: FINDING
NEVERLAND, THE MAN FROM ELYSIAN FIELDS, and THE MERCHANT OF
VENICE (the recent version with Al Pacino).
We held off on the Bryn Mawr sale until the third day, because
that would allow us to combine the trip with one to the Cranbury
Book Worm on one of the "buying days". This was in an attempt to
have a net decrease in our volume of books, or at least hold the
line. Even on Day 3, there was a huge selection. We ended up
with twenty books (three as gifts) and a videotape. (We don't
normally buy videotapes these days, but KNIGHTRIDERS is not
available on DVD.) Mark said that the mathematics section was
better than usual, and found five books. I bought another book
that is part mathematics (logic), part philosophy: Robert M.
Martin's: THERE ARE TWO ERRORS IN THE THE TITLE OF THIS BOOK. I
also found two travelogues, J. R. Ackerley's HINDOO HOLIDAY and
Mary Morris's NOTHING TO DECLARE. I don't think that the "X for
Beginners" series is as good as "Introducing X", but I bought
Richard Appignanesi's FREUD FOR BEGINNERS because 1) he has
written other books on Freud, and 2) I have liked his work in the
"Introducing X" series. William Irwin's THE SIMPSONS AND
PHILOSOPHY is part of a series of philosophy books centered on
popular culture. There was also a book on reading by Sir Arthur
Quiller-Couch, a humorous book of supposed letters (such as from
Clytemnestra to Agamemnon while he's away), and a study of murder
mysteries, a Dover spy novel, a book of Bashevis Singer's
stories, and an old Ace double to round out the batch.
Now all I have to do is read them all. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
To invent, you need a good imagination
and a pile of junk.
-- Thomas Edison