THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
04/13/07 -- Vol. 25, No. 41, Whole Number 1436
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:
Links to Hugo-Nominated Works
Not So Cool (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Return of Shadows (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
GRINDHOUSE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Access/Excess (letter of comment by Charles S. Harris)
Hugo Nominations, Movies on iPods, and Casino Royale
(letter of comment by Chris Garcia)
This Week's Reading (A JEW AMONG EVANGELICALS, FUGUE FOR
A DARKENING ISLAND, and THE GRAPES OF WRATH)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Links to Hugo-Nominated Works
Last week I said that http://www.nippon2007.us/hugo_nominees.php
would have links to the Hugo-nominated works as they became
available. So far, however, not many have been added. However,
links to almost all the short fiction, and one of the novels, can
be found at http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/004923.html.
One of the missing stories is Neil Gaiman's "How to Talk to Girls
at Parties". However, this is available in MP3 audio form (either
as a single download, or in 4 parts), at
http://www.neilgaiman.com/exclusive/shortstories/partiesstory.
[-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Not So Cool (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I see that an undersea seafood restaurant has opened in Maldives.
You actually eat in a transparent cylinder under the water. The
story as quoted in Snopes asks, "How cool is that?"
http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/undersea.asp
To me it is not so cool. First, when I eat I don't want fish like
sharks swimming round me knowing that if they can get through that
glass they can get at what is on that plate. I don't know if you
know this, but scientists tell us sharks are very fond of
seafood. Many fish eat seafood almost exclusively. And of course
if a shark could get through the glass, the shark might want to
try a little of me also. I don't want to be part of a surf and
turf dinner. Even if there is nothing that powerful swimming
around me do I really want to eat in front of a fish? I mean, it
is like when I eat at a steak I don't want to see a live cow right
there and I certainly don't want one looking at me. Besides, did
anybody notice the name Maldives? Doesn't that come from "mal"
meaning "bad" and "dives" meaning "time spent under water"? [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Return of Shadows (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
In last week's MT VOID Evelyn mentioned the shadow paradox. To
quote it:
"Consider the following two statements:
1) Shadows do not pass through opaque objects.
2) If light doesn't fall on something, then it doesn't cast a
shadow.
Most people would agree with these. Okay, then, consider the
following scenario: I am standing with a light behind me and a
wall in front of me. I cast a shadow on the wall. Now I hold a
coffee mug in front of me. Consider the shadow cast on the wall
that is directly in line with the light and the mug. Is it cast
by me, or by the mug? The former violates premise #2, the latter
premise #1."
Before she published this she brought the paradox to me. I am
proud to say that she could not get it all out. When she gave me
the first premise, even without knowing what was coming, I
immediately told her the premise was false. (I suppose this has
come from sitting in dull business meetings and thinking about the
physics of Peter Pan.)
The first premise is "Shadows do not pass through opaque
objects." With a fraction of a second reflection I responded
that they do indeed pass through opaque objects. I would claim a
shadow being cast in this room goes right through the wall into
the next room and beyond that. So the question is why don't we
notice it there? It is because there is nothing to notice. A
shadow is not a thing but a lack of a thing.
A shadow is a three-dimensional region in space. When we talk
about a lunar eclipse the earth passes into the moon's shadow.
Clearly that wording implies that a shadow is a three-dimensional
region not just a flat silhouette on a wall. The light from a
point light source comes out as photons in a straight line (or
what passes for a straight line in curved space) and if
unobstructed goes to infinity. If the light is obstructed by an
object the photons no longer fill that space and where the
photons would have gone but do not go is the shadow. And it is a
space going to infinity. It is a lack of photons rather than a
positive something. It goes to infinity. In other words the
photons do not reconstitute themselves somewhere further down the
line. The lack of photons go right through solid objects. So if
an object is casting a shadow in one room why do I not see a
shadow in the next room? I do see it actually, but I also see
the shadow of the wall between the rooms which is also
obstructing photons. And that shadow may be obscured by seeing
light coming into the second room. I may see the shadows of
objects in the second room if is there is a different light
source casting light on those shadows.
Somewhat confusing matters is that there is no such thing a
single shadow. When I see a shadow I am seeing a very large or
infinite number of shadows. That is because there is no such
thing as a single-point light source. Light sources have area.
And within that area there are either an infinite or very large
number of point sources. I am being careful in my wording here,
because there may be some granularity to the universe due to the
width of photons when they are particles. But my light bulb
constitutes are large number of point light sources. Put an
object in front of the light bulb and each point light source
generates its own shadow. The greater the diameter of the light
source the less defined will be the edges of the shadow since
they will be coming varying areas of the surface of the light
source.
This brings to mind a problem of my own. Take a perfect sphere
the size of a grapefruit into space. Expose it to light from the
star Sirius. Will the light illuminate less than half the
surface of the sphere, more than half, or precisely one half?
Ignore any light source but Sirius.
On first analysis it would look like that the star Sirius is
pretty close to being a point light source. The light hitting
the sphere would be a cone whose vertex is the point light source
Sirius. It might be easier to think of the sphere as having an
axis through the center of the sphere and through Sirius. The
equator would be a great circle whose plane is perpendicular to
the axis. It would intersect the sphere at a circle of tangency
very close to equator of the sphere, but on the Sirius side of
the equator. (Are you following this?)
But that is not really what would happen. As much as Sirius
looks like a point source of light, it is a ball with a much
greater diameter than our sphere has. A cone tangent to both
Sirius and the sphere would be getting narrower at the sphere
end. The sphere would lie between the vertex of the cone and
Sirius. So Sirius would illuminate more than half of the sphere
even if the sphere appears to be being lit by a point light
source. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: GRINDHOUSE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino set out to
recreate the 1970s experience of seeing a bad double feature in
fourth run theater. They respectively make sub-films PLANET
TERROR and DEATH PROOF. PLANET TERROR is a fairly accurate
pastiche of an out-of-control grindhouse film. DEATH PROOF is a
frequently dull film with homages to road-rage flicks and non-
1970s films. It is more a Tarantino film than a grindhouse one.
The wraparounds are better than the two features themselves.
Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10
I suspect Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino share a sad
lament. They were not around to make the sort of half-bad
exploitation films they enjoyed when they were growing up. There
are very few drive-ins or grindhouse theaters any more and very
few small films made for the big screen. Major films have eaten
up the industry. Most films we see released to theaters today
are something of an event. A new "X-Men" film is an event. New
minor films that are not events show up on cable and DVD, but it
is not the same thing. Most people probably cannot even remember
the last time they saw a film that cost under a million dollars
to make on a screen wider than the people are tall. (The
exceptions might be THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and Rodriguez's own
EL MARIACHI, coming in at about $35,000 and a quarter of a
million respectively. Each was released to make them film
events.) Rodriguez and Tarantino apparently miss the 1970s, the
golden age of grinding out schlock films with lurid scripts for
drive-ins and run-down movie houses. Each has made his own idea
of such a film and the two have been put in a frame of actual and
imitation 1970s material and are being released in a single film.
The films are presented in pre-washed, pre-aged, faded form like
blue jeans. Each of the sub-films is about 85 minutes, though
once we get into the films they seem a lot longer. Pasted
together the two films are supposed to be more of a release
event, a film greater than the sum of its intentionally minor
parts.
Rodriguez understood the project the better of the two directors
and made the more appropriate of the two films. His PLANET
TERROR is no gem of coherence, and it is made even less so by a
supposed missing reel. (This is, by the way, a puzzling touch.
I have never seen a film shown that had a title inset claiming
there was a missing reel.) The story deals with a Texas town
where a military base has been careless with some sort of virus
from space that eats people alive and then turns them into flesh-
eating zombies. There is a plot line of a stripper (sorry, a
"go-go dancer" who pole dances) and her mysterious ex-boyfriend
who is much more than he seems at first. Also running around a
rogue anesthesiologist with deadly hypodermics. A lot of
violence and gore of over-the-top disgust value slops into your
face. The film is more of a gross-out film than the originals it
imitates. But this film has the 1970s exploitation film feel.
It looks like a very bad print with faded colors and scratches
all over the screen. It is not a great film, but it is very much
the bad film that was intended.
Quentin Tarantino appears to have gotten into making his film and
Then forgot what he was supposed to be doing. He gives us a film
more Tarantino than grindhouse. After some faded film and
scratches at the beginning of his film, he forgets about them
later in the film. Nor does his film have the grindhouse feel.
Tarantino's films are known for their dialogue. This film has
dialogue in spades. His characters endlessly talk just like they
would not have done in 1970s action films. He gives us ten-
minute stretches of nothing but marking time with irrelevant
dialogue. What was original in PULP FICTION (and more
interesting there) does not belong here. No grindhouse film
would have an unbroken ten-minute scene of dialogue, much less
two or three of these sequences. The story deals with a group of
girls in Lebanon, Tennessee, who are preyed upon by serial
killer. The film turns into an extended road rage chase and
smash between two supercharged cars. Kurt Russell plays the
killer with a reinforced car. Most of the time DEATH PROOF just
spins its wheels and only rarely catches. Tarantino breaks his
contract with Rodriguez and with the viewer.
Ironically, what is good about this double feature is not the two
films themselves, but the frame they come packed in. There are
four trailers for non-existent grindhouse films and faded-to-the-
point-of-nausea food ads. This is a film that is strong on
nostalgia value for those who remember the 1960s and 1970s
exploitation films. I suspect that many of the film critics like
the film because they grew up on such exploitation films, but one
spends a lot of time waiting for the next gag.
Nostalgia is the main value of the film and it is not even as
successful at that as it might be. But at the man says in THE
UNTOUCHABLES, "It's not supposed to be good. It's supposed to be
*bought*." I cannot say I was glad I bought it. I rate
GRINDHOUSE a disappointed 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0462322/
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Access/Excess (letter of comment by Charles S. Harris)
In response to Evelyn's comments on Stanislaw Lem's EDEN in the
04/06/07 issue of the MT VOID, Charlie Harris writes:
[Evelyn quoted Lem as saying] "'Yes,' said the Doctor. 'I was
afraid that through an access [sic] of noble-mindedness you would
all want to establish "order" here...'"
Does the "[sic]" mean it should have said "excess"? No, Lem
(and/or the translator) was just tossing in another bit of irony:
American Heritage Dictionary
ac·cess (ak'ses)
n.
...
5. An outburst or onset: "an access of rage."
[-csh]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Hugo Nominations, Movies on iPods, and Casino Royale
(letter of comment by Chris Garcia)
In response to various items in the 04/06/07 issue of the MT
VOID, Chris Garcia writes:
You know, reading about the correction for the Best Dramatic
Presentation made me worry that my nominations were about to be
recounted! Luckily, I seem to have managed to make it through
and am still on the ballot . . . I hope. [-cg]
[Supposedly they recounted all the ballots in each category and
that was the only mistake. So you are a bona fide Hugo nominee.
And congratulations. -mrl]
I don't like watching movies on anything smaller than my computer
monitor. I'll watch certain movies on my portable DVD player
(mostly TV shows on DVD and some of the recent Will Ferrel-type
comedies) but I really want a more immersive experience. If you
can't get your eyes lost in a film, what's the point? [-cg]
[Now I am just the opposite. I will watch films on my portable
DVD player, but after seeing on a plane some of TALLADEGA NIGHTS:
THE BALLAD OF RICKY BOBBY I would not watch a Will Ferrel on
anything smaller than another celestial body, preferably the
planet Neptune. As for the experience, it depends on how visual
the film is. There is not very much to see in MY DINNER WITH
ANDRE. On the other hand WHAT DREAMS MAY COME or CURSE OF THE
GOLDEN FLOWER might be better with the sound/subtitles off.
-mrl]
I will say that TV news is best on a phone, but other than that,
I'll stick to a theatre or a TV.
On the matter of Casino Royale and mathematics, why did Bond go
in on that hand? As a regular poker player (and guy who took
second in an Omaha tourney just last week), there's no way I
would go in on those cards. Bond was either bluffing and got
lucky or is a moron. [-cg]
[I actually answered that question before CASINO ROYALE was
released. I will refer you to one of my editorials from last
May: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824/VOID0526.htm#bond
Thanks for the comment. And congratulations again. -mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
A JEW AMONG EVANGELICALS by Mark I. Pinsky (ISBN-10
0-664-23012-1, ISBN-13 978-0*664*23012-1) is more about
evangelicals and their various sub-groups than about being a Jew
among them. It's worth reading, but the title is a bit
misleading.
FUGUE FOR A DARKENING ISLAND by Christopher Priest (ISBN-10
0-330-25544-4, ISBN-13 978-0-330-25544-8) is written in a very
temporally disjointed way. There are four different threads, and
Priest jumps among them without much warning. One is when the
narrator, Alan Whitman, first meets his wife. One is when
Britain starts to fall apart. One is when Whitman and his family
have fled their suburban home. One is when Alan has joined up
with a band of rebels/scavengers/whatever. Two things to
remember are that Whitman is not necessarily the most reliable
narrator, and that things that are not explained at first will
eventually be made clear. In particular, the explanation of the
social breakdown does not even begin until well into the novel,
and a more complete explanation does not occur until the
midpoint.
One may argue that the novel seems misogynist or racist, except
that all these views are expressed by the narrator, who *is*
misogynist and racist, (And, yes, the title has a double
meaning.) What it does do is carry on the tradition of British
science fiction in portraying people coping with social
disintegration. John Christopher's DEATH OF GRASS, Brian
Aldiss's GREYBEARD, John Wyndham's DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS, Terry
Nation's SURVIVORS--all of these are classics in the theme.
FUGUE FOR A DARKENING ISLAND is too "literary" in its fractured
time sense to become a classic in the same sense as those others,
but it is nonetheless a noteworthy entry in the sub-genre.
The movie made from THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
(ISBN-10 0-14-004239-3, ISBN-13 978-0-14-004239-9) is a classic.
But reading the book made me realize that the movie-making
process had still sucked all the color and almost all the heart
out of it. Steinbeck spends a lot of the book giving you intense
word pictures of the land, the take-over by the banks, a day at a
used car lot, a day at a roadside cafe, and so on. All of these
were dropped for the movie. (For example, the Joads have a car,
but the whole process of getting it, and what the used car
salesman was thinking, is gone.) The entire sub-plot of the
joining of the Joads with the Wilsons is gone. And what is left
is much shorter--shorter discussions of how the migrants are
treated by the sheriffs, by the local merchants, by the growers,
by each other. And of course the ending was completely changed
as well. I know that a lot of this is part of the process of
transferring a novel to the screen, but it would be a pity for
people to skip reading a great book because after all, they had
seen the movie. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
A black cat crossing your path signifies
that the animal is going somewhere.
-- Groucho Marx