THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/25/07 -- Vol. 25, No. 47, Whole Number 1442
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:
The Popularity of Borges (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
What's in a Name? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Paradoxes on Seeing the Future (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
AWAY FROM HER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Conventions, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, GRINDHOUSE, Witchcraft,
and EIFELHEIM (letter of comment
by Taras Wolansky)
Hammer Revival and Indian Films (letter of comment
by John Purcell)
This Week's Reading (THE LION OF BOAZ-JACHIN AND
JACHIN-BOAZ, "The Merchant Princes",
MISQUOTING JESUS, THINGS TO COME) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Popularity of Borges (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
A month ago, I took advantage of a sale at deepdiscount.com and
ordered a copy of CUENTOS BREVES Y EXTRAORDINARIOS by Jorge Luis
Borges. This is a collection published ten years ago, in Spanish,
of several of his tales. Today I got a piece of email from
deepdiscount.com saying, "Due to an overwhelming demand for the
item(s)listed, we are temporarily out of stock."
Much as I love Borges's work, I find it hard to believe that there
is an "overwhelming demand" for this book. Unless, as Mark
suggests, any order is more overwhelming than they expected.
===================================================================
TOPIC: What's in a Name? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was watching HAMSUN, a film set in Norway during World War II.
One of the characters we meet is the aptly named Vidkun Quisling
the real person who ran Norway as a puppet for the Nazis. It
occurred to me that anyone who was particularly useful to the
Third Reich was pretty much destined to have been aptly named.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Paradoxes on Seeing the Future (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Longtime member Frank Leisti and I have been discussing the ideas
of Philip K. Dick. (See the letter of comment from Frank below.)
Two of Dick's stories: "Minority Report" (adapted into a film of
the same name) and "The Golden Man" (adapted into the film NEXT)
have involved people with the ability to see into the future.
This is not so simple as it might sound because when you can see
a bad future you can prevent it. But then what you saw was not
really the future. The real question is at what point the future
is set. That is really dependent on your viewpoint. The *real*
story "Minority Report" by Dick, inaccurately presented in the
film, has three different psychics seeing three different futures
because knowing a future supposedly allows one to avert it and
bring about a different future. That was really the point of the
original written story. The story is largely a lead-up to making
that point at the end. Apparently Steven Spielberg liked the
lead-up to the end of the story, but not what it was leading up
to. He removed its whole point of the story and instead--
disappointingly--turned it into a hackneyed corruption-in-high-
places plot. Dick's ending was better. Spielberg did very well
with the body of the beheaded Philip K. Dick story.
My suspicion is that Dick got it wrong. There is at most one
real future. Either the future does not yet exist or it does.
If it does not exist there is no point in talking about it. You
would not be able to see it. If it does exist there would be
only one immutable future. But that is not really very
cinematically dramatic. In a film you can film three or four
alternate possible futures. But if it really is a FUTURE, there
cannot be more than one to your universe. Maybe other universes
may be in a similar pickle to yours, but they are OTHER
universes. You can tell that I am not really keen on the theory
that every time somebody wins a battle another universe forks off
from ours. That also makes for a fun story, but I am skeptical
of the physics. I don't think that once you have seen the
future, if it really is the bona fide future, that you can avert
it. If you can avert it, it is not the future, it is only a
possibility. But that is not very cinematic.
What is more the power to see that future would seem even to the
person possessing it as a sort of omniscience. Consider you were
someone who sees one minute into the future as facing two doors,
one hiding a lady and one hiding a tiger. (Apologies to Frank
Stockton.) It would not occur to you even to go to the tiger-
door for your power to stop you. Choosing the tiger-door would
simply not be one of your futures. Your only future would be the
lady-door. So if you head to one door and do not see yourself
going through it, you change doors. You essentially immediately
know which one is the lady-door because it is your only possible
future.
But let us say you are faced with one lady-door and 10,000 tiger-
doors. Would you still immediately know which one was the lady-
door? If you see yourself walking through a door at all, it will
be the lady-door. I suppose a second possible future is you see
yourself standing there in total bewilderment because so many of
the doors you can think of to go through you don't actually see
yourself going through. The best strategy is to head to one door
intending to go through and then do just what you see yourself
doing one minute in the future. If you see yourself walking to
the next door then do that with an intention to enter it. (Of
course you do not have any choice in the matter since you are
seeing the real future.) Eventually you will see yourself
entering a door and it will be the lady-door. Shortly thereafter
you will do it. You will never even see yourself going through a
tiger-door. Let us prove that like a mathematician would.
Assume that you have as your vision of the future a scene of you
going through a tiger door and you really do not want to do that.
That means in one minute you actually would go through a tiger
door involuntarily having seen that in your one and only future.
But you would never be stupid enough to do that. So we have
reached a contradiction and our assumption that you might see
yourself going through a tiger door had to be false.
So if you walk around to all the doors intending to walk through
the first one you see yourself going through, that has to be the
right one. But you have to really intend to go through each
door. If you just walk around waiting for inspiration, looking
into the future you only see yourself walking around waiting for
inspiration.
All this leaves the question of what happens if you try to avoid
doing what you see yourself doing in one minute. You will not be
able to avoid a future that is already set and seen. The
question is what happens if you try. I think the best
explanation is that you cannot see the future. That is sending
information backward in time and the universe probably does not
allow that. I think that people can have the illusion of having
seen the future, but I don't believe that it actually can happen.
I know people can have the illusion because once I did. It was
nothing really dramatic. I was at summer camp and tried to
remember when someone on the volleyball court called to me and
waved his arm in a certain way. I seemed to remember it. As I
wondered it seemed to happen just as I had seen it. I cannot
explain this illusion, but I did have the illusion. Or perhaps
it is possible to see the future occasionally, but not to know it
is the future. I think the resolution to the paradox is that the
situation does not arise because you cannot knowingly see the
future. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: AWAY FROM HER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A woman develops a new personality in the twilight stages
as Alzheimer's Disease robs her of her memories and her old
nature, but has not yet robbed her of mechanical function. Her
affectionate husband is bewildered by the initial loss, by the
new personality, and by choices she is making. Based on the
story "The Bear Came Over the Mountain" by Alice Munro, this very
personal film is a deeply affecting work from Sarah Polley, a
good actress becoming an even better writer and director.
Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10
There is an obvious way to make a film about Alzheimer's Disease.
You could show a family unit and how tragically it is affected
when somebody gets the disease. It is "Movie-of-the-Week" sort
of pathos material. It would be wrong to say that there is none
of that in AWAY FROM HER, but that is not really what the film is
about. That sort of film is deadening, but in an odd way this
film, as written and directed by Sarah Polley, is stimulating.
Like the case histories in Oliver Sachs's THE MAN WHO MISTOOK HIS
WIFE FOR A HAT it is a study into how the human mind works.
Though probably nobody would draw the connection, it also does
what the best science fiction does. It shows how recognizable
people are affected by one modification to their state of being.
Our personality and our identity are in large part made up of our
memories and the choices we have made. There may be a twilight
stage in Alzheimer's Disease when those memories of who we are
and the choices we have made are erased, but mechanical function
is not yet impaired. When that happens a different person may
emerge, freed by the forgetting of the past.
Grant and Fiona Anderson (played by Gordon Pinsent and Julie
Christie) are a cerebral and deeply affectionate couple. As
Fiona slips into the clutches of Alzheimer's Disease Grant
resists having her institutionalized. It is harder on Grant than
it is on Fiona. She sees her forgetting the color yellow as a
chance to learn it and enjoy it anew over and over. "Sometimes
there is something beautiful in oblivion," she explains. Her
bewilderment and loneliness is beautifully visualized as she is
alone on a wide plain of snow cross-country skiing. Grant's
resolve to hold her becomes even stronger when he visits the
local care facility, Meadowlake, and sees the dismal environment
of people slowly being taken by the grasp of old age and
frequently mental deterioration. Grant is reluctant to give up
Fiona and begin the new chapter of his life of living alone.
Finally it is Fiona who recognizes that she will continue to lose
pieces of herself and the break must be made. "All we can aspire
to in this situation is a little bit of grace," she reminds
Grant.
The rules allow Fiona no visitors in the first month to help her
adapt and adjust to her environment. The separation is very
difficult for Grant, but what is completely unexpected is that at
the end of it Fiona recognizes Grant only distantly. This
alternate Fiona will change the relationships of two couples.
Grant finds some solace discussing his situation with an
experienced orderly, Kristy (Kristen Thomson).
Though there are several good performances, AWAY FROM HER is
really Gordon Pinsent's film. Pinsent may not be familiar to
people in the States, but he one of the staple actors of the
Canadian film industry. He can be more expressive with his eyes
than most actors can be with their entire bodies. It is almost
difficult to recognize Julie Christie as the same woman who
played Lara in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. Here she is a woman determined
that she will go gently and peacefully into the coming night.
Michael Murphy plays Aubrey, another patient, robbed of his voice
and perpetually frustrated. And a very good performance comes of
Olympia Dukakis who becomes an important character later in the
film.
With what I believe is her first feature film, Sarah Polley joins
the ranks of Ida Lupino, Robert Redford, and Clint Eastwood--
people who became known as actors, but who can achieve far more
by directing. This is decidedly one of the better films of the
year. I give it a +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 9/10.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0491747/
===================================================================
TOPIC: Conventions, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, GRINDHOUSE, Witchcraft,
and EIFELHEIM (letter of comment by Taras Wolansky)
In response to the 04/20/07 issue of the MT VOID [yes, we're
finally getting caught up! -ecl], Taras Wolansky writes:
I usually go to Readercon--it's a pleasant drive to Massachusetts
in the summer--but I've avoided the Kirk Poland contest for
years.
Japan is just too inconvenient, too expensive, so I'm breaking my
chain of Worldcons. Instead, I'm going to the Heinlein
Centennial in July, and either NASFiC or Westercon, or both.
The story goes, the movie of THE GRAPES OF WRATH was being shown
in the early 1940s to farm workers in the Soviet Union, as an
example of the evils of capitalism. But: "Poor people in
America can travel without getting permission??"* "Poor people
in America have CARS!!!!" And the film had to be withdrawn from
circulation.
In general, I agree with Mark's review of GRINDHOUSE, except that
I liked the Tarantino more than the Rodriguez. Not that I liked
it much: after a while, the incessant chatter begins to pall.
Also, even in itself it seems to be two related short films:
Kurt Russell's character is rather different in the second half,
more out for fun than the half-suicidal, cold-blooded mass
murderer in the first half. Too, while the chatter in the second
half reveals character, the chatter in the first half turns out
to be irrelevant to the story.
Funny thing. I stumbled upon an old "Playboy" interview
Tarantino did, in which he explained his decision to divide KILL
BILL in two: because a three-hour grindhouse film is
inappropriate and pretentious!
The story about Giles Corey of Salem reminded me of how annoyed I
was, when Ichabod Crane's witch mother, in Tim Burton's SLEEPY
HOLLOW, is put to death with an iron maiden. I'm pretty sure
there were no iron maidens in North America at the time; they
weren't a method of execution; and, anyway, by the 1720s English
law had redefined witchcraft as a form of consumer fraud, not a
capital crime.
Read Michael Flynn's EIFELHEIM. It's probably getting my vote
for Best Novel. [-tw]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Hammer Revival and Indian Films (letter of comment by John
Purcell)
In response to Mark's article on Hammer Films revival in the
05/18/07 issue of the MT VOID, John Purcell writes, "I have to
agree with you about the Hammer film revival. While a nice,
nostalgic gesture of baby boomers trying to recreate their
'wonderful' childhood memories, a 21st century version would not
be same thing. You said that the Hammer films were a reflection
of their times; very true. All entertainments are a reflection
of the times that produced them." [-jp]
Mark: "Certainly with humor that is true. I like Old Time Radio,
but generally not the comedy programs of the 1940s do nothing for
me." [-mrl]
John: "Just as we can examine the movies, books, music,
television, and art of the late 50s and early 60s, imagine what
sociologists fifty to one hundred years from now will be saying
about the end of the 20th century and the early 21st century.
Somehow I don't think they'll be very kind." [-jp]
Mark: "I rather hope they will be, but I expect they will be
looking back from a very different world. I expect a lot more
change in the next fifty years than there was in the last fifty."
[-mrl]
John: "But back to Hammer films. They had two of my favorite
actors of all time: Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. " [-jp]
Mark: "Lee is reasonably high in my estimation, but Cushing I
thought was a great actor who never got his due." [-mrl]
John: "They could handle any genre, in my estimation, but their
gifts were tailor-made for the horror genre. I enjoy their
films. Vincent Price, too. There's another classic genre
actor." [-jp]
Mark: "In my opinion Price was the least of the three. He needed
a good director to restrain him or he would chew up the scenery.
He was good at acting weird, but was not very good when he had to
play a role straight. In many ways it is easier to play a
monster than a normal person." [-mrl]
John: "At present, I can't really imagine any--if at all--
actors/actresses whose work is best-suited for the horror genre.
Maybe Keanu Reeves comes closest. The problem nowadays is that
nobody really wants to be pigeon-holed into a certain category.
Time was, that wasn't really a problem. Just another sign of our
society, I guess." [-jp]
Mark: Well, the run of films has changed. Years ago it was
actually shocking that Alec Guinness would play in a sci-fi film.
Nowadays the really major films are like SPIDER-MAN 3 and
TRANSFORMERS, based on comic books, games, and toys. The finest
actors are rarely seen in the strong dramas that really require
them to stretch their abilities and require a good studied
performance. Instead, many of what would be the great talents
are trying to do what they can to polish up the quality of "X-
Men" sorts of films and being upstaged by CGI effects. Of course
if somebody wants to make a strong drama you get really good
actors wanting to play in it and willing to work cheaply. That
is why you occasionally get remakes of films like TWELVE ANGRY
MEN or THE LION IN WINTER with very good casts." [-mrl]
In response to Mark's reviews of Indian films in the same issue,
John writes, "Man, you're really getting into the Bollywood films
this time." [-jp]
Mark: "I was a house guest for three days of a friend who is
Indian and a film fan." [-mrl]
John: "SUPERMAN in Telugu sounds like a real clunker that
deserves showing at 4:00 AM in the film room of some convention.
I'd show that one sandwiched in between THE WRESTLING WOMEN VS.
THE AZTEC MUMMY and PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. Or THE MOLE PEOPLE.
Remember: I love John Agar films! " [-jp]
Mark: "I think my friend wanted me to put it in the PLAN 9
category and rate it highly for unintentional entertainment
value. I gave it about the same rating as I would give PLAN 9,
maybe a little higher, but then I don't like to laugh at badly
made films the way some people do." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE LION OF BOAZ-JACHIN AND JACHIN-BOAZ by Russell Hoban (ISBN-10
0-747-54908-7, ISBN-13 978-0-747-54908-6) was Hoban's first
"novel for grown-ups" (as Auberon Waugh described it--
unfortunately "adult novel" has aquired a connotation that
requires this circumlocution). Hoban starts with a quote from
the Book of Job (10:16): "For it increaseth. Thou huntest me as a
fierce lion: and again thou shewest thyself marvellous upon me."
But the names are from Chronicles II (3:17): "And he reared up
the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand, and the
other on the left; and called the name of that on the right hand
Jachin, and the name of that on the left Boaz."
The story is of Jachin-Boaz, a seller of maps, and his son Boaz-
Jachin, a seeker of something. Set in an unspecified country at
an unspecified future time when all lions are extinct, the two
are somehow connected by a lion from a palace carving, of the
distant past, but also of the present.
Hoban's writing is full of poetry and memorable phrases:
"Every person is like thousands of books. New, reprinting, in
stock, out of stock, fiction, non-fiction, poetry, rubbish. The
lot. Different every day. One's lucky to be able to put his
hand on the one that's wanted, let alone know it."
Or,
"How many people speak the same language even when they speak the
same language?" (pg. 154)
Or,
"When you get to know a face or a voice or a smell you think the
person isn't a stranger, but that's a lie." (pg. 59)
Even the narrative passages are poetic: "In the morning he was
awakened by the sun on his face. There was a professional-
looking seagull perching on the mast. It looked down at Boaz-
Jachin with a contemptuous yellow eye that said, I'm ready for
business and you're still asleep." (pg. 97) Note that the gull
is "perching", not "perched"--it is not just sitting there,
passively but sitting there actively, about to fly off.
Russell Hoban is one of my favorite authors. He is best known in
science fiction circles for RIDDLEY WALKER, but has written at
least one other science fiction novel (FREMDER), and many fantasy
or magical realist novels. I highly recommend THE LION OF BOAZ-
JACHIN AND JACHIN-BOAZ, and all of his other novels as well. (My
reviews of many of his books may be found at
http://www.geocities.com/hoban.htm.)
"The Merchant Princes" by Charles Stross is (so far) a trilogy
consisting of THE FAMILY TRADE (ISBN-10 0-765-34821-7, ISBN-13
978-0-765-34821-0), THE HIDDEN FAMILY (ISBN-10 0-765-35205-2,
ISBN-13 978-0-765-35205-7), and THE CLAN CORPORATE (ISBN-10
0-765-30930-0, ISBN-13 978-0-765-30930-3). Each one comes in at
between 50,000 and 60,000 words, making them fairly short
"novels" by today's standards, and (no surprise here) they are
not even stand-alone novels, but three installments of a
continuing story. It is reasonably intriguing and entertaining,
but given that they are priced at $24.95 each in hardcover, my
recommendation has to be to get them from the library. (Even at
$7.99 for a paperback, that's a lot for a single novel, albeit
issued in three physical pieces.)
MISQUOTING JESUS: THE STORY BEHIND WHO CHANGED THE BIBLE AND WHY
by Bart D. Ehrman (ISBN-10 0-060-85951-2, ISBN-13
978-0-060-85951-0) has annoyed those who believe in the inerrancy
of the Bible (especially the New Testament), buoyed up those who
feel that it is the work of fallible people with agendas, and
baffled those who do not want to follow the minutiae of
translations and copyists. I found it most interesting when
Ehrman focuses on a specific verse or verses and traces their
history through various manuscripts in detail (e.g. Mark 1:41,
Luke 22:43-44, Hebrews 2:8-9). He is less convincing when he
moves into more general claims about why it is likely that some
verses were changed, rather than providing more substantive
evidence. (Of course, one of Ehrman's contentions is that not
all differences can be tracked back, and some will have to be
analyzed more probabilistically.)
We recently watched THINGS TO COME, based on the novel and screen
treatment by H. G. Wells. The miniature of Everytown at the
beginning is really marvelous, even though it is only on screen
for a few seconds. It incorporates aspects of many British towns
(e.g., St. Paul's from London, Arthur's Seat from Edinburgh [I
think]) to create something that was truly "Everytown". And
there are other touches: all the children's Christmas gifts at
the beginning are martial. The Boss is obviously intended to be
a negative character in a fascist mold; he dresses like Mussolini
and says things like, "You are warriors. You have been taught
not to think, but to do--and--if, need be, die. I salute you--I,
your leader." But the technocracy Wings over the World brings
does not look much better to our eyes. They show up in
Everytown, announce that they are taking control, and say things
like, "Now we have to put the world in order," and "first, the
round-up of brigands." (Interestingly, Wells has them "settle,
organize, and advance" first, then round up the brigands, while
the film has the brigands rounded up first.)
And what do they do? Well, Cabal announces, "We shall excavate
the eternal hills," and then we see massive strip-mining
operations and huge factories, apparently fairly polluted, since
all the workers are wearing full body suits and helmets. When
Theotocopulos cries, "Stop this progress before it is too late!"
we are likely to agree at least somewhat with him. (And how do
Theotocopulos and Cabal project their voices in their debate
across about a half-mile of distance without any microphones or
speakers?) In spite of all this, this is a film that cries out
for a good restoration--I wonder why no one has done one? [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Literature flourishes best when it is
half a trade and half an art.
-- William Inge