THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
01/04/08 -- Vol. 26, No. 27, Whole Number 1474
El Honcho Grande: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
La Honcha Bonita: 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:
Correction (by John Jetzt)
The King as the King (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Political Films and the Box-office (part 1) (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Blogs--Bleh! (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Insomnia and Podcasts (letters of comment by Fred Lerner
and Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Dos-a-Dos Binding and Other Bibliophile Items (letters of
comment by Fred Lerner and Peter Rubinstein)
Apostrophes, Sweeney Todd, Edward Gorey, and Insomnia
(letter of comment by John Purcell)
This Week's Reading (corrections, GOD IS MY BROKER,
84 CHARING CROSS ROAD) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Correction (by John Jetzt)
In response to the trivia answer in the 12/28/07 issue of the MT
VOID, John Jetzt points out, "The correct contraction for
forecastle is fo'c'sle (not f'o'csle)." [-jj]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The King as the King (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Last week's story about the breakthrough performance as a
bereaved penguin in a film reminded me of another story.
Somebody noticed that Larry King has played himself in many, many
films. In fact the IMDB lists 102 films that feature a
performance of Larry King playing Larry King. I was asked had
any other actor beaten that record. Has anyone played themselves
in film more times than Larry King had? It took a few minutes of
thought, but I came up with one: MGM's Leo the Lion. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Political Films and the Box-office (part 1) (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
During the Vietnam War, the American film industry pretty much
avoided making films about that war and its effects. This was a
fairly stark contrast to World War II during which there were a
great number of patriotic films made, frequently starring John
Wayne as the archetypal American soldier, as if Wayne were really
typical of anything. Few similar films were made to glorify the
American soldier who served in Vietnam during the time of that
war. Several years later there were some memorable and
successful films on the subject, films like APOCALYPSE NOW, FULL
METAL JACKET, and THE DEER HUNTER. But really only two films
come to mind that were made during that war that really had the
war as a plot element. One of those films was THE GREEN BERETS,
in which John Wayne was back fighting an enemy portrayed much the
same way that the enemy was portrayed in his earlier war films.
The formula was much the same as the WWII Wayne films, but it
seemed to have lost much of its magic. The only other film that
comes to mind was the horror film DEATHDREAM, which was released
about a year before the war ended. It was a variation on "The
Monkey's Paw" in which a mother wishes her dead son back from the
war.
This year, while the war in Iraq rages, we are getting films
about the Middle East and other current areas of unrest. We have
several films on Middle East tensions and fighting coming out in
a short period of time, and it appears none of them released so
far are really doing well with the public. Within a short space
of time we have A MIGHTY HEART, IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, RENDITION,
REDACTED, THE KINGDOM, and LIONS FOR LAMBS. We also have had
some good documentaries that seem to be even lower key.
Documentaries I thought were reasonably good were OPERATION
HOMECOMING and especially MEETING RESISTANCE. OPERATION
HOMECOMING is about the hellish experience of American soldiers
in the war zone. MEETING RESISTANCE is a set of anonymous
interviews with the people in Iraq who are fighting and bombing
and laying traps for the Americans. The simple format belies the
value of this window to see how the resistance thinks and why it
is fighting us. It is neither sympathetic nor critical--some of
the interviews leave one with a positive impression and some with
a negative one. But my suspicion is that there will not be a lot
of people who will see OPERATION HOMECOMING and MEETING
RESISTANCE. Films this small hardly show up as a blip on the
film industry's radar.
But even the major films about the Middle East are about
important issues. Some may not handle the issues well, but the
issues are important. There are people dying, even Americans,
over the issues raised in these films. For years we have heard
complaints that there is too much fluff in the movies and not
enough relevance or enough serious thought. One is tempted to
believe that if so many people complain that the big films are
devoid of content films on the important issues would do much
better.
The film industry is really trying with two different strategies
to win back lost audience. One is to treat the audience as
adults and to examine serious subjects that are relevant to the
audience. The other approach is use 3-D. I think 3-D is proving
to be the much stronger attraction. So why are relevant films
doing so poorly at the box office? I have seen articles on the
subject in "U.S. News & World Report" and in "Time" magazine.
This week and next I want to give you my take on the subject and
where I think things are going wrong. I think there is enough
blame to go around in these box office failures.
I think some audience may feel a little tentative about the moral
ambiguity of the conclusions drawn by some of these films. The
filmmakers seem to not be entirely clear on their politics
themselves. My current example of this is the Tom Hanks film
CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR. This is the film about the playboy
congressman who became a hero. The Russians have invaded
Afghanistan for its resources and are committing horrible
atrocities in subduing the Afghans. Wilson comes from Texas and
hates the Russians. He has highly placed friends who hate the
Russians and Communism even more. Wilson arranges to arm the
Afghans and trains them to shoot down Russian helicopters--very
effectively I might add. The Afghans win the war. And Wilson is
credited with bringing about the defeat of the Russians and, it
is suggested, maybe even bringing down the entire Soviet Union.
People leave the theater with this soft glow that we Americans
did it. We taught the Afghans how to use big guns to shoot down
helicopters and justice prevailed. That glow will last until
they look at their TV news and realize that the Afghans are still
shooting down helicopters but now they are American helicopters.
The film very much soft-pedals the downside of Wilson's actions.
Late in the film a confidante of Wilson points out that there may
be side effects of what they have done. By arming the Afghans
Wilson gave power to the Taliban and to people like Osama Bin
Laden and his actions have come back to bite the US very badly.
The film passes the buck by concluding with the dubious
implication that had we spent a million dollars more on schools
that it would have prevented the newly powerful fundamentalist
forces from taking power. The film's point of view is rather
fuzzy and short-sighted and it shows. I think people leave this
film feeling a little ambivalent about what the film embraces so
wholeheartedly.
I can see why word of mouth on this film may not be great. Next
week I list some of the factors that I think are causing
political films this year to fail. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Blogs--Bleh! (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
The theory is that the Internet makes communication easier as
time goes on. To some extent this is true, but as with many
aspects of progress, there are definitely some cases in which
this is not true.
Ten years ago, pretty much all the science fiction fans who were
on-line "hung out" in Usenet's rec.arts.sf.fandom. If you read
that newsgroup, you could keep up with what people were doing.
If you posted there, people could keep up with what you were
doing.
The, a couple of years ago, I noticed that a fan I was friends
with had not posted to rec.arts.sf.fandom for quite a while. I
sent her email asking about this, and she said she no longer
posted there, but had moved to livejournal.com because that was
where "everyone" was. (Well, not everyone, but never mind.) So
I started reading her blog, but still cannot figure out how that
helps me track anyone else there.
Then another friend went missing from rec.arts.sf.fandom. He, it
appeared, also had a blog on livejournal.com. So I started
reading that, but then a couple of weeks went by when he didn't
post there either. So I emailed him and he said he had been
posting responses to other people's blogs instead of updating his
own.
A third person told our library discussion group that he had a
reading blog on blogspot.com. So I started checking that, but it
turns out he posts to it only about four times a year.
Now another friend has sent email asking if we wanted to be added
to "Pulse", so we can keep up with what he is doing. Well, no.
This business of having to join a different community for each
person we know is crazy. Add to that the notion that some people
post mostly/only in other people's blogs and you have a situation
in which there is no longer a community posting in a common
space--there are a bunch of individuals, each posting in an
individual space. Oh, and sometimes it is not even their own
space.
Yeah, I know--I'm an old codger. But all I know is that before
the Internet, communication was one-to-one. For a while, it was
many-to-many. Now it's back to needing a separate channel for
each correspondent. What we have is the Internet equivalent of
the holiday newsletter, except it is 365 days a year, the
recipient has to find it, and there's no assurance it is even up
to date.
(Oh, and if you're saying to yourself that the MT VOID is just
another example of this, I do post the table of contents to
rec.arts.sf.fandom every week. I am tempted to post the whole
thing--after all, Dave Langford posts all of "Ansible"--but I
suspect that would irritate people.) [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Insomnia and Podcasts (letters of comment by Fred Lerner
and Paul S. R. Chisholm)
In response to Mark's article on podcasts in the 12/28/07 issue
of the MT VOID, Fred Lerner writes, "If what you're trying to do
is get back to sleep, why not find podcasts of college course
lectures in a subject that does not in the least interest you--or
in a language you can't understand?" [-fl]
Mark replies, "It has to be engaging enough that my mind does not
wander or I am not enough distracted." [-mrl]
And Paul Chisholm writes, "Podcasts ... back when my commute was
an hour of driving, each way, every day, podcasts were a serious
stress reliever. My top five were:
[I have taken the liberty of providing the URLs. -mrl]
(1) 'Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me', NPR (probably too funny for you
to fall asleep to) http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/
(2) 'Buzz Out Loud', CNET
http://reviews.cnet.com/8300-11455_7-10.html
(3) 'Science Talk', Scientific America
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/
(4) 'Java Posse' (probably not your thing) http://javaposse.com/
(5) 'Tech Talk', New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/services/xml/rss/nyt/podcasts/
You could also try 'The Word Nerds'.
http://thewordnerds.org/
Hope this helps." [-psrc]
Mark answers, "I have already started recording 'Wait Wait'. Some
of the lines are very funny. I will check out the others. I am
also starting with 'This American Life' from American Public
Radio http://www.thislife.org/. The two I have heard were quite
good. Thanks a lot. This is a response I can really use." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Dos-a-Dos Binding and Other Bibliophile Items (letters of
comment by Fred Lerner and Peter Rubinstein)
In response to Evelyn's comments on dos-a-dos binding in her
review of John Carter's ABC FOR BOOK COLLECTORS in the 12/28/07
issue of the MT VOID, Fred Lerner writes, "Carter's ABC FOR BOOK
COLLECTORS was (along with Philip Gaskell's A NEW INTRODUCTION TO
BIBLIOGRAPHY) one of the textbooks in Terry Belanger's course on
Descriptive Bibliography, which I took back in library school.
In another course, Susan Thompson's HISTORY OF BOOKS AND
PRINTING, the subject of dos-a-dos bindings came up. Professor
Thompson was duly impressed when I turned up at the next class
meeting with an Ace Double. (Which was good preparation for her
later role as my dissertation advisor, when I wrote on "Modern
Science Fiction and Its Reception by the American Literary and
Educational Communities, 1926-1970"!) [-fl]
[Evelyn notes, "As I read Carter, I remembered reading (or
hearing) this anecdote of yours--maybe at a science fiction
convention?" -ecl]
But Pete Rubinstein writes:
The Ace doubles are apparently not a "true" dos-a-dos binding.
Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:
In bookbinding, a dos-à-dos binding (from the French meaning
"back-to-back") is a binding structure in which two separate
books are bound together such that the fore edge of one is
adjacent to the spine of the other, with a shared lower board
between them serving as the back cover of both. When shelved,
the spine of the book to the right faces outward, while the
spine of the book to the left faces the back of the shelf;
the text of both works runs head-to-tail.
The term dos-à-dos is also used often, though incorrectly, to
refer to a Single volume in which two texts are bound
together, with one text rotated 180 degrees relative to the
other, such that when one text runs head-to-tail, the other
runs tail-to-head. This type of binding is properly termed
tête-bêche (from the French meaning "head-to-toe"). Books
bound in this way have no back cover, but instead have two
front covers and a single spine with two titles. When a
reader reaches the end of the text of one of the works, the
next page is the (upside-down) final page of the other work.
For a nice description, see the following from Terry Belanger
from 1994: http://tinyurl.com/2f5rgs. [-pir]
Additionally, Fred comments on another entry in Carter: "'A
favourite phrase with the never-say-die type of cataloguer, used
in such contexts as 'somewhat wormed and age-stained, piece torn
from title, headlines cut into, joints repaired, new lettering-
piece, else fine.' is vintage Carter -- I remember it vividly
after all these years." [-fl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Apostrophes, Sweeney Todd, Edward Gorey, and Insomnia
(letter of comment by John Purcell)
In response to the 12/28/07 issue of the MT VOID, John Purcell
writes:
Okay. That was an interesting issue. Starting with those
double-apostrophe words--I thought of trying to find a couple, but
didn't really feel the need to try (and me, a college English
teacher)--and ending with that John Carter of Mars pun, this was
an enjoyable read.
But what really got me was the review of SWEENEY TODD. I am kind
of interested to see what Tim Burton did to the musical--Johnny
Depp as the title character is an odd-ball stroke of genius--and
figure it's going to be just as quirky as SLEEPY HOLLOW (which I
liked) and CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (which is extremely
different from the Gene Wilder version). Depp and Burton seem to
have this macabre thing going here; sometimes it works, sometimes
it doesn't. Either way, it still turns out interesting. And I
really loved the last line of your review: "Now I would be
curious to see what George Romero could do with SUNDAY IN THE
PARK WITH GEORGE." *That* was funny!
Back-tracking just a wee bit, if I wake up at something like 3 AM
and can't easily fall back asleep, that's when I grab one of my
books and clip on my book light. It is just enough like to read
the pages without disturbing my wife. A chapter or two usually
works for me. If it's a textbook for school--like that dag-
nabbin' statistics bull-hockey--two pages max and I'm out. It
works every time.
Let's see if you get this loc this-a-way. I haven't tried it
before, but it should fly. I've been meaning to write a response
to the VOID via-webpost. so we'll see how it works. Have a
happy holiday season remainder, and I'm looking forward to the
first VOID of the new year. [-jp]
Mark replies:
Thank you for the kind words about my witticisms.
When DRACULA went to Broadway in the 1970s the stage design was
by Edward Gorey. Gorey you may know is famous for his tongue-in-
cheek mock-horror. He is the guy who did the art design for the
opening of PBS's Mystery. He was an obvious choice to design
DRACULA, but for me he was also a wrong choice because that is
just not how I think of DRACULA. Where it should be reaching for
a chill, Gorey reaches for a chuckle. That is, I suppose a valid
interpretation of DRACULA, but I think it takes it in the wrong
direction. That is my feeling about Burton doing SWEENEY TODD.
He is perhaps the obvious choice to direct because he has
experience with the macabre. But he is not quite right. And
Depp is not quite right with my picture of the thundering Sweeney
Todd. I suppose I went in with preconceived ideas. It is like
having Matt Damon playing Frank N. Furter in THE ROCKY HORROR
SHOW. He might do a good job, but he is just not what I expect
to see in the role. I rather suspect that I will at some point
look back on SWEENEY TODD and decide I rated it too low just
because any version is good. It is hard to say if I am rating
the whole film or just what Burton changed from the stage play.
I am a little afraid to try turning on a book light just because
I do not want to wake Evelyn. If I try reading I go in the other
room, but then my success rate for going back to bed later and
sleeping is not good. A reasonable proportion of the time
listening to "Eclectic Review" works.
I hate to say it, but we are not planning anything special for
the first issue of 2008. It is hard enough decide what to put in
an editorial each week. :-)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. [-mrl]
John responds:
I love Edward Gorey's work. I used to watch "Mystery!" all the
time, and the opening was simply classic. Gorey, of course, had
some delightfully macabre cartoons over the years in "The New
Yorker" and elsewhere. I can picture him doing the stage design
for DRACULA, but have to agree with you that Gorey always had
some dark humor involved, which would be distracting from the
Dracula story-line. I would be sitting in the audience looking
at the backdrops and all, trying to spot all of the visual puns
that he'd put into them.
As for SWEENEY TODD, I know virtually nothing about the show or
its music, only the basic idea behind it, which is certainly dark
enough for Tim Burton's sense of direction. By the way, Matt
Damon as Frank N. Furter? Now there's a stretch! [-jp]
And Mark says:
Most fans of horror like Edward Gorey. I remember Charles Addams
and Gahan Wilson in "The New Yorker", but somehow I am blanking
on seeing Gorey there. I would be his style, however.
SWEENEY TODD is one of three Broadway musicals I play for myself
a lot. The other two are a little more prosaic: THE PHANTOM OF
THE OPERA and LES MISERABLES. We have films of the first two. I
am surprised nobody has filmed the musical LES MISERABLES.
The story of Sweeney is a fictionalized version of what is
thought to be a real incident. It was adopted for the penny
dreadfuls.
http://www.geocities.com/justingilb/SweenyPage.html [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
First, a couple of corrections:
Two weeks ago, I reviewed THE COMFORTERS by "Muriel Sparks"; that
should have been "Muriel Spark". Last week I said that the
ISBN-10 for ABC FOR BOOK COLLECTORS was 978-1-584-56112-2; that
should have been 1-584-56112-2.
And now, on to new books (and possibly new mistakes as well).
GOD IS MY BROKER: A MONK-TYCOON REVEALS THE 7-1/2 LAWS OF
SPIRITUAL AND FINANCIAL GROWTH by Brother Ty with Christopher and
John Tierney (ISBN-13 978-0-060-97761-0, ISBN-10 0-060-97761-2)
is a both a parody and a critique of all those self-help books.
(And the title appears to be a parody of all those really long,
pretentious subtitles on books these days as well.) "Brother Ty"
is a former stock broker turned monk who gets involved in his
monastery's attempt to be more successful in marketing their
wine. Along the way, we get to meet an internal investigator
from the Vatican; agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms; and even the Mafia. Each chapter is concluded with a
"rule", a "meditation", and a "prayer" embodying that rule. For
example, Rule III is "As long as God knows the truth, it doesn't
matter what you tell your customers." The meditation includes
questions such as "Who's more important, anyway--God or my
customers?" and "Did God know I was lying? Did He stop the
sale?" And the prayer begins: "Almighty God, Top Salesman of the
Universe, Master of Pitches and Presentations, grant that I
should exceed my quota, and that the truth shall not stay my
tongue from its appointed task."
While this is reasonably amusing, ultimately it is not much more
substantial than the self-help books it is ridiculing. (And
somewhere in a back corner of my mind is the thought that a lot
of these meditations and prayers sound a lot like those presented
seriously in sermons which talk about how God rewards believers
with wealth and success.)
The BBC recently broadcast a radio adaptation (by James Roose-
Evans) of Helene Hanff's 84 CHARING CROSS ROAD. In one way it
was more "authentic" than the film version, because it was almost
entirely done as letters. (There were one or two lines of
dialogue between people in the shop, and a few lines from
Helene's doorman delivering book parcels.) But it also added a
lot to the letters themselves that just was not in the original.
Given that the original book was short, as books go, it is very
unlikely that much was cut out of the letters for publication.
And what was new here was nothing scandalous or even particularly
private. For example, at one point Nora writes that everything
is off rationing, so Helene needn't send any more food parcels.
And there are long passages about Walton's "Lives" and "The
Compleat Angler", as well as other books not mentioned in the
original. Since Roose-Evans wrote the original stage play "based
on Hanff's memoirs" (according to one site) and I believe also on
conversations with her, I am assuming that the additional
material, while not absolutely accurate to the letters, is in
keeping with what Hanff and Doel might have written. (And it is
quite possible that some letters were misplaced even before the
book.)
Now that 2007 is over, I can report that I read 206 books read
(20 alternate history, 43 other science fiction or fantasy, 41
mystery, 19 other fiction, and 83 non-fiction). [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
I advise you to go on living solely to enrage
those who are paying your annuities. It is the
only pleasure I have left.
-- Voltaire