THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/05/08 -- Vol. 27, No. 23, Whole Number 1522
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:
United States Civics Quiz
Tuxedo (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Ganging Up (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
GOOD OMENS by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman
(book review by Joe Karpierz)
HAPPY-GO-LUCKY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (FATHERLAND, THE AUDACITY OF HOPE/
LA AUDACIA DE LA ESPERANZA, "The Gospel According to
St. Mark", and "The Streets of Ashkelon")
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: United States Civics Quiz
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
"Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average
score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%;
college educators scored 55%."
==================================================================
TOPIC: Tuxedo (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I am an informal sort of guy and I recently went to a formal
affair. It was "black tie". Those words "black tie" strike fear
into a simple dresser such as myself. I generally feel I am
dressed to the nines if my shirt tail is successfully tucked in.
For this affair I decided to rent a tuxedo. You know I was amazed
how good I looked in a tuxedo. Put a Tommy Gun in my hands and I
would have looked great on "The Untouchables". I was so pleased
that when I returned the jacket and the shirt, the pants and the
vest I wanted to show my appreciation so I gave them the underwear
as a tip. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Ganging Up (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
In the film CONTACT Ellie Arroway is rejected from a possible space
flight because she was an atheist. As the character Palmer Joss
says, "Our job was to select someone to speak for everybody. And I
just couldn't in good conscience vote for a person who doesn't
believe in God. Someone who honestly thinks the other ninety-five
percent of us suffer from some form of mass delusion." Now does
the character believe that a neo-Pagan would be speaking for
everybody?
I strongly doubt the 95% figure. In the US 12% of the population
are avowed atheists. But whoever wrote the line really sees the
world as a collection of agreeing believers against a small number
of atheists. I can tell you that among this purported 95% almost
everybody thinks most of the other 95% are suffering from the same
sort of delusion. I guess all atheists are atheist in much the
same way. People who are religious are religious in some very
different and incompatible ways.
Similarly I was listening on the radio to an interview with Muslim
professor Vali R. Nasr from Tufts and he talked about how more
people are becoming religious and that secularism is being rejected
and is in decline. Secularism is the belief that certain
activities, particularly the running of the government, should be
divorced from religious consideration and should be considered by
other forms of reason. It is the basis of our separation of Church
and State. Nasr says that secularism is "sick." His claim was
that people are rejecting secularism not just in the Middle East
but also in the United States. He says, "We have a crisis of
secularism." If so I think we are in serious trouble.
Frankly, I had thought things were going in the other direction.
It is interesting that Nasr thinks in terms of the secular and the
non-secular as if they were two different homogenous, peaceful, and
tolerant camps. And one camp seems to have religious Christians,
Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, Baha'i believers,
Zoroastrians, and even believers in Baal and Moloch if there are
still any. All those are in one camp. In this camp Nasr sees
everyone united in belief in a deity against people who do not
believe in a deity. It is like in October there were a lot of
people in both political parties who did not like Bush and his
policies, but that did not mean that they agreed on who should
replace him and what should be the policies of the replacement. If
the atheists went away that certainly does not mean that everybody
would agree about religion. If anything we would still be having
the religious wars we see in the Middle East today.
The best figures I can find say that 19% of Americans are to some
degree secular while 12% are actually atheist. I think if it came
down to the question of whether religion and government should
remain separate I think it would be a much higher percentage of
Americans would say they should remain separate. But even if
secularism were declining the people who reject it have a very
mixed bag of beliefs. If I were a non-secular Presbyterian I would
not take the knowledge that there are also non-secular Hindus to be
very strong evidence that the secular people are wrong. I am
saying this with a certain sympathy for atheists even though I am
not one myself. (I actively believe that the universe does not
provide the tools that correctly support any conclusion as to
whether there is a God. I suppose that makes me just a zealous
agnostic.)
If Nasr could convince me that secularism is on the decline and
most people really reject it, I would point out to him that the
majority of the world believes that his Islam is not the correct
path. This is just like the fact that the majority of the world
believes that Judaism is not the correct path. The majority of the
world believes that Christianity is not the correct path. The
majority of the world believes that Buddhism is not the correct
path.
But I do observe that secularism, increasing or declining, does
seem to work. The countries that are the most secular seem also to
be the most peaceful. The countries that are the most avidly
religious are also the countries that have the most car bombs.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: GOOD OMENS by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman (copyright
1990, Harper Torch, $7.99, 412pp, ISBN-10: 0-06-085398-0, ISBN-13:
978-0-06-085398-3) (book review by Joe Karpierz)
I was attending a panel at Windycon 35 a couple of weekends ago
which had as panelists, among others, Rich Horton, who reviews for
LOCUS, and Steven Silver, book reviewer for SFSite.com and Hugo
nominee for Best Fan Writer the last few years. As I remember, the
topic was award lists, but the discussion got around to Terry
Pratchett, as in "there are a lot of people that don't 'get' Terry
Pratchett.
I've never read any Terry Pratchett before GOOD OMENS, and now that
I've read it I think you can add me to that list. And since I
already don't 'get' Neil Gaiman (see my review of AMERICAN GODS
back from back in 2002), that pretty much meant that I don't get
what all the hoopla is over GOOD OMENS, a collaboration between the
two. Like AMERICAN GODS before it, I had GOOD OMENS on my to-read
stack because of the recommendation of a fannish friend whom I've
known for twenty-five years and whose opinions I respect.
Once again (see that six-year old book review), I'm going to have
to have a talk with that guy.
Oh, it's not a bad book, just an uninteresting one. Clive Barker
had this to say about it: "The Apocalypse has never been funnier."
Maybe because the Apocalypse isn't *supposed* to be funny, but
that's another topic. This version of the apocalypse hardly made
me laugh at all, but I guess that a) what one person finds funny
isn't always found funny by someone else, and b) it just goes to
show that writing funny SF/fantasy fiction is harder than you might
think.
So, anyway. We've got a Aziraphale, and angel, and Crowley, a
demon, as our two main characters. They're sort of trying to
prevent the apocalypse in one way or another when the antichrist
shows up on the planet. Said antichrist is planted with a human
family at the time of another child's birth, thus setting him up to
cause all the necessary mayhem later on in his life. Like when
he's eleven, and the world is supposed to end on a Saturday at
dinner time.
There's sort of a subtitle to the book: The Nice and Accurate
Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. We meet Anathema Device, a
Professional Descendent of Agnes Nutter. Like everyone who has
descended from Nutter, Anathema has lived her life studying and
making sure she follows Agnes' prophecies. This, in fact, is one
of the more interesting thoughts in the book. You see, Agnes could
see the future because she visited there and wrote it down, but she
really didn't know what she was seeing in all cases so her
prophecies are sometimes cryptic (well, that's how prophecies are
supposed to be anyway, right?). So, if Agnes went to the future
and saw this stuff, then it *must* be true, and therefore the
characters *must* follow the prophecies (chicken or egg, anyone?).
So, when the prophecies say that Anathema and Witchfinder Newton
Pulsifer (she's a witch, and he's found her. alright) only have sex
one time at a specific time just before all Hell breaks loose
(literally), and Newt says "we can do it again", when Anathema says
"not now, the prophecies say only once", or words to that effect,
you see how this can actually be amusing and interesting at the
same time. Okay, maybe not.
Just to make sure the list of characters is complete, we have the
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Death, War, Famine, and
Pollution--it seems that Pestilence retired when humanity started
to get good at controlling diseases. We have Satan, Beelebub, God,
and metatron, the Voice of God, a few other demons, etc. The whole
cast converges on the lower Tadfield Air Force base for the climax,
and since I don't want to spoil what happens for the four of you
who probably haven't read it yet, let's just say I let out one of
my two loudest guffaws at during that scene. The other was at a
scene involving Anathema and Newt--see if you can figure it out and
no, it wasn't the sex prophecy scene.
So, in the end, I just shrugged my shoulders, realized that the
book wasn't as bad as BRASYL by Ian MacDonald, and decided that I
wouldn't have missed anything if I hadn't read it. This book may
make you laugh, but for the most part I yawned.
So yes, I know I said I was going to read all the newly published
books I picked up at Worldcon, but I sidetracked here. Well, there
are three more that I've bought since then, and I don't know for
sure which I'll read next. Oh yes, I also do remember that I'm
still supposed to read STARSHIP TROOPERS. I'll get there--someday
soon, I hope. [-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: HAPPY-GO-LUCKY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The title describes Poppy, a London grade school teacher
whose irrepressibly positive attitude is stronger than cast iron.
That is it. There is very little plot to HAPPY-GO-LUCKY. We just
watch Poppy live her life and watch her keeping her sunny side up
against high odds. With lesser acting or direction Poppy could
have ended up seeming like a candidate for Sesame Street or perhaps
professional care. But Poppy has more depth than that, and she
easily gets the viewer on her side. Director Mike Leigh
counterbalances his last film, VERA DRAKE, with one that is lighter
and more pleasant. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
There is not a lot happening in Mike Leigh's HAPPY-GO-LUCKY. Or
perhaps there is more than meets the eye. We follow around Poppy
(played by Sally Hawkins), who has an absolutely unalterably
positive attitude and a perpetual smile on her face. We keep
waiting for something really nasty to happen to Poppy to wipe that
smile off her face. After all, this is a film by Mike Leigh, who
made the tragic VERA DRAKE. Poppy bounces off of three different
difficult people. First there is the class bully in the third or
fourth grade class that Poppy teaches. Second there is Poppy's
flamenco teacher (played by Karina Fernandez) for whom the soul of
the flamenco dance is rage and selfishness. The first step of
flamenco is to stamp your feet while thinking, "MY SPACE! (Stamp.
Stamp.) MY SPACE!"
Darkest of all the dark people in Poppy's life is Steve (played by
comedian Eddie Marsan), Poppy's new driving instructor. At age
thirty Poppy is learning to drive. Steve is rage in human form as
he browbeats his students and shouts commands. He has named the
three rear-view mirrors after fallen angels and shouts the names of
the angels when he wants Poppy to check the mirrors. Poppy takes
all this in her superhuman stride. The film is not so much a story
as a study of Poppy as she goes through her life and interacts with
difficult people, rarely losing her smile or her radiance. On the
other hand Poppy's life includes her flat-mate Zoe (Alexis
Zegerman), a bright spot in Poppy's relationships. When they get
together each seems to be like catnip for the other. These may be
some of the only sequences that go awry under Leigh's direction.
Poppy and Zoe find each other a lot funnier than we find either of
them. They seem to go into drugged-line paroxysms of laughter.
Mike Leigh seems to have had a great time writing about this woman
who uses her sunny attitude as armor against life and more
surprisingly finds that it works for her. Sally Hawkins could be a
lot like the British equivalent of Anne Hathaway. It takes a
certain amount of charm to keep a character like Poppy from grating
on the audience and Hawkins has a light enough touch. Steve Marsan
is nothing but grating, but that is the idea. In his own way he is
as good at what he does as Hawkins is at doing the opposite.
Underneath it all is the question of just how much ones attitude
shapes ones circumstances. More than once Poppy takes risks that
the rest of us would not. In a more noir film Poppy's behavior
might seem to be foolish. But on balance she seems to come through
okay. I rate HAPPY-GO-LUCKY a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or
7/10. The accents make some of the dialog difficult to follow for
some of us Yanks.
Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1045670/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Our two discussion groups meet jointly in November because the
science fiction group usually meets on the fourth Thursday of the
month. So we try to pick a science fiction book that has appeal to
non-science fiction fans as well. In previous years we have chosen
THE EYRE AFFAIR by Jasper Fforde, BRING THE JUBILEE by Ward Moore,
THE WOMAN AND THE APE by Peter Hoeg, KING AND JOKER by Peter
Dickinson; this year we chose FATHERLAND by Robert Harris. One
thing you may notice about this list is that all except the Hoeg
are alternate histories. This ties in with my panel at this year's
Philcon, "Are Alternate Histories Really Science Fiction?" It
seems to be true that one reaction people have to the books we have
chosen is "Is this really science fiction?" After all, there are
no rockets, robots, or rivets.
The answer to "Are alternate histories really science fiction?"
seems to be yes, though the explanation varies. Take your pick of:
1) It often uses the science fiction plot of time travel,
or may refer to the scientific theory of multiple universes.
2) It is read by science fiction fans.
3) It is written by science fiction writers.
4) It uses a very science fictional approach: change one
thing and see what happens. (Mike Resnick)
5) It is, like the future, "the history we cannot know."
(Kim Stanley Robinson)
Regarding FATHERLAND, reading it led people to do further research
on the "White Rose" student anti-Nazi movement and Sophie Scholl
(about whom there was a biopic last year), and to a discussion of
Nazi architecture, both that which was built and that which was
merely in the planning stages. (In FATHERLAND, these plans have
come to fruition.) We had a brief digression about the Berlin
Wall, and I was startled to realize that there was one group member
who not only did not remember the Wall going up--she hadn't been
born yet when the Wall came down! (The first item on the Beloit
College "Mindset List for the Class of 2100" is "What Berlin Wall?"
it also notes that for "most of the ... members of the Class of
2011, ... Alvin Ailey, Andrei Sakharov, Huey Newton, Emperor
Hirohito, Ted Bundy, Abbie Hoffman, and Don the Beachcomber have
always been dead."
A few additional items from that list:
9. Nelson Mandela has always been free and a force in
South Africa.
10. Pete Rose has never played baseball.
16. Women have always been police chiefs in major cities.
18. The NBA season has always gone on and on and on and on.
34. They were introduced to Jack Nicholson as "The Joker."
42. Women's studies majors have always been offered on campus.
64. Chavez has nothing to do with iceberg lettuce and
everything to do with oil.
66. The World Wide Web has always been an online tool.
68. Burma has always been Myanmar.
69. Dilbert has always been ridiculing cubicle culture.
I will dispute #4, though ("They never 'rolled down' a car
window.") since I got a new rental car last month that had windows
that rolled down.
And, as a segue to the next book, I will cite #17: "They were born
the year Harvard Law Review editor Barack Obama announced he might
run for office some day."
So why, you may ask, am I reading LA AUDACIA DE LA ESPERANZA de
Barack Obama (translated by Claudia Casanova and Juan Eloy Roca)
(ISBN-13 978-0-307-38711-0, ISBN-10 0-307-38711-9) instead of THE
AUDACITY OF HOPE by Barack Obama (ISBN-13 978-0-307-45587-1,
ISBN-10 0-307-45587-4)? Well, the primary reason (no election pun
intended) is that the former was on the shelf in my library while
the latter is at the end of a long waiting list. But there is also
a secondary benefit, which I will discuss at the end of my
comments.
Actually, I am probably not going to comment too much on the
content, but on the translation. I found it interesting that there
were a few "Translator's Note"s designed to explain certain arcane
American features, such as "Father Knows Best" and "Poor Richard's
Almanac". (Interestingly, there was apparently no need to explain
"The Dick Van Dyke Show".)
The secondary benefit I mentioned is that I cannot read Spanish as
fast as English. (Timing myself on a page or so in English gives
me a reading speed of about 470 words per minute, in Spanish, about
110 words per minute. Both texts were by Obama, so style, word
choice, etc., were as parallel as I could get them for the test.)
This means that anything I read in Spanish I have to read slowly
and more carefully than if it were in English.
It also gives me a new perspective on functional or marginal
illiteracy. I cannot remember a time when I did not read and did
not enjoy reading. It's easy enough to decide to read a book when
I know I can do it in under four hours--faster if I skim parts--but
harder to commit to ten hours or more. And this is a fairly
straightforward book; a literary novel could easily take much
longer. So when we hear that people no longer read books, we need
to take into account that the quality of education is such that for
many, reading is a laborious process, and has always been one. If
every book I had ever read took this much effort, would I have
developed a love of reading?
As regular readers of this column know, I am a big fan of Jorge
Luis Borges. Recently I listened to a reading (in English) of his
story "The Gospel According to Mark" (from DOCTOR BRODIE'S REPORT,
written between 1970 and 1972). And something clicked, and I said,
"I've read this before." An on-line query turned up the answer:
this is basically the same story as Harry Harrison's "The Streets
of Ashkelon". And lest you think that Harrison may have borrowed
from Borges, Harrison published "The Streets of Ashkelon" in 1962.
So did Borges read the Harrison story? Well, "The Streets of
Ashkelon" first appeared in Brian W. Aldiss's original anthology
NEW WORLDS and has been anthologized over three dozen times (in
fourteen languages), including a half dozen before the writing of
"The Gospel According to Mark". It is possible that Borges read it
in English (a Spanish translation did not appear until 1987). It
is also possible that the idea is one that could easily occur
independently to two different authors.
The Borges is available on-line at
http://www.mrtheilacker.com/gospel_mark_borges.doc or
http://anagrammatically.com/2008/03/09/borges-gospel-according-to- mark
(the latter being bilingual). The Harrison is not available
on-line. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
My father says that almost the whole world is
asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see.
Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few
people are awake and they live in a state of
constant total amazement.
-- JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO