THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/14/10 -- Vol. 28, No. 46, Whole Number 1597

 C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
 R2D2: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
All material is copyrighted 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:        
        History Repeats (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
        High-Fructose Corn Syrup (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
        The Passing of a Great (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
        Upcoming TCM Films (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
        BONESHAKER by Cherie Priest (book review by Joe Karpierz)
        THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
        Short Reviews (THE STRANGLERS OF BOMBAY, OSS 117:
                CAIRO--NEST OF SPIES, and CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB)
                (film reviews by Mark R. Leeper)
        This Week's Reading ("Origins of Ancient Civilizations")
                (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

==================================================================


TOPIC: History Repeats (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

A headline that caught my eye was "Lord Jesus Christ suffers minor
injuries in downtown Northampton crosswalk mishap."  True story.
You can see it at http://tinyurl.com/LJC-injured.

The man's legal name is Lord Jesus Christ.  And this is not a first
time a Lord Jesus Christ was injured on a crosswalk.  [-mrl]

==================================================================


TOPIC: High-Fructose Corn Syrup (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

There are quite a few studies that say that high fructose corn
syrup is not nutritionally or metabolically worse for you than
sugar.  They may be right, but high fructose corn syrup is still
worse for you.  Why?  It's worse for you because it is cheaper, and
this means that companies can make their products "taste better" or
"be more appealing" by putting in more of it than they would of the
more expensive sugar.  [-ecl]

==================================================================


TOPIC: The Passing of a Great (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

There is an old edition of Robert E. Howard's CONAN THE BARBARIAN
from Gnome Press that pictures Conan sort of like a Roman soldier
in breast armor and looking reasonably buff.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/graphics/conan%20old%20cover.jpg

To me it looks all wrong.  I was not around when that edition was
current.  My image of Conan goes considerably beyond just being a
man in good shape.  I picture a man with huge iron muscles.  I
guess I see Arnold Schwarzenegger.  But even before the film I did
not visualize someone of the proportions of the jolly Roman
soldier.  I picture a huge muscular Conan.  Why?  Because as long
as I have been seeing Conan on book covers he has been a larger
than life man of Herculean proportions.  This was the cover of the
first Conan book I ever owned:

http://tinyurl.com/36roku2

Those old covers were my idea of who Conan was.  And he was
something much bigger than the Roman soldier.  If you look in the
lower left corner of that painting you may be able to make out the
signature.  It says "Frazetta."  That was the painter:  Frank
Frazetta.  Frank Frazetta was no Degas, no Van Gogh.  If you look
at the technical style it is quite good, but he is not one of the
greats of art history.  His specialty was capturing the fantasies
of teenage boys of all ages.  And he was very good at doing just
that.

Frazetta had a rare ability.  Reading a Conan story in a magazine
could be fun.  It was enjoyable if not great literature.  There
was, however, a way you could make it a much more exciting story.
Reading it you could really feel the sinews of great barbarian.
When he swung a sword it would be half strong enough to cut down a
tree.  The way to make the story that good was to just look for a
few moments at a Frazetta painting.  It did not have to be painted
to illustrate that particular story.  Just looking any Frazetta
Conan painting you got the idea of Conan.  You knew what Howard was
writing about.  If you read the story fresh from seeing the
painting the story came alive for you.  Now you knew what Howard
was thinking.  Without benefit of chemical substances (other than
paint on canvas) you entered an altered state of consciousness that
made the stories genuine thrillers.  An artist can do that for a
story, though few artists actually do.

What Frazetta was painting, not unlike what Robert E. Howard was
writing, could be said to be juvenile or immature.  Both the artist
and the author were targeting adolescent boys.  In our society that
is not considered to be a really ambitious goal.  But both did such
good work aiming for that target that they have inspired
generations of artists and writers who took what they invented and
tried to do as well.  They are rarely matched.

By the time a film was made of Conan nobody would have accepted an
ordinary athletic actor as the barbarian adventurer.  It had to be
someone like Schwarzenegger.  He had a little acting experience,
but he looked like a Frazetta figure.  He was bigger than life.
After Frazetta gave us his image of Conan nothing less would do.
Schwarzenegger had a career in film and probably even one in
politics also because he looked the way Frazetta pictured Conan.

I am writing this May 11, 2010, the day after Frank Frazetta died.
But this is not an obituary.  That could not be done very well
without writing about Frazetta's full career.  He did art for Mad
Magazine and posters for movies.  He did covers for books with a
much fuller range of fantasy than I am writing about here.

I have always been able to marvel at the strength am imagery in a
Frazetta painting and even enjoy a little of the silliness that
thankfully he never acknowledged in his fantasy paintings.  This
article is nowhere near comprehensive enough to be an obituary or a
tribute.  It is merely an acknowledgement of what I think of when I
think of Frank Frazetta.

Take a few minutes to look at his art at
http://frankfrazetta.org/ or
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artisti3.  [-mrl]

==================================================================


TOPIC: Upcoming TCM Films (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

Turner Class Movies subscribers,

Here is some of what is coming up on TCM for the rest of May that
is of genre interest.  You can see the entire month by going to
http://tinyurl.com/25kwhum.

A nice early Peter Lorre film, really a crime melodrama but on the
edges of horror, is THE FACE BEHIND THE MASK (5/24).  Lorre's
character comes to the United States and optimistic and idealistic
immigrant.  He is terribly disfigured in a fire and has to wear a
mask.  He becomes the brains for a criminal gang.

One I have not seen and am looking forward to is TOMORROW WE LIVE
(5/27).  It is fringe horror and it is directed by the great Edgar
G. Ulmer who is best known for THE BLACK CAT (1934) and THE MAN
FROM PLANET X, but who did quite a number of bizarre little films.

Incidentally most films that TCM runs have film notes written about
the film.  Most TCM pages have a plat near the top for the database
search.  Click on "site" and type in the title of the film you are
interested in.  Click on "go".  On the page you get look for "TCM
Programming Article {your film}."  There you will find an article
about the film you entered.  They must have about 90% of the films
they run covered.  Also in their regular listings, if they list the
film and have a little icon of a book following it, just click on
the book and that will get you the same article.  [-mrl]

==================================================================


TOPIC: BONESHAKER by Cherie Priest (copyright 2009, Tor, $15.99,
416pp, ISBN 978-0-7653-1841-1) (book review by Joe Karpierz)

The next book in my annual survey of Hugo-nominated novels (I
reviewed WAKE by Robert J. Sawyer awhile back) is BONESHAKER by
Cherie Priest.  I will tell you up front that I was predisposed to
dislike this novel.  You all know my tastes by now, and, as a cover
blurb says "A steampunk-zombie-airship" novel is definitely *not*
to my tastes.

Or so I thought.

Let me say this up front.  I liked this book, a whole lot more than
I thought I would.  It's a straight adventure story, with no
pretentions about trying to pander to the literary crowd.  Sure
there are messages in this book, which I'll talk about a little
later on, but that's not what this book is about.  It's a fast
moving story with all sorts of unsavory characters, monsters, and a
goal in mind.  There's a beginning, a middle, and an *end*.  So
many books these days don't have an end, or the end is so ambiguous
that I want to throw them against a wall.  Not this one.

I'm just not quite sure it belongs on a list of best SF books of
the year--then again, for me, the jury is still out on the whole
steampunk as SF thing.  I read THE DIFFERENCE ENGINE by Sterling
and Gibson back all those years ago--arguably the beginning the
steampunk genre--and I didn't care for that book either.

Anyway, the setting is Seattle during the Civil War.  Russia is
about ready to sell Alaska to the U.S., but before they do that
they hold a contest for inventors to see if they can come up with a
machine that can dig through the thick ice to get the gold out of
the Alaskan soil.  Leviticus Blue comes up with the titular
machine, which he takes out on a test run before it's ready.  He
basically digs deep into downtown Seattle and releases a gas called
the Blight.  The Blight essentially turns human beings into
zombies, called rotters.  This stuff is so bad that a wall is built
around the city proper to keep the gas in--it doesn't rise that
quickly.  Those who stay inside find a way to survive--and those
who don't turn into rotters.  Those on the outside, the Outskirts,
struggle to survive.  As you might guess, unsavory characters find
a way to turn the Blight into an addictive drug and make money off
of it by selling it to folks in the outskirts.

The story centers on Zeke and Briar Wilkes, the son and wife of
Leviticus Blue.  They live in the Outskirts.   Briar works in a
Blight processing plant, purifying water of the stuff.  Zeke is a
disillusioned 15-year-old who wants to clear his father's name of
the crime of bringing the Blight on Seattle.  He finds a way into
the walled city to get to his family's old house and find evidence
that Leviticus wasn't so bad.  Blair finds out that he's gone into
the city and follows him to find him and bring him home.

 From there, it's a big adventure, where Briar and Zeke run into
interesting and unsavory characters, continually encounter and run
away from rotters, and encounter the man who may or may not be
Leviticus Blue going by the name of Minnericht.

I'm not going to give away the ending, but let me tell you that it
does come to a satisfactory and well-done ending.  And yes, it does
have messages about technology run amok, profiteering on the bad
fortune of other people, and family togetherness.  It's all mom and
apple pie, and that's okay.  It's got a lot of the trappings of a
steampunk story.

Hugo material?  I don't think so.  Look, having read a lot of the
books in our field that have won this award, I automatically
compare any book up for the Hugo to those classics in the field:
DUNE, ENDER'S GAME, HYPERION, SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, STARTIDE
RISING, GATEWAY, THE FOREVER WAR, RINGWORLD, and THE MOON IS A
HARSH MISTRESS, to name just nine.  That's sort of a problem,
because I go, heck, this book doesn't stand up to *that*.  But it
doesn't.  Then again, I'm still waiting for modern-day classics.
Hopefully I'll find one soon.

Next up, THE WINDUP GIRL.  [-jak]

==================================================================


TOPIC: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)

CAPSULE: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE is a documentary that is sort of a
"Whitman's Sampler" of religious, metaphysical, and philosophical
beliefs and opinions from all over the world.  Roger Nygard gives
us a non-judgmental survey of what people think about the biggest
questions of life.  Interviewed are famous people and others you
have never heard of.   The director ties them together in a film
that is constantly entertaining and thought provoking.  Nygard, who
previously directed the entertaining documentary TREKKIES, sets his
focus on people's deeply held and widely disparate metaphysical
beliefs and makes a film ironic, sad, and amazing, but most of all
funny.  Without ever taking a stand himself, Nygard shows the
breadth and inconsistency of religious belief around the world.
This is the best documentary I have seen this year.  Rating: low +3
(-4 to +4) or 8/10

Nygard's list of 85 difficult questions follows this review.

Roger Nygard previously made the enthralling documentary TREKKIES,
an exploration into the world of super-fans of the Star Trek
universe.  He managed to make a film that shows that community--
warts and all--without being offensive.  His secret shield was that
he just looked at the people without being at all judgmental.  In a
new documentary he uses this same approach to look at people's
belief in issues of religion, faith, and metaphysics--issues that
countries have gone to war over.  With a light touch he manages to
make another charming film that is inoffensive as it covers the
diversity of people's attitudes about some of the touchiest
questions we face.  It is obvious that Nygard knew at the beginning
that if he really were looking for the answers to his questions, he
would fail.  Besides it is more fun to search for truth than to
find it.  His true intention was to show a broad assortment of
belief.  Indeed he finds people in the same religion giving
contradictory answers to his questions.  The director never
intrudes himself on his subjects.  He is content to just train his
camera on people with ideas and opinions and let them represent
themselves as best they can.

Among the people giving opinions are Orson Scott Card, Richard
Dawkins, Ann Druyan, Irvin Kershner, Larry Niven, Michael Shermer,
and Leonard Susskind.  That list includes science fiction writers,
a biologist, a physicist, a filmmaker, and the publisher of
"Skeptic" Magazine.  Also, we return periodically to
"confrontational" evangelist Brother Jed Smock who seems to choose
college campuses, arrive uninvited, and preaches an often X-rated
or sexist message to passersby.  Then there is wrestler Rob Adonis
(founder of Ultimate Christian Wrestling) who tells the gospel
interpreted with professional wrestling.  Who has the best and
clearest answers?  My pick would be Chloe Revery, a 7th grader who
seems to have things pretty well figured out.

The first half very much sticks to religious thought from the
United States, but eventually Nygard travels internationally in
search of unusual world-views.  From the Druids who celebrate at
Stonehenge to the Orthodox Jews in Israel, to the pilgrims to the
Kumbh Mela in India, which attracts 17,000,000 people, Nygard
searches for answers.  Much of this is similar to the material of
Bill Maher's RELIGULOUS, directed by Larry Charles.  But while
Maher comes off a little smug as if he has the answers, Nygard
takes no stand and shows no bias.

Chloe Revery says it all: "I think truth is what we are all
searching for, isn't it?  Even though sometimes it is more fun to
search than to actually find it."  That is really what this film is
all about.  It is the fun search for a truth we know we will never
find.  But we want to go along for the ride.  This is a nice small
documentary that is a pleasure.  I rate it a low +3 on the -4 to +4
scale or 8/10.

(THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE will open at the Quad Cinemas in New York
Friday, June 18, in Los Angeles July 2, and other major cities in
July.)

Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196672/

What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nature_of_existence/

The 85 Questions -- How would *you* answer?

EXISTENCE
Why do we exist?
What is the best thing about existing?
What is our purpose?
Is the world a better place for having had humans in it?
How can we improve humanity?
What is the best advice or philosophy for living?

RELIGION
What is religion?
Why are there multiple religions?
Should religions be challenged?
Is skepticism a good thing?
Why do people get angry when their beliefs are challenged?
Which one is right? Can all religions be correct?
What does fear have to do with belief?
Do we have a need to believe in something?
What is spirituality?

SCIENCE
Can religion and science coexist?
What's the difference between religion and science?
Can a religion change with society?
Was man created or did he evolve?

GOD
Is there a God?
What is the definition of God?
What gives you certainty in your belief?
How do you deal with doubt?
Who created God?
Is God male or female?
What does God need from us?
Who is/are the Messiah(s)?
Who is the Devil?

FAITH
What is faith?
What is a fact?
How can we tell which is which?

TRUTH
What is truth?
How do we determine truth?
Which truth is right?

SCRIPTURE
Is the holy-book(s) literally true?
What is the origin of the holy book(s)?
How do we accept a holy book that positively portrays unacceptable
     behaviors like slavery, incest, murder, etc.?
Can we take what we like about a religion/belief system and make
     our own version and throw out the rest?

MORALITY
What is morality?
Is there a moral yardstick that applies to all cultures?
Where does morality, or our "conscience," comes from?
Is altruism or morality possible without belief in a deity?

SIN
What is sin?
What is the punishment for sin?
Is thought the same as deed?
Does God want to test us? Why?

SEX
Should a person have sex before marriage?
Is masturbation a sin?
What determines sexual orientation?
Why is God interested in our sexual behavior?
Should women be treated differently than men?

FREE WILL
Do we have free will?
Is everything predetermined?
What entity predetermines fate or destiny?

SUFFERING
Why is there suffering?
What is best path to happiness?
Does God intercede in human tragedies?

PRAYER
Does prayer work?
If so, why does God allow holocausts, and disasters?
If not, why pray?
Does meditation work?
How does meditation work?

SOUL
What is a soul?
Do animals have souls?
Does a soul have the same thoughts and feelings when outside the
     body?
Does a soul does carry on our memories, and if not, what is a soul
     since it is our memories that make us up?
What purpose does a brain serve if a soul can exist and feel
     without it?

AFTERLIFE
Is there an Afterlife?
Where is it, where do we go after death?
Why do we need an afterlife?

LIFE
When does life begin?
When should abortion be allowed?
Is it ever appropriate to kill another person?

SUPERNATURAL
What are supernatural beliefs?
Are there extraterrestrials? Who are they?
Do psychics work, and if you are religious, are they allowed?
Where do the voices in our heads come from?

DOOMSDAY
Will there be a doomsday?
What is the greatest danger facing man's existence?
How do we stop conflict?
Should different cultures be preserved, or are our cultural
     differences the source of strife?
Should political leaders invoke a deity in decisions or policy?

[-mrl]

==================================================================


TOPIC: Short Reviews (film reviews by Mark R. Leeper)

This was actually written for another group, but it may be of
interest to our readers.  These are short comments on films I saw
last weekend.

THE STRANGLERS OF BOMBAY

Hammer Films's take on the cult of the Thuggee, worshippers of Kali
who strangled travelers as a sign of their devotion.  The cult was
very real and probably murdered more than a million Indians.  The
film borrows heavily from John Masters's novel THE DECEIVERS.
(Filmed again as THE DECEIVERS (1988) with Pierce Brosnan)  George
Pastell plays the leader of the cult.  I will say more about
Pastell below.

The Thugs (pronounced Togs, though they gave us the word thug) were
religious killers who would join a traveling caravan supposedly for
safety.  At a given signal they would pull out sacred cloths with
coins knotted at on end.  They would use them to silently strangle
everyone in the caravan.  The Goddess Kali allowed them to rob
their victims, then the bodies would all be buried so the caravan
disappeared without a trace.  See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee.


OSS 117: CAIRO--NEST OF SPIES

Something of a find on Netflix Instant Play is this spy-film
satire.  OSS 117 is a character from a series of French novels, the
oldest of which predate James Bond by four years.  Hubert Bonisseur
de La Bath, (alias OSS 117) is clearly made up to look like Sean
Connery in the earliest of the Bond films, though this film is
supposedly set in 1955.  Shot from the right angle he really does
resemble Sean Connery.  He is what Bond would have been with a room
temperature IQ.  His behavior is a lot like Bond leavened with
Maxwell Smart.  But some of his mistakes are funnier than Maxwell
Smart.  The film is visually very crisp on good stock so it looks
like the Bond film.  This is the seventh film about OSS 117 and an
eighth has just been released here.  See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSS_117.


CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB

Hammer's very decent follow-up to their THE MUMMY, not a sequel but
a brand new story and probably a better one than the Cushing-Lee
MUMMY.  This may well be the best mummy film since the original
with Boris Karloff.  George Pastell's deep sonorous voice again
graces the film.  Also American comic actor Fred Clark has a nice
role as a crass Yankee entrepreneur. Again the film features a
performance by George Pastell, here playing Hashmi Bey.  Pastell
was a familiar face in 60s British films.  He was the evil priest
in Hammer's THE MUMMY.  His deep, melodious, accented voice is
immediately recognizable.  He was also in films like MANIAC and
KONGA.  He was the train conductor in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
[-mrl]

==================================================================


TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

"Origins of Ancient Civilizations" by Professor Kenneth Harl is
another course from The Teaching Company.  Having just finished
"Human Prehistory and the First Civilizations", this seemed like a
good next choice.  And Harl has turned out to be a bit more
engaging than Prof. Brian M. Fagan, and certainly a faster talker.
One gets the impression that one is getting considerably more than
thirty minutes' worth in a half hour.

Of course, as usual, I can find things with which to disagree.  In
the second lecture, Fagan is discussing literacy and tries to
define what constitutes a fully-formed written language (as opposed
to, say, a minimal set of pictograms or a bunch of knotted
strings).  But he falls into a circular reasoning trap when he says
that a fully-formed written language is one that can convey
everything that the spoken language does.  He doesn't seem to
recognize that even our written language does not meet this
requirement: it does not convey emotion, or tone, or various other
content.  And I am not sure that other current languages would meet
this.  Alphabetic languages probably would, but would a
pictographic language such as Chinese?  (For that matter, I'm not
sure that Hebrew without the vowels would even meet the
requirement.)

Harl also talks about agglutinative versus inflected languages (in
the context of ancient Sumerian), which will sound familiar to
people who have read Neal Stephenson's SNOWCRASH.  [-ecl]

==================================================================

                                           Mark Leeper
 mleeper@optonline.net


            I don't answer the phone.  I get the feeling
            whenever I do that there will be someone
            on the other end.
                                           -- Fred Couples