THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/26/10 -- Vol. 29, No. 22, Whole Number 1625
Frick: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Frack: 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:
Various Magazines Look at Science Fiction
Genetic Politics (and How I Abstained) (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
SF TV to Consider (television reviews by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Canned Laughter (letters of comment by David Leeper,
Steve Miller, Andre Kuzniarek, Lowell Gilbert,
Kip Williams, and Paul Dormer)
CRYOBURN (letter of comment by Jerry Ryan)
Complications of Technology (letter of comment
by Andre Kuzniarek)
This Week's Reading (EVER SINCE DARWIN) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Various Magazines Look at Science Fiction
LIFE Magazine on science fiction (05/21/51):
http://tinyurl.com/life-mag-SF
POPULAR MECHANICS looks at 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in 2001:
http://tinyurl.com/popmech-2001
==================================================================
TOPIC: Genetic Politics (and How I Abstained) (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Since the human genome has been mapped researchers have been in the
process of uncovering the function of the many and various gene
sequences of the genome. And it is quite possible that there are
some surprises that are out there waiting for us. A new one was
recently discovered.
It used to be a slogan of feminism--actually going back to Freud--
that "anatomy is destiny." Recent discoveries seem to confirm that
statement at a deeper level than before. It might actually be true
that even some ideologies have a genetic basis.
Clearly to some extent anatomy has to be destiny. From the moment
I was born it was clear that I would never give birth to a baby. I
could have fathered one, but not mothered one. It was also in the
cards that a human woman would never give birth to a lion cub. She
would not have the anatomy for that.
That is anatomy-controlling destiny in a very unsubtle and actually
trivial way. But it struck me a while back that anatomy, or
perhaps genetic makeup, which is one aspect of anatomy, even
affects what ideas come to my mind. Some of my attitudes may be
hardwired into my mind. I don't mean it on the level that I don't
want to be a basketball player because I am not tall and thin. I
am saying that just some ideas may occur to me because my DNA
programs me to have those ideas.
I guess I first thought about this phenomenon when I was in Alaska
and saw some husky puppies. (Long time readers of the VOID may
remember me talking about this before.) Husky puppies I am told
get funny ideas into their heads all on their own. They decide it
is a fun game to pull heavy objects around. These ideas may be
very convenient for them to have since that may be what humans want
them to do, but the idea seems to come to them first that pulling
is fun. Huskies get that idea, but retriever puppies, regardless
how they are raised, don't get the same idea. They do get the idea
that it is fun to play a sort of game. The game is that their
master throws an object and they run out and pick it up and bring
it back. In other words retrievers like to retrieve just like
huskies like to pull. Then there are terriers. They like to dig.
Well, that was just exactly what humans wanted them to do. They
bred them to do it, but the dogs seem to get the idea without being
told. These ideas seem to be encoded in the makeup of the dogs and
most likely in the DNA. And there is new evidence that this sort
of influence goes deeper than we thought. DNA may affect our own
political attitudes. Your genes may be telling you how to vote.
Researchers at University of California and at Harvard have found
that among people who had many friends as teenagers the presence of
the gene DRD4 is correlated to political liberalism. If you do not
have DRD4 in your genetic makeup there is no such correlation. The
gene seems to be turning people into political liberals, or its
lack may be making them conservatives. "DRD4 codes for the
production of molecular structures in the brain that facilitate
transmission of the chemical dopamine among brain cells. Dopamine
is a neurotransmitter, or a brain signaling chemical."
See http://www.world-science.net/othernews/101028_liberal.htm
Now what makes this particularly interesting to me is that we seem
to have caught nature in the act of trying to decide what political
policy is best for survival of genes. How does this work?
The main goal of a gene is to create another identical gene. The
genes that propagate must stay in the gene pool. Much of human
behavior can explained in choosing the proper policy for extending
our genes. Men who like to chase women are unconsciously
increasing the probability that their genes will reproduce and be
passed on. Women who resist these men are making sure that their
genes will mix with a better set of genes having more survival
potential. This is the theory that Richard Dawkins presented in
THE SELFISH GENE and it explains a lot.
Now comes a question. (Please excuse the oversimplification of two
ideologies.) Which gene has better survival potential?
-- A gene from someone who looks out for the weaker in society so
that much of the gene pool is propagated including those organisms
that already have copies of itself, i.e. a liberal gene
-- A gene from someone who looks out mostly for her/himself, i.e. a
conservative gene?
Nature does not have an answer to that ... yet. Even if this
principle is true apparently it still is an open issue. Some gene
combinations cause a liberal tendency, some a more conservative
tendency. If conservatism really is the better policy then those
with a more conservative philosophy will pass more of those genes
on to the later generations, which will then also be more
conservative. If liberalism is the better policy those genes will
survive and our descendents will be more liberal. Or perhaps the
mix that we currently have will remain with us.
I think I know which way I would vote, but having no children I
have de facto abstained. I guess it is sort of a one-child, one-
vote sort of poll. I am disenfranchised. But it is possible that
politics is being fought even out on a genetic level. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: SF TV to Consider (television reviews by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
SF on TV has entered a sort of golden age. For the first time,
virtually any sort of story can be produced for a reasonable sum,
and a variety of cable channels produce their own shows aimed at
what are by traditional standards, very small audiences. The
result is that SF gets produced that would never have seen the
light of photons even ten years ago. CW and the SyFy Channel seem
to be the leaders, but Fox is right in there. In addition, a number
of TV shows make use of SF tropes although technically they are not
SF.
I use SF to mean "Speculative Fiction" and so include both
traditional hard science fiction as well as intelligently plotted
fantasy in my review. I am skipping over a substantial amount of
cheesy monster of the week programming and sword & sorcery claptrap
that clogs the airwaves, although at its best it can be diverting.
I mean, who doesn't find themselves drawn to "Sharktopus" and its
ilk!! I'll stick to the shows I manage to find the time to keep up
with, but this is not exhaustive. In particular, I don't get HBO,
but I have given to understand from reliable sources that TRUE
BLOOD is quite good.
I will also us this opportunity to rail against DR. WHO, which
seems to have the bulk of con-going fandom in some sort of hypnotic
trance. I have never found a "Dr." that I liked, and I am
continually astounded that it keeps winning the Hugo over and over
again, pounding really path breaking shows like DOLL HOUSE into the
dust. Of course, these are the same SF fans who, at one recent
Worldcon panel I attended, nominated DEEP SPACE 9 as the best Trek
ever. If you are one of those who worship at the house of Who and
DS9 you should stop reading right here--we are from different
planets, nay, different dimensions, not just of sight and sound,
but of philosophy and morals. Don't say I didn't warn you!
Tuesday night brings us STAR GATE: UNIVERSE, the 3rd Star Gate
series from the SyFy network. Nothing beats the original in my
view, but I loved SG: ATLANTIS, and together found the first two
Star Gate series the true heirs of the Star Trek mantle. UNIVERSE
is not up to the level of either of the earlier series, as it spins
a far darker tale of a rag-rag group of survivors trapped in an
ancient starship on an unknown mission far from known space. I'm
not going to waste too much time pumping this series, which is
really somewhat marginal, but it does keep me watching it. Be
warned that the earlier SGs were much more kid friendly, while
UNIVERSE is a darker, more sexual tale with a lot more
interpersonal angst and violence.
SG: UNIVERSE is followed on Tuesday by another SyFy original
series, CAPRICA. I just started watching CAPRICA recently, and was
surprised to find it quite interesting. It seems well on the way to
answering the question of the Cylons' motivations in a plausible
fashion, and overall I find it much superior to the remade
BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA. I won't give away the big secret, but
CAPRICA is surprisingly relevant to our real future, while having a
crackling good plot, enough action to keep things moving, and some
strong acting. Although a darker tale for adults or older teens, I
think you might want to check this out. Hint--CAPRICA is the first
filmed Singularity story.
Tuesday also brings NO ORDINARY FAMILY from ABC, which might be
best described as a live-action version of THE INCREDIBLES with a
completely different plot. An ordinary family via a mysterious
accident suddenly gains remarkable superpowers. The father is
invulnerable and super-strong, the mother can run like the Flash,
the sister becomes a telepath, and the son is gifted with hyper-
intelligence. As you might expect, there is a bit more going on in
the background than the family realizes. This is a family TV show
that focuses mainly on the relationships between the family
members, and seems to get in some good laughs. The problems
encountered by the son are well handled. I do not think NO
ORDINARY FAMILY is going to draw a hard-core SF audience, but it
would be a good show to watch with your kids.
Wednesday sports HUMAN TARGET from Fox, a marginally SF story based
on a comic book that follows the adventures of Christopher Chance,
the world's best body guard. HUMAN TARGET steals a bit from the
old pulp hero the Phantom, who claimed to be immortal but really
was a long series of different people wearing the same costume. The
big secret is that Chance is not really Chance, but a reformed
assassin who has taken on the name Chance from its pervious owner.
This is a decently produced pulp style escapist adventure series
that the kids may like [or not]. It appears to have been renewed
for a new season, which I found a bit surprising, but it is at
least somewhat entertaining, and who knows, it may get better.
Thursday is the big night for SF TV. Things start with the CW's
THE VAMPIRE DIARIES, a tale of a normal girl, Elena Gilbert, torn
between two vampires, the noble Stefan and the apparently demonic
Damon. Based on a series of books of the same name [of which I
have read some] this is a series that exceeds the source material.
Although the actors and actresses are stunningly beautiful and
handsome, they take the material seriously and you fall easily into
their world. The conflict between the two brothers is deep and
complex, and as you learn more about each brother you start to see
that everything is not quite what it seems, and the choice between
them is not an easy one for Elena.
The cast is strong, and the plot entertainingly complex. There are
more twists and turns than on a roller coaster. On some level, I
think I like this because it works best as a kind of superhero team
story, where our heroes (Stepfan and Damon, the vampire brothers,
Alaric, a vampire hunter, Bonnie, a witch, and Caroline, another
vampire) are arrayed against a series of hostile forces, each more
powerful than the last, reminding one a bit of E. E. Smith's
Lensmen series. Elena must struggle to survive as the only normal
human in a world, that, as the veil is drawn back, becomes ever
more dangerous. And a way out is always there--tempting her--she
can become a vampire herself. Although targeted for a teen
audience, you might like this one. Warning--this show is for older
teens and adults--it is too violent for younger kids, and the
"heroes" are morally ambiguous.
Also on Thursday night is FRINGE from Fox. I really can't do
justice to this wonderful show. If you are not watching it, you are
missing the best SF on TV today. John Nobel plays Walter Bishop,
once the go-to guy for weird military science who has spent a
decade in an asylum. Extracted by his son and Olivia Dunham, an
FBI agent, to solve a difficult case, he becomes the core of the
fringe division, which gets all the weird cases. But this is no X-
FILES redux! Walter Bishop recalls famous SF heroes like Professor
Challenger, Dr. Quatermass, Tom Swift, and Dr. Benton Quest, but
altered a bit by the ingestion of too many drugs during the 60s.
The cast is strong, and Nobel is consistently wonderful-- an
amazing actor.
The plot line is too complex for easy description--you must stick
with this for at least 6 episodes to give it a fair chance. But you
will be well rewarded with one of the most complex and imaginative
string of ideas to grace any filmed SF. There are some similarities
between ALIAS and FRINGE, but the emphasis is different, more on
science than James Bond. Created by J. J. Abrams, the show does
delve into questions of personal identity and destiny, much as
ALIAS did, but it is about so much more! My only fear at this
point is that Abrams will let down the audience that way he did
with LOST [but not with ALIAS]. Be warned that although this is a
great show, there are *strong* horror elements, and it is *really*
for older teens and adults. P.S.--the cliffhanger at the end of the
first season is fantastic. P.S.S.--Leonard Nimoy guest stars as
Walter Bishop's old co-worker and the founder of Massive Dynamics.
Rounding out Thursday night is THE MENTALIST. This is my main
example of a non-genre show that *feels* like a genre show when you
watch it. Simon Baker plays Patrick Jane, a carny mentalist whose
wife and child have been killed by a mysterious psychopath called
Red John. Jane joins the CBI [California Bureau of Investigation]
as a consultant while continuing to search for his wife and child's
killer. So far, this is a simple police procedural, but Jane's
mentalist abilities are so far advanced [and yet plausibly
explained] that he resembles a Campbellian superman ripped from an
old Analog story.
In fact, viewed from one perspective, THE MENTALIST chronicles the
conflict between two supermen--Patrick Jane and Red John, and
possibly a third character with similar abilities. Ordinary humans
are mere pawns for Jane and Red John, and the fate of those caught
in the cross fire can be disturbing yet believable. To some
extent, the overall arc reminds me of Ted Chiang's story
"Understand" concerning two supermen whose conflict is ultimately
on the mental plane.
It is also a crackling good police procedural, with an entertaining
supporting cast. Simon Baker has created a wonderful and memorable
modern-day Sherlock Holmes. Although the conflict with Red John
appears now and then, most episodes are standard murder mysteries
that are resolved in one hour, most often via Jane's mentalist
trickery, but sometimes by the supporting cast. THE MENTALIST is
quite entertaining, but has a "scare" level somewhat between LAW
AND ORDER and CSI, which means again that this is not a show for
younger kids. My 16-year-old son loves the show, and you probably
will too!
We finish the week on Friday, starting with SMALLVILLE on the CW.
Now in its 10th and final season, I find this show a guilty
pleasure. Paul Chisholm has long urged me to watch this one, and I
finally started a while back. It follows the formula of most CW
shows -hot young men and women with some sort of superficial plot
line. They have chosen to retell the origin of Superman in a sort
of revisionist history. Over time the scope has expanded to
included larger and large parts of the DC universe, so that Green
Arrow is now a series regular, along with Aquaman, Hawkman, Dr.
Fate, the Flash, General Zod, etc. etc. etc. the Legion of
Superheroes, etc. etc.
The inclusion of all the lesser-known DC heroes is what sets
SMALLVILLE apart from the various Superman movies, all of which
seem to occur in some other universe where the only superhero is
Superman. The show takes the heroes and their problems seriously,
and that is what makes it interesting. There is no attempt to match
real DC universe continuity, but the overall effect is satisfying
and respectful. SMALLVILLE is more kid friendly than, say,
SUPERNATURAL, but due to a good bit of sex and pulp-style bondage
I'd again direct this show to older teens and adults.
SUPERNATURAL now follows SMALLVILLE on the CW on Friday nights.
SUPERNATURAL details the adventures of Sam and Dean Winchester, two
brothers who are "hunters"--people who had dedicated their lives to
hunting and removing supernatural threats. The main attraction of
this show lies in the chemistry between Dean and Sam, which goes
well beyond the usual cop buddy clichés. I also find the reworking
of traditional monsters interesting, and finally, there is a long
and complex story arc involving Sam and Dean. The show has a blue-
collar, backwoods Americana feel, mainly because Dean refuses to
fly on airplanes, and it is hard to carry their arsenal through a
metal detector.
I don't want to give too much away here, but again, rather like E.
E. Smith's Lensman series, each season the ante is raised, and the
stakes get higher. SUPERNATURAL does not mainly focus on vampires,
and not every menace turns out to be supernatural. The canvas
gradually gets bigger and bigger, until it is truly cosmic. This is
a great show for folks who like this sort of thing, but be warned--
I'd say SUPERNATURAL is "R-rated" in every way except language.
It's really not for kids, and if you don't have a considerable
toleration for violence stick to something else.
I'll conclude my roundup with SyFy's SANCTUARY, also on Friday
night. This show stars Amanda Tapping, formerly of Star Gate, as
Dr. Helen Magnus, the leader of a secret group dedicated to
protecting "abnormals" from exploitation and the world from rouge
abnormals. One intriguing conceit of SANCTUARY is that it is a re-
imagination of the LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN. The general
idea is that in the late 19th century a group of adventurers went
way off the deep end. They included a man who became known as Jack
the Ripper, never caught due to his power of teleportation, Nikola
Tesla, who became a vampire, and Helen Magnus, who became immortal,
or nearly so.
The entire show is filmed on green screen, which sometimes results
in a cheesy look and sometimes is just fine. SANCTUARY is hobbled
by having Amanda, who is blond and American, wear a black wig and
affect a British accent. This is so weak they have taken to making
jokes about her accent in the script. This is *not* a great show,
and I would not put it at the top of any lists, but it is a serious
SF show with a lot of pulp style adventure and a few interesting
ideas. In spite of the late running hour--10PM--it is more kid
friendly than most of the other shows discussed above. Sanctuary
is in its second season, so it must have found some audience.
A show that is not running now, but that is planned for another
season is TORCHWOOD, which [unlike Dr. Who] is worth checking out.
Unfortunately, I understand it will only appear on a pay cable
channel, so I'm not sure when I'll be watching the new season.
Let's conclude with a summary set of lists:
Most Kid Friendly:
#1 - NO ORDINARY FAMILY
#2 - SANCTUARY
Most recommended TV SF:
#1 - FRINGE
#2 - THE MENTALIST
#3 - CAPRICA
Guilty Pleasures:
#1 - VAMPIRE DIARIES
#2 - SUPERNATURAL
#3 - SMALLVILLE
Happy watching, pilgrims! [-dls]
==================================================================
TOPIC: BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL is a crime thriller with a heavy
parallel religious theme. Mike Taylor all but died when he lost
his wife and now drinks to forget. He falls drunk in an alley
where he witnesses a murder. He feels compelled to solve the crime
even as the story he is uncovering becomes more and more complex.
The film is full of little religious references--it takes place in
a town called Cainsville--that eventually become a little too cute
and cloying. While the filmmakers' intent was probably to make a
film full of inspiration, they did much better with the murder
story. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
There are really two films in BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL. One of the
stories is a complicated crime thriller and the other is about
someone who, other than being the point-of-view character in the
thriller, is really not an important character. The film is about
his mixing into the crime story, but at the same time he is going
through a crisis of religious faith. I am not saying the crime
story is great or even above average, but it is intriguing. On the
other hand, I have to admit that spiritual stories do not have much
appeal for me. I found that half of the film cloying and much less
of interest. For the most part it robs time from but does not get
in the way of the thriller. But in one scene a character appears
who it is suggested is an angel and who seems to disappear in a way
that implies he could be nothing else. This scene verging on
fantasy only undermines the non-spiritual side of the film and
sabotages any realistic tone.
Mike Taylor had an ideal life as a doctor with a beautiful wife and
son. When his wife died suddenly he found refuge in drinking and
only sank lower and lower. Finally one night he finds himself in
Cainsville, Texas asleep drunk in an alley when he sees a woman
being killed by someone he does not see. When he wakes up he
becomes obsessed with finding the murderer and solving a crime that
the police are skeptical even happened. Soon he is involved with
police corruption, with strippers, prostitutes, and a hired killer.
All the while he is trying to repair his life and his relationship
with his son and to come to an understanding with God. The film is
intent on following Taylor's spiritual journey at expense of
developing the other characters.
BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL is a first film for both the writer and the
director. Jason Ward is the director as well as the
cinematographer, co-producer, and the composer. Marvin Faulkner
wrote the film, plays the lead, and is also a co-producer. The
IMDB lists no other films to either's credit. Given that this is
the first film either has made, the results beat the expectation.
The plot of the crime story is satisfying. Faulkner's script gets
that complexity by periodically and frequently throwing in new
characters to complicate matters. Occasionally the sound recording
is a little off, but generally it is a competent first film.
There is a reasonably decent crime story clicking at the center of
this film, but the writer's insistence on delivering a less than
subtle spiritual message gums up the works. At times it even
pushes the story over into fantasy. The filmmakers needed decide
what kind of film they are making so that it is less of a bait and
switch. I rate BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL a low +1 on the -4 to +4
scale or 5/10. BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL was released on DVD on
November 16, 2010. There is little in the packaging to suggest
that this film has an inspirational agenda.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1336620/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Canned Laughter (letters of comment by David Leeper, Steve
Miller, Andre Kuzniarek, Lowell Gilbert, Kip Williams, and Paul
Dormer)
In response to Mark's article on canned laughter in the 11/19/10
issue of the MT VOID, David Leeper writes:
It's really annoying ... when channel flipping, I come across
situation comedies where stuff that is not the least bit funny gets
a roar of canned laughter from the (canned) audience.
The only thing I find more annoying than canned laughter is canned
applause ... one of our local radio commentators tries to be clever
and wry in his comments, some of which don't even make sense. But
he is always rewarded by a burst of self-approving canned applause.
He only has one applause track, so it is exactly the same every
time. Really tacky. (I wonder if he pushes the button or some
sycophantic sound engineer does.)
As I recall, to its credit, "All in the Family" episodes were
actually performed before a live audience, and they would say so at
the beginning or end(?) of each episode. I never minded that
(presumably) genuine laughtrack there since the show was genuinely
funny. [-dgl]
Mark replies, "Yes, "All in the Family" did use live, organic
laughter. And you could tell the difference. That is part of what
made it a classic comedy series. I am not too much troubled by
canned laughter these days since I never have on any station that
uses it. But then I have on only TCM, PBS, and very occasionally
The Discovery Channel. I don't remember ever being aware of canned
applause, but it must be an easier effect than canned laughter.
There are many different breeds of laugh and many fewer of
applause." [-mrl]
Steve Miller writes, "A CD of continuous laughter is available for
purchase. For many years I have attended a TV production class.
As appropriate, we manually dial laughter in/out of the recorded
soundtrack. The laughter volume and laughter duration are the
variables controlled by the dial-twister. So what you hear is the
dial-twister's sense of humor!" [-sm]
Mark responds, "I would think that this would not work really well.
There are more variable than just volume and duration. A chuckle
sounds very different from a belly laugh. With all the laughter
sounding the same, I would think that it would become obvious
before long that this is all the same sort of laughter. There is
probably more of a science here than people realize." [-mrl]
Andre Kuzniarek writes about the McGurk Effect of optical and audio
illusions, "This unconscious manipulation reminds me of this cool
phenomenon: http://tinyurl.com/29moxse." [-az]
Mark replies:
This is true. What you see affects what you hear. I sometimes get
an effect of looking at a flashing light and hearing a faint sound
with it that is not really there. Evelyn claims not have this
effect. But then she and I often sense things differently. For
example, in a dark room I close my eyes and stare at the insides of
my eyelids. I see patterns of light and dark moving around.
Evelyn claims that under the same circumstances she just sees
black.
See http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/2003/VOID0523.htm#science.
I don't know if we are really different or just interpret what we
see differently. [-mrl]
Lowell Gilbert writes, "I'm not convinced they've failed to
recognize anything. It's not something that's hard to test, and
I'm sure they measure it within an inch of its life [and *way*
beyond the attention span of any one audience member]." [-lg]
Kip Williams responds:
I'm not looking this up, so I'll stay vague on particulars, much
like the way the information resides in my head. There were (and
are) several "laughing records" in the 20th century, including the
Okeh Laughing Record and the [Spike] Jones Laughing Record. The
Okeh may have actually originated in Europe. There's no speech in
it to pin down a language, just someone playing a solo on a brass
instrument (it may be a trombone both times--the Jones version
definitely is) interrupted by laughter which may or may not be
prompted by mistakes.
It was determined that listeners just couldn't help laughing along.
I have to wonder if this was part of the inspiration for canned
laughter. Now that we have canned laughter, the laughing records
don't work on me. [-kw]
And, finally, Paul Dormer of the UK notes, "Famously, when the BBC
bought 'M.A.S.H.' for showing in the UK, they exercised a clause in
their contract that they got versions of the show without a
laughter track." [-pd]
==================================================================
TOPIC: CRYOBURN (letter of comment by Jerry Ryan)
In response to Joe Karpierz's review of CRYOBURN in the 11/19/10
issue of the MT VOID, Jerry Ryan writes:
I mostly agree with his assessment. I think of the Miles books as
a bit of a guilty pleasure, and I enjoy them quite a bit. The more
recent ones have not been as good as the older ones, to be sure.
I'd say that MEMORY or maybe even MIRROR DANCE have not yet been
matched.
The ending of the book, though, was *not* a surprise. I will not
say anything specific about it to avoid spoilers for your readers,
but Bujold has been saying that the next challenge in Miles' life
would be ... exactly what happened at the end of the book.
I did think it happened rather quickly, though. And the only thing
I liked in the afterward was what Gregor said and did. [-gwr]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Complications of Technology (letter of comment by Andre
Kuzniarek)
In response to Evelyn's comments on the complications of technology
in the 11/19/10 issue of the MT VOID, Andre Kuzniarek writes, "And
Evelyn is on the mark about the complications of TV watching these
days. My set up at home is overly complex because of making use of
older equipment along with the newer--surround amp, laser disc
player, DTS decoder, PS3, VHS deck, cable box, widescreen plasma
with 6 different inputs (half unused), scores of wiring, some of it
digital optical, some of it HDMI, some of it RCA cables, and some
of it speaker wire. And 6 remotes! I always leave the TV set up
so that my wife can at minimum turn it on and see the weather scan
channel. After that, all bets are off for her. I also hate being
in bars or other public places with video screens where they can't
be bothered to adjust the setting properly for non-widescreen
content. Granted, some TVs, like Samsung, don't always give you
the setting for progressively stretching on the edges, but most do,
yet I never see it being used." [-ak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I'm going to try something different with EVER SINCE DARWIN by
Stephen Jay Gould (ISBN 978-0-393-30818-1). I'm going to try to
summarize each essay in a single sentence. If nothing else, it
should prove useful when I try to find which particular essay
covered a given topic.
- "Darwin's Delay": He was disturbed by the philosophical
implications of materialism.
- "Darwin's Sea Change, or Five Years at the Captain's Table":
Darwin was not the official naturalist on the Beagle, and disagreed
with Captain Fitzroy on basic principles.
- "Darwin's Dilemma: The Odyssey of Evolution": Evolution was
originally called "descent with modification".
- "Darwin's Untimely Burial": Bethell is wrong when he says
Darwin's theory is dead.
- "A Matter of Degree": Are the differences between man and
chimpanzees quantitative or qualitative?
- "Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution": The human evolutionary
tree has a lot of branches, rather than just a straight-line
progression.
- "The Child as Man's Real Father": Retarded embryonic development
is what lets human surpass other species (because it makes man more
focused on learning).
- "Human Babies as Embryos": Retarded embryonic development is what
lets human surpass other species (because it allows the development
of a larger brain).
- "The Misnamed, Mistreated, and Misunderstood Irish Elk": Its
antlers were for display, not combat, and developed before
forestation set in.
- "Organic Wisdom, or Why Should a Fly Eat Its Mother from Inside":
- "Of Bamboos, Cicadas, and the Economy of Adam Smith": Cicadas
emerge every (prime number) of years to have the least overlap with
predator emergences.
- "The Problem of Perfection, or How Can a Clam Mount a Fish on Its
Rear": Preadaptation ("functional change in structural continuity")
can explain how complex structures such as the eye can evolve.
- "The Pentagon of Life": There are not two phyla, but five
(Monera, Protista, Plantae, Fungi, and Animalia).
- "An Unsung Single-Celled Hero": The cropping principle (and a
protist cropper) explain the Cambrian Explosion.
- "Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?": Statistics explain
the Cambrian Explosion.
- "The Great Dying": The Permian Extinction was the result of plate
tectonics and the formation of Pangaea.
- "The Reverend Thomas' Dirty Little Planet": The Rev. Thomas
Burnet tried to reconcile the Bible with science in the 17th
century.
- "Uniformity and Catastrophe": Both "directionalism" (things
change) and "dynamic constancy" (things stay the same) have their
place.
- "Velikovsky in Collision": How is a layman unfamiliar with the
science or history being discussed to judge claims by people like
Velikovsky?
- "The Validation of Continental Drift": The late Paleozoic
glaciation and the distribution of Cambrian trilobites helped prove
continental drift.
- "Size and Shape": We can't have giant ants and miniature people,
and churches have their shape for a reason.
- "Sizing Up Human Intelligence": Our brains really are larger than
they used to be.
- "History of the Vertebrate Brain": We have no idea why our brains
are larger than other mammals.
- "Planetary Sizes and Surfaces": The size of a planet affects its
livability (in ways besides gravity).
- "On Heroes and Fools in Science": Epigenecists and
preformationists are both right.
- "Posture Maketh the Man": We need an on-going union between
theoretical and practical science.
- "Racism and Recapitulation": Recapitulation (the devleopment of
the individual recapitulates the development of the species) and
neoteny (extended immaturity) have been used (incorrectly) to
support racism.
- "The Criminal as Nature's Mistake, or the Ape in Some of Us":
People want to blame genes for all their faults, but it's not that
simple.- "Why We Should Not Name Human Races--A Biological View":
Multivariate analysis is a better tool for discussing human
variations than a division into races.
- "The Nonscience of Human Nature": There may be no such thing as
"human nature".
- "Racist Arguments and IQ": Summed up by the quote from John
Stuart Mill at the end: "Of all the vulgar modes of escaping from
the consideration of the effect of social and moral influences upon
the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing the
diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural
differences."
- "Biological Potentiality vs. Biological Determinism": We need to
consider both our similarity to other animals and our differences.
- "So Cleverly Kind an Animal": Kin selection may be a better model
than looking strictly at offspring.
In the last essay, Gould makes an observation that is worth noting:
"[E. O.] Wilson's intent is admirable; he attempts to affirm the
intrinsic dignity of a common and much maligned sexual behavior
[homosexuality] by arguing that it is natural for some people--and
adaptive to boot (at least under an ancestral form of social
organization). But the strategy is a dangerous one, for it
backfires if the genetic speculation is wrong. If you defend a
behavior by arguing that people are programmed directly for it,
then how do you continue to defend it if your speculation is wrong,
for the behavior then becomes unnatural and worthy of condemnation.
Better to stick resolutely to a philosophical position on human
liberty: what free adults do with each other in their own private
lives is their business alone. It need not be vindicated--and must
not be condemned--by genetic speculation." (written in the mid-
1970s) [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
I never knew whether to pity or congratulate
a man on coming to his senses.
-- William Makepeace Thackeray