THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/18/11 -- Vol. 29, No. 34, Whole Number 1637
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:
Answer to Last Week's Word Puzzle and a New Puzzle
(by Tom Russell)
Buckle-Up Community, Beware (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Hypotheticals (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Girl Scout Cookies (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
UNCORKED (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (EARTH ABIDES and THINGS WE DIDN'T SEE
COMING) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Answer to Last Week's Word Puzzle and a New Puzzle (by Tom
Russell)
Last week I gave the puzzle:
The five common vowels are A, E, I, O and U. One set of matching
words using all five vowels is BALL, BELL, BILL, BOLL, BULL. (If
you don't raise cotton then boll might not be a familiar word.)
Find another list of five four-letter words with the same property.
The vowel may be in any of the four positions.
The answer is last, lest, list, lost, and lust.
[Mark adds, "Another one is pats, pets, pits, pots, and puts."
[-mrl]
This week's puzzle:
Our old dictionary has the two-letter word "jo" meaning "sweetheart."
(See also http://www.yourdictionary.com/jo.) If you back up one
letter in each place the 'j' becomes an 'I' and the 'o' becomes an
'n' (in the same way HAL relates to IBM), so "jo" becomes "in",
another two-letter word. How many other such "ladder" pairs of
two-letter words can you find? You should be able to find up to
five more such pairs of words.
The answer will appear next week. [-tlr]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Buckle-Up Community, Beware (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
We were driving in Montgomery Township, NJ, and noticed a sign that
showed an unbuckled seatbelt and it said, "This is a Buckle-Up
Community." Most people would just forget about it, but I started
turning this over in my mind. What is a "Buckle-Up Community"?
Clearly it cannot be just a place where the law says that you have
to buckle your seatbelt. That is true all over New Jersey. What
sets this community apart? How does a community of peace-loving
people become a "Buckle-Up Community"? Clearly it is an issue that
they must take pretty seriously. How seriously do they have to
take it that it is necessarily to post warnings for strangers? I
have images of people without seatbelts being thrown in the
hoosgow--mobs of angry villagers outside the barred window yelling
for blood, holding up nooses made of old seatbelts. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Hypotheticals (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Back in 1973 I saw the film THE PAPER CHASE. The film is about the
nightmarish atmosphere of Harvard Law School for first year law
students. The subject of the production is really the incredible
pressure on Harvard law students. Especially heavy is the pressure
from the Contract Law professor, Charles Kingsford (played
somewhere between imposing and terrifying by John Houseman). At
first the main character is so bullied by Kingsfield that he loses
his breakfast on the first day. Later another student is driven to
attempt suicide. One reason the film was so effective for me was
that at the time I was a first year grad student in the Stanford
Mathematics Department. We did not have anyone quite as scary as
Kingsford, but otherwise the pressure was very high. I could
really share in the scariness of the film because I knew what the
law students were going through. (Side comment: Actually the plot
of the film is a whole lot like that of the more recent THE DEVIL
WEARS PRADA, but it just takes place in another field of endeavor.)
Curiously one thing that contributed greatly to the film was not
the plot but the arguing of legal points that went on in the
classroom. I suspect I would hate law school, but the legal
arguments were actually very interesting. They kept the discussion
non-technical so the audience could follow, and that was a major
attraction. The film was adapted to a TV series with Kingsfield a
bit de-fanged, but the highpoint was again the legal discussion. As
in CSI or NUMB3RS, there is a fascination to see how other people do
their jobs.
Anyway, after seeing the film I have always been interested to see
a little bit of what law students studied. Then a decade or so
later at a used bookstore I saw a yellow box in a series called Law
in a Flash. These are flashcards with definitions, facts, and
hypotheticals for law students. There was one box for Torts--
Linzer for me, please--and Criminal Law. One of them came with a
booklet of instructions on how best to cram--make that study--for
exams. It has hints like "in between your last study session and
your exam, don't take part in activities that will interfere with
your memory like reading a newspaper or studying another subject
(if you can avoid it). The less mental activity there is between
your last study session and your exam, the more likely you are to
remember everything you need to know. Naturally the activity
providing the least mental interference is sleep. Barring that try
to make sure your interim activities are as different from studying
as they can be--perhaps sports or TV." Can you read between the
lines and feel the desperation and panic setting in? I can.
So here I have a whole box of hypotheticals. On the cover of the
box is "Jack attempts the rape of Jill. Jill screams and Jack
panics and runs away. In his rush to escape, he accidentally
knocks down an elderly gentleman, causing a blow to his head that
results in death. As to the elderly gentleman: Felony murder?" In
case you are dying to know, the answer is yes. Accidental deaths
that occur as the result of committing a crime are considered as
homicide under the law.
Let's try this one. "Juliet is pregnant. Romeo walks up to her
with a knife and tells her, 'Once you have the baby I am going to
kill you.' Juliet pulls out a gun and shoots him. Can Juliet
defend on self-defense grounds?" In this case the answer is no.
She can do that only if the force is imminent. Somehow getting a
degree in mathematics, we never had fun questions like these.
"Gavrilo Princip hates Archduke Ferdinand and plans to kill him by
throwing a hand grenade into his car when he drives by. Princip
follows through with this plan, which also results in the death of
Sophie, who was in the car with Ferdinand. At common law, what
crime has Princip committed with respect to Sophie?" As you might
guess from the first question the law is anxious to call any deaths
resulting from a crime murder, so indeed Princip has murdered
Sophie.
One last one. "David throws a stone at Goliath, while Goliath is
sleeping, intending to injure him. He misses. Is David guilty of
criminal assault?" Well, the law cannot have people around
intending assault even if they are not competent enough to carry
out the plan. David is guilty of attempted battery, which is
criminal assault.
I would give you more examples, but I am afraid to do so. After
all, the copyright holders are themselves lawyers, and you don't
want a bunch of lawyers angry at you. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Girl Scout Cookies (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I just read an article in "The Arizona Republic" by John Faherty
titled "No More Waiting for Girl Scout Cookies", available at
http://tinyurl.com/void-gs-cookies. It says, it part, "Just six
types of cookies--only the favorites--are available: Thin Mints,
Samoas, Do-Si-Dos, Tagalongs, Trefoils and Lemon Chalet Cremes.
And ordering ahead is no longer the only way to get the goods at
your door. Beginning next Friday, Scouts will also start selling
cookies during what is called a walk-about. They will load up
their wagons and, for the first time, sell them door to door. The
traditional way of getting them remains, with 2.1 million boxes
already ordered."
All I can say is that John Faherty must be very young. When *I*
was selling Girl Scout cookies (in the early 1960s), selling door-
to-door was the *only* way. And there were only four kinds of
cookies: Thin Mints, Savannahs (now also called Do-Si-Dos), a
sandwich cookie (like Oreos, except half were vanilla cookies
rather than chocolate), and Trefoils (a shortbread cookie).
The process then was this: each troop would decide--well, guess,
really--how many of each they could sell, and order that many
boxes. These would get piled up in the troop leader's garage, and
on the official start date, all the Scouts would go there and pick
up some allotment of cookies. They would then put these in big
shopping bags and start going door to door in their area. (I can't
remember if we got assigned streets so that two Scouts on the same
street weren't competing for sales.) As the boxes sold we would go
home and get more, and so on.
Since each Scout had a fixed number of each type of cookie, if
someone's house was towards the end of the route, they might find
that there were none of their favorite cookie left. (Indeed, they
usually heard that all that was left was the shortbread.)
Our bustling metropolis of Rantoul, Illinois, was fairly well
covered by Scouts selling cookies. But the smaller towns nearby--
Paxton, Ludlow, and other, lesser-known places--had no Girl Scout
troops. So our troop leaders would pile us and the cookies into
their station wagons and drive us to these places, when we would
fan out and sell cookies to everyone in sight.
That was the *traditional* way, not the new-fangled system of
having your parents canvas all their co-workers to buy cookies. I
understand all the reasons for the change, not least of which was
that people decided that having ten-year-old girls ringing
strangers' doorbells to sell cookies was not a good idea. Add to
that the more spread-out suburbs--where a given distance down a
street might have ten houses on a side in 1960, now it may have
only three--and the distressing tendency of parents to do
everything for their children, and the new method is not
surprising. But the *best* reasons for the change might be
financial--troops did not end up "on the hook" for cookies they
could not sell and customers could always get the type they wanted.
(Inevitably, the Scouts' parents ended up buying the unsold
cookies. We ended up eating a lot of those wretched shortbread
cookies.) [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: UNCORKED (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A film crew captures a forty-minute monologue by a
gregarious drunk in a park. Phil Hall wrote and directed the
piece, much of which feels like it was invented impromptu in front
of the camera. While doing an impression of a drunk is hardly the
most ambitious foundation for a film, at least it can be said that
the film never bores. Eric Michael Schrader directs. Rating:
Good. (Full disclosure: Phil Hall is an acquaintance of mine
through the On-line Film Critics Society who asked if I would want
to see and review his film.)
Alan Bennett is the master of monologues in Britain and much of his
work has been on British radio, TV, or the stage. His series
"Talking Heads" is a series of one-act, one-actor monolog plays.
On the surface they seem like pointless ramblings of flawed people,
but generally they getting around to carving a character. That
seems to be the sort of thing that Phil Hall was trying to do with
UNCORKED. Hall wrote and performs the monolog. In fact, what Hall
has here would make a better radio play than a film. The visuals'
contribution is only a small one. The camerawork is intentionally
crude, moving in for a close-up and backing away. When a squirrel
comes by the cameraman's attention drifts to the squirrel. This
all creates a feel of a quick, unplanned shoot.
Apparently the idea is that a camera crew has found an alcoholic
(Hall) sitting in a public park drinking from a bottle and the crew
just films what he says for forty minutes. His talk runs from his
health and his wife trying to get him to stop smoking and drinking.
He shares his reminiscences of a dwarf he knew and wonders is there
a way to turn a dwarf into a bigger person. He flits from one
subject to the next like a fly buzzing around a room. The
intention is just to show the drunk's amiable personality as he
talks about his experiences and his odd ideas.
In some places there are problems with the logic of the film.
Either we are watching the encounter through the camera or we are
watching it through the eye of a human observer. The director
takes care to show us a sound boom so that we are supposedly
watching through the camera, but when the observer nods yes or no
the picture bobs up and down or right to left. At the risk of
sounding like Dustin Hoffman's tomato diatribe from TOOTSIE,
cameras don't nod. People nod; cameras do not. Also when a boy
crossing in the background sees the camera he waves at it, and that
was left in the film.
The film's production notes say that the film was made in an hour
in a park in New Haven at the cost of $10. That apparently went
for a prop bottle of cognac. At the end of the film we have been
momentarily entertained, but our understanding the character has
not changed much. We have a better feel for his personality, but
that is about all. I generally rate the short films as: excellent
(E), very good (VG), good (G), fair (F), or and poor (P). I would
rate UNCORKED as Good.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1808627/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
EARTH ABIDES by George R. Stewart (ISBN 978-0-449-21301-8) was
reviewed on a podcast I listened to recently, so I decided to
re-read it. Written in 1949, it is often dated, but still well
worth reading. Some samples:
Though in many ways progressive in terms of race, there is still
some casual prejudice, e.g., "'Bad as a Mexican town,' he thought,
'everyone taking a siesta.'" And even more noticeably, when our
point-of-view protagonist Ish finds out someone is "Negro" (to use
his term), Stewart describes Ish's reaction: "Now everything came
together in his mind--brunette complexion, dark liquid eyes, full
lips, white teeth, rich voice, accepting temperament."
Stewart at times has an optimistic view of humanity, e.g., "On the
whole, however, order had been well-preserved, possibly through
fear." This was overly optimistic even for then, and now seems
incredibly naive.
This is even more evidenced in the following passage. (Stewart
interspersed his narrative throughout with this sort of poetic
third-person-omniscient aside.):
"In those days when there had been death even in the air and
civilization tottered towards its end--in those days, the men who
controlled the flow of the water looked at one another and said,
'Even though we fall sick and die, still, the people must have
water.' And they thought of plans that they had laid carefully in
those times when men feared that bombs would fall. Then they set
the valves and opened the channels, so that the water flowed freely
all the way from the great dams in the mountains and through the
long siphons and into the tunnels and finally to the reservoirs
from which it would flow, all at the pull of the earth, through all
the faucets. 'Now,' they said, 'when we are gone, the water will
flow on--yes, until the pipes rust out, and that will be the time
of a generation!' Then they died. But they died as men who have
finished their work and lie down quietly, secure in their honor."
Another such aside is: "How long would the lights burn? What would
make them go out in the end? What else would continue? What was
going to happen to all that man had built up through the centuries
and now had left behind him?" The BBC has an answer for this, in
its series "Life after People". While the series becomes
repetitive after a while, the original two-hour show would be an
excellent adjunct to the book (and vice versa).
"It was as if there had been a blind man in a world suddenly bereft
of light. In that world, those with seeing eyes could only blunder
about, but the blind man would be at home, and now instead of being
the one who was guided by others, he might be the one to whom
others clung for guidance." This seems inspired by H. G. Wells's
"The Country of the Blind", and in turn an inspiration for a sub-
plot of John Wyndham's DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS.
Sometimes Stewart does not think things out very much. He writes
of Ish's thinking, "Would he be ever able to figure out again just
which day was Sunday? As for getting the proper day of the year,
that should not be too difficult." Well, since it has been less
than a year since the disaster, and he knows the date, even if he
has not memorized a perpetual calendar all he needs to do is find a
calendar, look up what day of the week that date is, and calculate
from there.
"You and I, Joey, ...we are alike, we understand! Ezra and George
and the others, they are good people. They are good solid average
people, and the world couldn't get along withou having lots of them,
but they have no spark. We have to give the spark!" And from this
point on, Ish seems to be more and more focused on how superior he
is to everyone else. Since the story is told from Ish's point of
view (albeit in the third person), this makes the reader feel
superior as well (by proxy), but on reflection makes Ish less ideal
and almost a bit menacing when he starts talking about laws and
trying to direct how things should be organized. And though he
professes to not wanting to become some sort of god, he also wants
to direct how things go and enjoy the prerogatives of being the
leader.
One thing that struck me more this time than during previous
readings is how Ish's society is much more capable of achieving
some sort of recovery than ours is. If a prehistoric tribe had a
plague, people could pick up and leave, go to a less populated area
and resume their lifestyles pretty much the same. This was true
through ancient Rome, the Renaissance, and even up until the
Industrial Revolution. For that matter, even after the Industrial
Revolution, there was still a lot that was simple enough that
people could rebuild from a major disaster.
But now we are over-driving our headlights. Our society has
advanced so much that no small group could even come close to
rebuilding our technology. But worse, we have forgotten all the
simpler technologies, so not only could we not build a new central
heating system and the entire natural gas infrastructure to support
it, most of us could not even build a working fireplace and know
how to use it. Ish's generation still had a lot of people who knew
something about farming; ours does not. All of which means, I
suppose, that we really need to try to avoid global disasters.
[Stewart himself was a fairly interesting man. It was he who
started the system of naming storms with people's names. EARTH
ABIDES was adapted to radio in November of 1950 for the series
Escape. It was done in two parts two consecutive weeks. You can
find links for the two parts at
http://www.escape-suspense.com/2010/07/escape-earth-abides.html.
-mrl]
By contrast, THINGS WE DIDN'T SEE COMING by Steve Amsterdam (ISBN
978-0-307-37850-7) is a post-apocalyptic novel written in 2010.
The apocalypse here is less well-defined than in EARTH ABIDES; at
first it appears to be a Y2K breakdown (making this an alternate
history, I suppose), but then there seem to be climate disasters
(e.g., areas of never-ending rain), virulent epidemics, killer bugs
from Brazil, and a host of other problems. Hence, I suppose, the
title: THINGS WE DIDN'T SEE COMING--not just one thing, but many.
And it is told as a series of vignettes/short stories, each one
with a different explanation for the problems that are besetting
our protagonist in that story. In classic post-apocalyptic
fiction, the reason for the break-down of society is given, and
usually some lesson is supposed to be learned from it. Amsterdam
has a much more nihilistic approach: *something" is bound to get us,
and there's nothing we can do about it, and everything will be a
meaningless struggle. Amsterdam may be more accurate, but it does
not make for a better story. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The capacity of human beings to bore one another
seems to be vastly greater than that of any
other animal.
--H. L. Mencken