THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
04/01/11 -- Vol. 29, No. 40, Whole Number 1643
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:
Correction
Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
Names (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Second Life (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
My Picks for Turner Classic Movies for April (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
JUDAS UNCHAINED by Peter F. Hamilton (audiobook review
by Joe Karpierz)
THE LINCOLN LAWYER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAT RUN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
IVAN THE TERRIBLE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Comforting News (letter of comment by Charles Harris)
Efficient Sports (letters of comment by Tim Bateman
and Don Blosser)
MARS NEEDS MOMS (letter of comment by Lax Madapaty)
Fukushima (letters of comment by Kip Williams
and Keith F. Lynch)
BLACKOUT (letters of comment by Kip Williams, Paul Dormer,
Tim McDaniel, Andy Leighton, and Tim Bateman)
This Week's Reading (THE PHILIP K. DICK READER, WORLDSHAKER,
THE RISE AND THE FALL OF THE BIBLE, and BEOWULF ON THE
BEACH) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Correction
In response to Mark's comments on exo-planets in the 03/25/11 issue
of the MT VOID, David Leeper writes:
The latest MT VOID has 4/3 pi r-squared for sphere volume ... you
mean r-cubed, no?
A good way to count your picky, picky readers, eh? I think it's an
old Talmud teacher's trick! [-dgl]
Mark responds, "Oops. Yes, that is a typo. Actually there are a
lot of places where intentional errors are made. When logarithm
tables are published frequently there are intentional errors around
the 10th-decimal place. If those same errors show up in someone
else's published set of tables it proves that they plagiarized.
Google supposedly lays similar traps in their results and it has
been claimed that they caught Bing using Google results. But if
you know how I feel about mathematics you know I would never give
an intentionally wrong mathematical formula.
http://tinyurl.com/leeper-bing-google" [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
April 14 (Thu): ON THE BEACH by Nevil Shute, Middletown (NJ) Public
Library, film at 5:30PM, discussion of the book and 1960 film
after film
April 21 (Thu): STIFF by Mary Roach, Old Bridge (NJ) Public
Library, 7PM
May 26 (Thu): CITIZEN IN SPACE by Robert Sheckley, Old Bridge (NJ)
Public Library, 7PM
==================================================================
TOPIC: Names (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Does it mean something that in the West we put a person's personal
name before his or her family name, while in the East the family
name takes precedence? [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Second Life (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I have been reading about the game virtual world called "Second
Life." I don't get it. Are the virtual people you meet in Second
Life somehow better than the people you would meet in non-virtual
worlds Real Life or Reality (both games free and in public domain
and have been since the dawn of time)? If there are better people
in Second Life, I want to know from what world are they getting
them. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: My Picks for Turner Classic Movies for April (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
This is my monthly guide to intriguing film artifacts on Turner
Classic Movies. Some of the films are too good to miss and others
are just for completists of one sort or another. For a while it
looked like this would have been one of my last guides. TCM
changed the format of their website and it looked like we were not
able to get the program list well in advance. It took a little
work, but I did find where to look in the current interface to see
about three months in advance what is coming up. There is no
direct link, but I can trick up a URL to find the information I
needed.
All times listed below are Eastern Daylight Time.
We tend to think of older films as being rather sedate and slow.
Actually, before the Motion Picture Code came in they could be
really violent and/or scary even by today's standards. This
month's listing starts with two 1932 films that show just how far
films could go and both are still strong stuff today.
The month starts with KONGO (1932), a horror film that few people
have ever heard of, but it remains an effective piece 79 years
later. One reason they could go so far with the horror was that
this was before the Code, which regulated what films could see.
When sound came in there was some thought of making talking remakes
of Lon Chaney silent horror films. LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT was
remade as MARK OF THE VAMPIRE. THE UNHOLY THREE was remade under
the same title. And the very dark melodrama WEST OF ZANZIBAR was
remade as KONGO with Walter Huston in the Lon Chaney role. A man
who is crippled by another works out a fiendish revenge on the
other man's daughter. This is all set in darkest and most
politically incorrect Africa. Maltin warns "not for the squeamish"
and he is quite right. (Wednesday, April 6, 4:15 PM)
If you mention the film SCARFACE (1932) most people will start
picturing Al Pacino living large and dying violently. That film is
a remake of a film that had the much same impact in its time. The
original SCARFACE is well worth seeing. The remake pretty much
followed the same plot as the original. The 1932 version is about
the rise and fall of Tony Camonte. Paul Muni plays Camonte and Ann
Dvorak is his sister. Boris Karloff took time out from playing in
horror films to play a thug. Ben Hecht was the major writer of the
screenplay. The director was Howard Hughes and he was no joke. It
was co-directed by Richard Rosson. (Saturday, April 30, 9:00 AM)
This next one is a personal favorite with me. Donald Hamilton is
best known for the Matt Helm spy novels (which are actually fairly
good and not at all like the films) but were horribly adapted for
the screen. Hamilton also wrote the western THE BIG COUNTRY (1958)
and it was adapted to film by William Wyler and was one of the
great westerns. I love a big sprawling Technicolor Western and the
biggest and sprawlingest is THE BIG COUNTRY. Gregory Peck is a sea
captain engaged to the daughter of a cattle baron. He comes west
to meet his prospective father-in-law and to get married. As a man
who tries to avoid fighting he is immediately marked as a coward by
the local cow hands in a place where ones status is measured by how
well he can fight. At the same time he becomes the keystone in a
range war between two patriarchs: once played well by Charles
Bickford and the other terrifically by Burl Ives who won a much-
deserved Oscar for his performance. Also featured are Charleton
Heston and Jean Simmons. Heston nearly turned down the role as
Bickford's foreman. He said he would not play a secondary role.
His agent told him he was crazy to turn down a chance to work with
William Wyler. Heston swallowed his pride and took the foreman
role. In Wyler's next film he had Heston star as Ben-Hur.
(Thursday, April 28, 5:00 PM)
DAUGHTER OF HORROR (1957) is not recommendable to anyone but a
completist. This film's main claim to fame, however, is that it is
featured in THE BLOB. It is the bizarre film that the teenagers
are watching at the movie theater as the Blob oozes through the
grate (unsuccessfully) to engulf them. The film has some interest
in that the only words spoken are by the narrator. That narrator
happens to be Ed McMahon, the long time denizen of the Tonight Show
and TV representative of Publishers' Clearing House. (Saturday,
April 16, 2:00 AM)
(Incidentally, THE BLOB (1958) was scheduled for Saturday, April 9,
4:00 AM. That showing has dropped out of their posted schedule,
and been replaced by THE GREEN SLIME (1969).) [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: JUDAS UNCHAINED by Peter F. Hamilton (copyright 2006;
audiobook copyright 2008; 40 hours, 59 minutes; narrated by John
Lee) (audiobook review by Joe Karpierz)
Wow.
That was my thought as the final words of JUDAS UNCHAINED drifted
from my iPod to my ears. I was completely blown away. Why?
Simple, really. As I mentioned in my review of PANDORA'S STAR in
March of 2010, this is the kind of stuff that had me running to
bookstores and libraries looking for all the science fiction I
could find. Space battles, aliens, galactic civilizations, romance,
political intrigue, conspiracies, you name it. I love it. This is
the stuff that we grew up loving. This is the stuff of our
personal Golden Age of science fiction. This is the sense of wonder
stuff that is missing. This is the stuff the most people aren't
writing any more. And this is the stuff that will cause me to read
and listen to Peter F. Hamilton long after I've given up on any
other author out there.
Okay, I guess I've gushed quite a bit. So, what's the deal? Well
(and it's uncanny how close to a year ago I wrote the review of
PANDORA'S STAR, come to think of it), when last we left the story
the Commonwealth was under attack by the Primes, in particular one
MorningLightMountain. If you remember, humans out of the
Commonwealth travelled to the Dyson Pair to determine why Dyson
Alpha and Beta disappeared. They were imprisoned inside a barrier
that was put there because, well, they wanted to destroy every race
in the galaxy that wasn't them. As we join the story, 23 planets
of the Commonwealth have been taken over by the Primes, with
another 40+ bunch to come. We find out that the Starflyer is real,
the Guardians of Selfhood were right, there are a multitude of
Starflyer agents throughout the Commonwealth, and that someone not
only in the Navy, but on the original mission of the Second Chance
(which ended up dropping the barrier around Dyson Alpha), is a
Starflyer Agent. And the human race looks like it's going to go
down.
As a certain football analyst says, "Not so fast."
After all, we, the human race, are the good guys. We, the human
race, always prevail. We, the human race, always do it the *right
way* (and that's the closest I'm coming to a spoiler in this
review). We do it with ingenuity, inventiveness, and a way to
save our own souls.
As with PANDORA'S STAR, this is a big book. And the tendency, as
with PANDORA'S STAR, is to say that this book is too big, and that
it can and should be shorter. After all, I said this after I read
PANDORA'S STAR. On the other hand, this is a big story with big
scope and lots of characters and all sorts of cool stuff going on.
Hamilton takes time to develop his characters, even his minor ones.
Hamilton's style is easy to follow, and his prose is clear. Does
he overdo it sometimes? Well, yes. I forgive him. This is big
stuff with big ideas. *This* is what I started reading SF for.
Not enough can be said about the reader, John Lee. He manages to
pull off multiple characters, both male and female, and deliver the
grand sense of scope and wonder this novel is trying to convey.
I'd love to listen to more audiobooks read by him.
Is this for everyone? Of course not. I get that. But this is my
kind of stuff. If more writers wrote this kind of stuff than what
is being written today, I might actually enjoy reading the Hugo
nominees every year. [-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE LINCOLN LAWYER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Brad Furman directs John Romano's screenplay based on the
Michael Connelly novel. A sleazy lawyer has to tread a tricky path
to fulfill the law, his responsibility to his client, and his idea
of justice in a cleverly plotted legal thriller. Mickey Haller
(Matthew McConaughey), is the kind of a lawyer who gives the
profession a bad name. He is good at the law and uses it to
squeeze the maximum fees from his wealthy clients. When he gets
the case of defending a magnate's son charged with rape and assault
he finds himself in a tight legal bind that could force him to
protect a killer or even get himself killed. This is a tightly-
written thriller that at the same time creates a tricky legal
puzzle. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
Mickey Haller (played by Matthew McConaughey) is a totally
unscrupulous lawyer who flaunts his wealth by tooling around Los
Angeles in the back seat of a chauffeur-driven Lincoln Continental
that he uses as a mobile office. His clients tend to be people who
can afford to pay well but are not exactly the country club set.
Haller is hired to defend someone not from the underbelly, Louis
Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), whose mother is a wealthy real estate
tycoon. Roulet is accused of beating and raping a prostitute.
Louis insists he is innocent and Haller is afraid he might be.
Haller's one decent chord is that he does not want an innocent
client to be convicted. He would rather have to defend a guilty
client than to risk an innocent client go to prison.
Haller has private investigator Frank Levin (William H. Macy)
investigating to get useful information for the defense, and the
information collected reminds Haller of a previous case in which
his client was found guilty. Perhaps he can prove both clients
innocent at the same time.
If Haller is the hero of this piece he is a very flawed one. He
treats his own clients with the same ruthlessness that he treats
his courtroom opponents, even if with clients he covers over it
with honey. Even when he is doing what appears like a favor for
someone he is calculating it to line his own pockets. He gives
nice Christmas gifts, but they are investments, and he knows he
will get back something even bigger in return. McConaughey plays
Haller oily and slick. As a perfect contrast William H. Macy plays
his private investigator friend. He goes around with unkempt
shoulder-length hair and lives in a cheap, unkempt apartment. He
does not look like he is getting a very big piece of Haller's
action. Also along for the ride is Maggie McPherson (Marisa
Tomai), a former Mrs. Haller, the mother of Haller's daughter, a
frequent courtroom opponent, but still a life-time friend. This
characterizes Haller, but it has a sort of unique role in the plot.
It is not that it is important, but that it is less important than
other aspects. As I said this is a tightly written script and just
about everything that happens will fit into the plot and actually
be important later. The viewer needs to be on guard to pick up
everything that happens. This is not as true of sequences with
Maggie. They are a moment's relaxation for writer John Romano and
probably for Michael Connelly, who wrote the novel.
THE LINCOLN LAWYER is a script that operates like clockwork,
complex and everything contributing to the story. After a period
of Matthew McConaughey coasting in his career, this is a role with
some meat in it. And the film is a good piece of entertainment. I
rate it a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189340/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lincoln_lawyer/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: CAT RUN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Everyone wants to get their hands on the computer hard
drive with incriminating information about arms dealers, gangsters
and politicians who party with high-priced night ladies. Catalina,
a high-class call girl has the drive and two neophyte private
detectives are trying to protect her. She is being chased by the
host of very dangerous people including a ruthless assassin who
could be mistaken for Helen Mirren. This is the modern equivalent
of classic action comedies like FOUL PLAY. Made for today it just
is more chaotic, has more nudity, and had more violence including
some slightly nauseating scenes of torture. Otherwise the film is
funny and fun, a fast, entertaining ride. Rating: high +1 (-4 to
+4) or 6/10
To begin with there are a whole bunch of characters, mostly
unsavory. There are so many that each time a new one is introduced
the film stops and we see title insert telling us who the character
is and three or four bullet items telling us about him. There's
the Loner, the Enforcer, the Pervert, and probably twelve others.
But don't worry there are only a few the viewer needs to track.
The Exhibitionist is Catalina "Cat" Rona (played by Paz Vega of
SPANGLISH), a high-priced call girl hired for a party of super-
wealthy sleazebags--you know, arms dealers, Russian Mafia,
Congressmen. As the film opens she is arriving at a "festivity".
When nobody is looking she filches a computer hard drive that has
incriminating evidence against the whole crowd.
Meanwhile we meet two guys in their late 20s who are looking for
what to do with their lives. One is the Loner, Anthony Hester
(Scott Mechlowicz), who is a failing restaurateur with a little
Sherlock Holmes in him. The other one is Anthony's childhood
friend, the Extrovert, Julian Simms (Alphonso McAuley), ladies man
and, well, "ladies man" pretty much covers it. Together they
decide to establish a detective agency. Their first case is to
find the missing Catalina Rona. They have to find her and later
will have to protect her. Also throw into the chase the dignified
and very polite Helen Bingham (Janet McTeer) who just happens to be
an assassin out of your worst nightmare. Finding Rona will be not
nearly as difficult as keeping her alive. The chase will take the
detectives through Eastern Europe.
Director John Stockwell gets from a generally unfamiliar cast
performances more than sufficient to carry the story. Particularly
good was Alphonso McAuley, who has a sort of Chris Rock charm.
Even better was Janet McTeer doing a credible Helen Mirren
impression mixed with flashes of Christian Szell of MARATHON MAN.
Hers is definitely the standout role of the film. Mechlowicz and
McAuley have a sort of chemistry that handles well the repartee of
the script by Nick Ball and John Niven. One veteran actor is
recognizable, Christopher McDonald, the TV host from REQUIEM FOR A
DREAM, whose over-the-top masculine looks are perfect for the
sleazy Congressman. Ball's and Niven's writing generally holds up
fairly well in the first two acts. The third act is a little
familiar.
CAT RUN was obviously made for the Saturday night crowd and for
that sort of audience it certainly does deliver. Don't bring the
kids; the violence is a little strong. But between the repartee
and the odd cast of nasties this film is a good time. It does have
a slick and sassy mix of dark comedy and crime plot. I rate it a
high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446147/
What others are saying: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cat_run/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: IVAN THE TERRIBLE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: How better to start April than getting out of the way
Eisenstein's great quasi-historical pseudo-epic IVAN THE TERRIBLE
(Parts I and II)? You won't learn much history but you will be
able to tell people you've seen it.
It has come time to review another undiscovered classic of early
film. This one shows up on public television every once in a long
while but has been completely forgotten by anyone who doesn't watch
PBS. The film is really two Soviet films by Serge Eisenstein, IVAN
THE TERRIBLE (Part I) and IVAN THE TERRIBLE (Part II). It is
difficult to decide if this is really one film or two. On one
hand, when Part I ends it has more loose ends than a golf ball with
the skin peeled off. About all that is tied up is the current
sentence. Talk about leaving room for a sequel! Eisenstein doesn't
just leave *room*, he leaves the whole house! An historical note on
Eisenstein: he appears to be the only Jew revered by the Soviets
since Karl Marx. Apparently he hid his religion by not asking to
leave.
As with most films about conflict, the IVANs tell the story of the
unending struggle between pretty people and ugly people, with ugly
people being the bad guys. (This struggle may be more recent than
we tend to think. In Dickens's time it was more a struggle of
people with funny names such as Twist and Nickleby against people
with ugly names such as Mr. Scrooge or Miss Zits.) It is only with
the more realistic Schwarzenegger and Stallone films of the 1980s
that the good guys are ugly too (and in Stallone's case they are
making up for lost time). IVAN THE TERRIBLE is the story of how
after an ugly becomes Czar he tries to run Russia for the peasants,
all of whom are pretty. From a distance Ivan looks ugly: his hair
is greasy and slicked down and he looks like he probably has fleas.
But it turns out Ivan may not be ugly after all; it may be a plot
by his aunt who has a face like a corn-grinding stone. It was
probably she who put the Penzoil in his Vitalis.
The film opens with Ivan's coronation, which is more long and
expensive than it is interesting, but then that is true of a lot of
Russian films. They were made that way to prove to the world that
Communism works so well that they can afford to waste film. But
you know that Ivan is in big trouble because the place is just
teeming with *ugly* people. There are a few pretty people who are
saying loyal sorts of things, but there are far more uglies and
they are not at all happy that Ivan is being crowned. Be warned,
however, that some of the pretty people may well turn out to be
villains. You will know this is happening when the camera starts
showing them in unflattering close-ups.
Following the coronation there is a reception and banquet that
turns out to be the funniest meal on screen since Blake Edwards's
THE PARTY, except I guess it came before. During the course of a
one-hour meal:
1. people plot against Ivan,
2. Ivan's best friend announces he cannot support Ivan and exiles
himself,
3. there is a peasants' revolt where they burn the outskirts of
the city,
4. the peasants storm the palace,
5. Ivan fights with one peasant in hand-to-hand combat,
6. Ivan announces he is going to be the People's Czar, in spite of
the fact he is ugly,
7. the peasants return to their homes, the Mongol ambassador
arrives and demands tribute,
8. and Ivan declares war on the Mongols.
And you never get to see the dessert.
The second film has some definite stylistic differences from the
first film. During the course of making the two films, Eisenstein
became more anti-West as time went along. By the time he made the
second film the anti-foreigner sentiment is obvious. He puts much
more bright light at the bottom of the screen so the subtitles will
be almost impossible to read. At the same time, this makes the
plot more complex and harder to follow.
I wouldn't say this about Part I, but IVAN THE TERRIBLE (Part II)
ranks up there with the original PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, the original
HELL'S ANGELS, THE RETURN OF DRACULA, and SHE'S GOTTA HAVE IT as a
film that suddenly goes from black-and-white to color in the middle
for no obvious reason. It is quite a shock. Presumably the Soviet
economy took an upturn during the shooting. Unfortunately, the
blues on the colored stock have been lost to time but the reds are
somewhere between vibrant and oppressive, much like Ivan himself.
Part II has enough songs to rank almost as a musical and some odd
dance numbers, including one around a peasant dressed like the
Statue of Liberty.
The two films together are fairly long but the plot is not
difficult to follow because it moves so slowly. Other than the
banquet scene, in any given fifteen-minute stretch you can be
reasonably sure that not much as happened. In fact, even in two
films about Ivan, we learn almost nothing about the man or anything
he did. The snail-paced plot instead gives plenty of time for
meaningful looks and poses. It is as if every frame was intended
to be a great--if not very realistic--painting.
In all, I would say that IVAN THE TERRIBLE is two classic films you
may want to see some time. (Mediocre classics don't get ratings on
the -4 to +4 scale.) [-mrl]
[A slightly different version of this review has been previously
published here.]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Comforting News (letter of comment by Charles Harris)
In response to Mark's comments on comforting news in the 03/25/11
issue of the MT VOID, Charles Harris writes:
A couple of weeks before the tsunami, a movie that I had never
heard of caught my eye on the library's DVD shelf: PU-239 (an
HBO production originally titled THE HALF LIFE OF TIMOFEY BEREZIN).
It turned out to be much better than I expected, +8 on my own 1-10
rating scale. It eerily foreshadowed current events: disaster in
a nuclear plant, a dedicated worker's efforts to stave off a
meltdown, and the ensuing government/industrial cover-up.
Recommended. [-csh]
Mark replies:
I had read the story in the book THE PUSHCART BOOK OF SHORT
STORIES; it was by Ken Kalfus and titled "Pu-239". I forgot all
about it until I saw the HBO film and remembered the same horrific
climactic image. Then I went back to the library to see if I could
find the book and see if there was a connection with this story I
had read. Of course, it was based on the story. The climax at
once grabbed my imagination and gave me the willies. Then again I
got the willies from K-19: THE WIDOW MAKER seeing these people go
in trying to fix the submarine reactor. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Efficient Sports (letters of comment by Tim Bateman and Don
Blosser)
In response to comments on efficient sports in the 03/25/11 issue
of the MT VOID, Tim Bateman writes, "As Carson Napier explained to
Duare: Golf is a mental disorder." [-tb]
Don Blosser writes:
I can't resist responding to the "perfect game" of a winning
pitcher facing and retiring only 27 batters. The losing pitcher
could face only 25 batters, being even more "efficient" in a losing
effort?
Suppose one batter on the home team bats a home run sometime during
the game. Throughout 8 innings the rest of the home team players
are retired without reaching base.
In the top of the ninth, the visiting team bats. The home team
does not come to bat in the bottom of the ninth inning if it is
ahead. With a score of 1-0, the home team doesn't bat. The losing
pitcher threw a 1-hitter and faced only 25 batters. The winning
pitcher had to face 27 batters.
My inspiration here comes from Fred MacMurray in THE ABSENT-MINDED
PROFESSOR. MacMurray was summoned before an administrative board
because his sanity or fitness to teach was being questioned. So
one of the board members asked MacMurray a baseball question about
how many innings in a baseball game. MacMurray responded correctly
with "eight and one-half innings," because of the way the question
was posed. [-db]
==================================================================
TOPIC: MARS NEEDS MOMS (letter of comment by Lax Madapaty)
In response to Mark's comments on MARS NEEDS MOMS in the 03/25/11
issue of the MT VOID, Lax Madapaty writes, "Put a budget lens on
it--when-low budget gems leave after a poor theatrical showing they
don't make news until/unless they get discovered on home/online
media. High-budget bombs make news, people love to talk about
them, regardless of movie quality." [-lm]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Fukushima (letters of comment by Kip Williams and Keith
F. Lynch)
In response to Mark's comments on Fukushima in the 03/25/11 issue
of the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes, "I saw on my home page today
that some radioactivity in Boston rainwater is attributed to the
ongoing problems in Japan. That's quite a distance, though they
say it's a small amount. " [-kw]
Keith Lynch replies, "To say that it's a small amount is a major
understatement. Or perhaps I should say overstatement. It's
mostly a statement about how astonishingly sensitive measurement
instruments are." [-kfl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: BLACKOUT (letters of comment by Kip Williams, Paul Dormer,
Tim McDaniel, Andy Leighton, and Tim Bateman)
In response to Joe Karpierz's comments on BLACKOUT in the 03/25/11
issue of the MT VOID (in response to Evelyn's comments in the
03/18/11 issue), Kip Williams writes:
[vague spoilers]
As I've said, I think what others see as redundant info-dumps is
immersive for me. I've already read about the problems of being in
London at the time of war in a shallow enough way. The repetition
and detail, and the growing uncertainty of the characters (who at
first thought they'd be in and out, bing-bing-bing, and back on
campus for tea... well, more or less) puts us in what would have
been the mind-set of people living there, who had no idea when the
war would be over, or even (and this uncertainty comes to be shared
by the future visitors) how it would come out. It's possible the
story could be told in fewer words, but I'm not sure it would have
affected me nearly as much with a vicarious sense of experience.
[vague spoilers over: you may leave your shelter]
Paul Dormer (of the UK) adds:
The trouble with this book (and its sequel) is that I've now heard
so many reports of the anachronisms and lack of knowledge of UK
geography that I think I'd be reading it just to compile a list. I
think someone said they are using decimal currency in the war
(introduced 1971) and someone takes 3 hours to get from Euston
station to Oxford Street when the public transport is out, when you
can walk it in 20 minutes. [-pd]
Leading Kip to respond:
Did they try it under blitz conditions? [-kw]
Paul answers:
My mother might have, if not in the Blitz but during the V bombing
in 1944. Not sure exactly when she came back from evacuation, but
she would have been 16 when the first V bombs fell, and I do recall
she said she sometimes had to walk home from where she worked in
the City to her house in Lee, about 6.5 miles away, when the buses
weren't running. (Apparently, my grandmother was on a bus that
passed Woolworth's in Deptford in 1994, just minutes before a V2
fell on it on a Saturday morning, the single largest loss of life
from a V bomb during the war.) [-pd]
Tim McDaniel responds:
I just want to be the first to make the obvious comment about hang
time and the incredibly precise trajectory. [-tmd]
Andy Leighton (also of the UK) also responds:
Except it [the Euston-Oxford walk] was during the day and not
during
(or IIRC after) bombing of the route. The book is really poor for
its British research. Non-native fauna and flora seem to be name-
dropped by children with hardly any education. The Jubilee Line
wasn't around during the war (opened in 1977 for the Queen's Silver
Jubilee). The underground is all messed up--wrong stations, lines
that hadn't been built, wrong details. She has someone make a
telephone call from a pillar box. Paper cartons of tea?
Regardless of paper cartons of tea being somewhat alien to this
native there was paper rationing during the war. The language
spoken by the characters often goes a bit American. There was also
a fair bit more. Some of these should be easily found by even the
slightest amount of research. There were too many little things
that threw me outside the story. Some of the problems aren't
Willis's fault however. The cover art on the first edition shows
what looks to be US bombers to me. Also the cover credits on the
rear flap refer to St Patrick's Cathedral and not St Paul's. [-al]
And Tim Bateman replies:
Yes, having just checked on Amazon, it looks like B-29s are bombing
St. Paul's Cathedral.
Having just checked on Wikipedia, B-29s were introduced into
service in May, 1944 (first flight was Sept. '42). [-tb]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
The science fiction groups here seem to be fixated on Philip
K. Dick; our local group did a bunch of stories out of THE PHILIP
K. DICK READER for January, which I commented on in the 02/11/11
issue of the MT VOID, the Middletown did "Paycheck" (story and
movie), and locally we did another batch for March (almost all of
which were from 1953 or 1954). Because the person who picked the
selection for January picked the best of the book then, these
tended to be a bit weaker.
"Fair Game" (1959) led to what was apparently supposed to be a
surprise ending, but wasn't. And as a further indication of the
weakness of this, in it Dick re-used some of the imagery from EYE
IN THE SKY (1957), making it all seem very hum-drum.
And speaking of eyes, I did rather like "The Eyes Have It" (1953),
a linguistics-based story about what happens when you don't
understand synecdoche. (There's an old joke about how science
fiction authors get their ideas from a post office box in
Schenectady, but that postdates this story.) As a fan of the
oddities of language, I love this sort of thing.
"The Golden Man" (1954) deals with precognition, predestination,
and free will (and was the basis for the film NEXT).
"The Turning Wheel" (1954) is about post-apocalyptic cults in
Detroit. Given the economic situation in Detroit these days, maybe
we should see if it's coming true.
"The Last of the Masters" (1954) is one of Dick's more overtly
political stories--many are political, but they tend to be people
living in various political situations than people discussing
various political situations. Here, Dick looks at the consequences
of anarchism.
"The Father-Thing" (1954) seemed to have a lot of ideas in common
with Jack Finney's [INVASION OF] THE BODY SNATCHERS, but since that
also came out in 1954, it seems more a coincidence than one copying
the other. (There are also echoes of INVADERS FROM MARS, which was
a 1953 movie, so there may have been some influence there.)
"Tony and the Beetles" (1953) (also known as "The Retreat from
Rigel") seems trite and obvious now. It may have been fresh when
it was written, but I'm skeptical of even that.
WORLDSHAKER by Richard Harland (ISBN 978-1-4169-9552-4) is a
steampunk alternate history, heavy on the steampunk and light on
the alternate history. The turning point is (points are?) the
Napoleonic Wars, which in this world do not end in 1814, but drag
on and on, leading to increased technology such as two-mile-long
juggernauts that have become the equivalent of generation ships,
with a social structure apparently inspired by H. G. Wells. The
likelihood of this alternate history is negligible (which, I
suppose, is true of most steampunk). If you like this sort of
thing, then this is the sort of thing you will like.
THE RISE AND THE FALL OF THE BIBLE: THE UNEXPECTED HISTORY OF AN
ACCIDENTAL BOOK by Timothy Beal (ISBN 978-0-15-101358-6) is not
what one might expect. It is not a book written by an atheist, or
a skeptic, but by a Professor of Religion at Case Western Reserve
University who is married to a minister. Yet it is not a defense
of a literal interpretation of the Bible either.
For example, in writing about Kenneth N. Taylor's translation, THE
WAY: THE LIVING BIBLE, Beal writes: "So for a time, THE WAY saved
me, or at least distracted me, from the growing doubts about my
childhood faith in the Bible. That is, it saved my iconic idea of
the Bible from the disillusion that came from literally reading it.
Indeed, this was the true innovation of THE WAY: it offered a
reading experience of the Bible that didn't entail all the
complexities and frustrations that came when I actually read the
biblical text. It felt like what reading the Bible was supposed to
feel like, even while it distracted me from the real ambiguities
and uncertainties of the Biblical text itself."
And later he writes, "To a point, fundamentalist-leaning critics
and I agree about what the Bible business is doing to the Bible.
By reinventing it in an ever-widening variety of things and words,
all marketed as the one and only Word of God, these publishers are
devaluing the very thing they're selling."
Beal bases a lot of what he says on the premise that the Bible has
become a cultural icon, but in doing so has lost its standing as a
set of texts (not a single text, as Beal emphasizes) that serve to
inspire religious faith and study. In support of this, Beal cites
a poll that found that 78% of Americans believe that the Bible is
the Word of God, 65% believe that it "answers all or most of the
questions of life"--and 28% say they rarely or never read it.
(The text is unclear on whether this is 28% of those responding
positively to the other questions, or 28% of all responders.
Personally, I am skeptical of any poll that indicates 72% of
Americans often read the Bible. Would people lie about this?
Well, the number of people who claim they attend church regularly
is completely out of sync with actual church attendance figures.)
BEOWULF ON THE BEACH: WHAT TO LOVE AND WHAT TO SKIP IN LITERATURE'S
50 GREATEST HITS by Jack Murnighan (ISBN 978-0-307-40957-7)
includes for each book such helpful sections as "What People Don't
Know (But Should)", "What's Sexy", "Quirky Fact", and "What to
Skip". (The latter reduces Marcel Proust's REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS
PAST by fifty percent, leaving only about 1200 pages.) There are a
lot of books of this sort, going back at least to Clifton Fadiman's
LIFETIME READING PLAN. These days, there are two sorts: the sort
that emphasize the intellectual side (e.g., Harold Bloom's THE
WESTERN CANON or David Denby's GREAT BOOKS), and the sort that
portray the classics of literature as great beach reads. As you
might guess from the title, Murnighan's book falls in the latter
category. (I have the impression that most of these books with a
number in the title fall into the latter category. One doesn't
find "The 50 Greatest Books" or "100 Books to Give You a College
Education", but you do find books like "The 50 Greatest Novels
about Love" or "Two Dozen Novels to Help You Find Your Inner
Serenity".) As with most books of this sort, many of Murnighan's
book choices are obvious, some are unsurprising, and others are
very much based on his personal opinion rather than any consensus.
Murnighan talks about the humor in MOBY DICK, and points out a bit
I missed: "Finally, I always go to sea as a sailor, because of the
wholesome exercise and pure air of the fore-castle deck. For as in
this world, head winds are far more prevalent than winds from
astern (that is, if you never violate the Pythagorean maxim), so
for the most part the Commodore on the quarter-deck gets his
atmosphere at second hand from the sailors on the forecastle." The
"Pythagorean maxim" here is *not* the Pythagorean Theorem, but his
dietary rule: Do not eat beans. Think about it.
However, although Murnighan talks about "What People Don't Know
(But Should)" about the various classics, he also makes one mistake
himself: he says that Shakespeare and Cervantes died on the same
day. They died on the same *date* (April 23, 1616), but this was
not the same day, because Spain had already switched to the
Gregorian calendar, but England had not. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
All animals, except man, know that the principal
business of life is to enjoy it.
--Samuel Butler