THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/06/11 -- Vol. 29, No. 45, Whole Number 1648
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:
Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
The Undiscovered Country (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Sophomoric Libel (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
WWW: WONDER by Robert J. Sawyer (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
MEETING SPENCER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
FAT, SICK & NEARLY DEAD (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Truth, Justice, and the Un-American Way (letter of comment
by Taras Wolansky)
Cubicles (letter of comment by Nathan)
Brain Teasers (letters of comment by Kip Williams
and Tim McDaniel)
This Week's Reading (HOW I KILLED PLUTO AND WHY IT HAD IT
COMING, ON TOP OF THE WORLD: FIVE WOMEN EXPLORERS IN
TIBET, THE SECRET OF WILHELM STORITZ, FIXING MY GAZE,
and SNOW CRASH) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
May 12 (Thu): SOMEWHERE IN TIME by Richard Matheson, Middletown (NJ)
Public Library, film at 5:30PM, discussion of the book and
1960 film after film
May 26 (Thu): CITIZEN IN SPACE by Robert Sheckley, Old Bridge (NJ)
Public Library, 7PM
June 9 (Thu): I AM LEGEND by Richard Matheson (film THE LAST MAN ON
EARTH), Middletown (NJ) Public Library, film at 5:30PM,
discussion of the book and 1960 film after film
June 23 (Thu): THE BEST AMERICAN SCIENCE AND NATURE WRITING 2009
edited by Elizabeth Kolbert , Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library,
7PM
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Undiscovered Country (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
It has been pointed out to me that Shakespeare's character Hamlet
is not just slow to act, he is also slow on the uptake. He refers
to "death, the undiscovered country from which no visitor returns."
No visitor? Does that include his father? If he believes that no
visitor returns then he does not believe that he really saw his
father. So what is all this furor about? [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Sophomoric Libel (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
True story: When I was a sophomore in high school I had two pairs
of school pants. I had a dark gray pair of pants and a blue pair.
My mother had bought the two pairs at the same place and time, and
they were the same brand. They were even made of the same cloth,
only a little different in color. They were of only a slightly
different cut. One had loops for a belt and one did not. Suffice
it to say the two pairs resembled each other. So most days I went
to school I would be wearing one or the other.
You hear a lot today about bullying in schools. Today students
have their consciousness raised that they have a responsibility not
to let bullying happen in school. Back when I was in high school
bullying had much less visibility. Today it is considered like a
felony; in those days if there was no blood spilled, it was just a
misdemeanor. It was a failing on the level of talking in class or
coming in late in the morning without a note from a parent. There
was very little concern for the victim.
Being generally considered weird, maybe because I liked mathematics
and was bad at athletics, whatever the reason, I was bullied a lot.
My policy on being bullied was always the same. I tried to ignore
it. I was not going to get much help from the school
administration. And from grade 1 to grade 12 I remember only once
seeing a student as a third party step in trying to stop a case of
bullying. Most wanted just to remain uninvolved. So I was the
butt of a lot of bullying, mostly (definitely not all) verbal.
The rumor started in my sophomore Spanish class. "Ever notice that
Leeper wears the same pants every day?" "Leeper only wears one
pair of pants." "What kind of S***head always wears the same
pants?" They were wrong, of course. They were seeing two similar-
looking pairs of pants and could not tell them apart. Not that
they really tried.
My reaction was what was always my policy. I could easily have
responded. I could have pointed out with icy sarcasm that some
days these "magic" pants had belt loops and some days they didn't.
And some days they were blue, some days they were gray. But I was
not going to lower myself to their level. I was just going to be
dignified and ignore the allegation. And after a couple of weeks
they moved on to make fun of something else about me. In the
meantime I have no idea how many other students and teachers heard
the rumor and believed it. How many potential relationships were
spoiled by the false libel? I might have been worse off by not
denying the stupid rumor or it might have only called attention to
the allegation. I will never know how many people later would hear
my name and later think, "Oh yeah. Leeper. He's the guy who wears
the same clothes every day." For decades I have wondered if I
reacted in the right way by just not lowering myself to respond.
Perhaps I could have squelched the rumor, or perhaps it would only
spread more.
Well, now after decades I am getting an answer. I am seeing my
high school dilemma played out on a national scale. There is
apparently a large number of Americans who actually have heard and
believe that there was some sort of "Manchurian Candidate"
conspiracy to put a foreign-born agent into the Presidency. And
there are certainly others who know that the charge is absurd, but
it serves two purposes for them. It rallies the gullible to their
cause and it pins down the President fighting a fictitious claim
keeping him from being effective in his office. There also is also
a vicious racial component convincing people that a black man can
become President only through conspiracy.
Barack Obama is faced with a dilemma that is very familiar to mine.
Should he maintain his dignity or respond to the slanderers and
possibly be pulled down to their level. After many months of
ignoring the claims that if he is innocent all he has to do is show
the country his birth certificate--a simple thing to do--to put the
rumor to rest.
So eventually he did the simple thing. He showed the country his
birth certificate. Are there legions of people who were doubtful
about Obama but now have a better impression of him? I am not
hearing from any of them. Is anyone apologizing? Not that I
have seen. The conspiracy rumor-mongers have redoubled their
efforts to sabotage and disable Obama. The people who were
reasonable did not need to be shown any documents in order to
believe that Obama is legitimately in office. And the people who
claimed the issue would rest if they could see the birth
certificate are now claiming that the document does not prove
anything. Donald Trump is claiming that the issue is not the birth
certificate; it is Obama's academic transcripts. All he has to do
is show the country his transcripts. It is such a simple thing for
Obama to do.
People will believe what they want to believe. The will to believe
what one wants to believe is stronger than any logic or evidence.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: WWW: WONDER by Robert J. Sawyer (copyright 2011, Ace,
$25.95, 338pp, ISBN 978-0-441-01976-2) (book review by Joe
Karpierz)
The conclusion to Robert J. Sawyer's World Wide Web trilogy, WWW:
WONDER, arrived in my mailbox in early April, right on schedule.
Not only was it on time, but the timing was good. This year, I was
able to read the latest Sawyer novel *before* I embarked on the
task of reading and reviewing the current crop of Hugo-nominated
novels. That's a good thing, because I know what I'm going to get
with a Rob Sawyer novel: a good, well written story with a ton of
terrific ideas and characters, and a bunch of interwoven plots that
while potentially complicated, typically work themselves out
satisfactorily near the end. And I like all that.
So, here we are: Webmind is conscious and self-aware. All he
really wants to do is make life better for humans and humanity. He
discovers the cure for cancer, for example, and that can't be all
bad, can it? According to Peyton Hume of the Web Activity Threat
Containment Headquarters, the U.S. government entity known as
WATcH, Webmind is a threat that must be eradicated before he gets
so powerful that humanity can no longer contain him.
In a sense this story parallels Hume's feelings: Webmind has taken
over the story. While Caitlin Decter was the focus of the first
novel, we did see a shift in the second novel as Caitlin raised and
nurtured Webmind, taught him about humans and humanity, and helped
him form his morality and worldview. In this novel, Webmind
becomes assertive and active; he is still learning, to be sure, but
he's read everything there is to read written by humanity; he
learns from them every day as he holds millions of simultaneous IM
sessions and email discussions with people all over the globe; and
he watches over Caitlin (in more ways than one) as she comes of age
in this novel.
But most of all, he defends himself--in many manners. Most
notably, he must protect himself from Hume's machinations against
him. Hume publicizes a key to what makes Webmind conscious, and
then goes about attempting to recruit hackers to take advantage of
that knowledge to take down Webmind. Hume is a patriot--he
believes that he is doing what is best for humans and humanity, and
goes about this task against the orders of the President of the
United States. He truly believes that he is doing the right thing;
he's not a bad man, just a misguided one.
The thing is, all the hackers on his list are disappearing. He
blames the disappearances on Webmind. While he's correct in that
assumption, he's wrong about what's going on. What *is* going on
is something that is wonderful (there, I used that word in this
review - tried not too, but figured what the heck) for all of
mankind.
And that really is the theme for this book, isn't it? *Wonder*.
As usual, we have more than one item that fits the bill. Webmind's
wonderful act that has a global effect. The wonder of a teenager
discovering love and coming of age. The wonder of a community of
hackers united in a cause for good instead of mischief. There are
a few more, but I think you get the idea.
What about the Chinese bird flu epidemic on one side of the globe,
and Bobo on the other? Well, yep, their stories are resolved here
too. Yep, it all comes together.
I do have some very minor quibbles with the book, but other than
saying that I have them, they really aren't worth mentioning, and
they certainly don't detract from the novel in any significant.
What *is* significant is that WATCH gives you what you expect from
a Robert J. Sawyer novel, and that is a *very* good thing. WONDER
is a very satisfying and terrific conclusion to the World Wide Web
trilogy. I highly recommend it.
Coming up: while I'll be reviewing the occasional audiobook in the
coming weeks, my next set of reviews of printed books will be the
remaining Hugo-mominated novels. [-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: MEETING SPENCER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: British director Malcolm Mowbray (best known for 1984's A
PRIVATE FUNCTION) gives us a one-setting, real-time film that could
really have been a stage play. A once-great Broadway director is
trying to get a gem of a play produced on Broadway and finding
everything good about the play has to be compromised. The material
Mowbray's film is familiar and the characters are thin, but the
dialog is crisp and witty. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Just like people like to talk about their own ailments, people in
the film industry like to talk about what is wrong with the film
industry. Not infrequently they make films on the subject. People
in theater like to talk about what is wrong with Broadway. One of
the best-known exposes of the film industry is Robert Altman's THE
PLAYER. My personal favorite, a little less familiar, is
Christopher Guest's THE BIG PICTURE. In it, Kevin Bacon is a
promising filmmaker who lets a successful film producer modify his
idea little by little until it becomes unrecognizable and
incidentally also a piece of trash. That same corrupting dynamic
moved to the Broadway theater environment is working in MEETING
SPENCER. The film is set in Frankie & Johnnie's (a real theater-
district steakhouse) where once-great theatrical director Harris
Chappell (played by Jeffery Tambor) is trying to get a serious
piece of theater (as opposed to show business) produced and
financed. The play is the last work of a Pulitzer-prize winning
playwright, now deceased, and its original idea is dying a death of
a thousand cuts the more Chappell is being asked to make changes.
The play is a tragedy of an elderly man, but a bit at a time it is
turning into a musical comedy starring the callow Spencer (Jesse
Plemons). Actors, agents, and investors each want to add their own
spin to the play as less and less of the original vision remains.
It is like subverting DEATH OF A SALESMAN into HOW TO SUCCEED IN
BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING.
The point of MEETING SPENCER is made early on. Art suffers when it
becomes too much of a business run like a corporation. With too
many people serving their own ends making decisions about the
production of a play or film, only mediocrity can follow. Tambor's
character is a pleasure to watch. He is a little pompous and a
little corrupt, but he remembers how to give a good play the
production it deserves. Years ago he had been a great theatrical
director, but when he went to Hollywood he undoubtedly faced the
same sort of deal-making pressures he is seeing here in the
theater, and his seed of corruption probably led him to compromise.
He knows that he has a vision for this new play, but every instinct
he has about the play is being undermined a bit at a time. There
is sympathy for the play's fate, but Chappell is a little too
haughty to earn much sympathy himself.
Andrew Kole, Andrew Delaplaine, and Scott Kasdin wrote MEETING
SPENCER. Having three writers for a film can be a problem. While
it is not obvious from the final result, three different viewpoints
on one script is perhaps at least one too many. While Tambor takes
his role and runs with it as Chappell, the other characters go
under-developed. One could choose a single adjective for each and
it would fairly well cover their characterization. Nevertheless
frequently the dialog is nimble.
Mostly this film shows off Jeffrey Tambor's comic art. I suppose I
could say that I knew exactly what it would take to make this a
boffo comedy with just a few little suggestions from me. But the
point of the MEETING SPENCER is that it is better to ignore
suggestions, so I will just rate it a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or
6/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486186/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/meeting_spencer/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: FAT, SICK & NEARLY DEAD (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Aussie Joe Cross is the anti-Spurlock. He has made a
documentary of his odyssey while consuming only life-saving food.
He probably did save his own life and the lives of others by first
going on an all-liquid vegetable juice fast and then by spreading
the word of this diet to others. We join him as he spreads the
gospel of juice fasts followed by a diet exclusively of fruits and
vegetables. He tells us of his self-redemption and his explanation
of the principles is mostly entertaining, though eventually
repetitious. The case histories he presents are effective and even
sometimes moving. Along the way he looks at the problem of bad
diets in the United States and Australia. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or
6/10
At the start of this documentary Australian Joe Cross's diet was
bringing him to near-death. He weighed 310 pounds and had a 53-
inch waistline. His consumption of food was immense and his
consumption of drugs to fight the effects of his diet and keep him
going was proportionally large. He decided to fight for his life
and that the way to do it was to go on a diet exclusively of
vegetable and fruit juice, a sinister-looking green potion that
would be his exclusive food. While he live on this diet he would
go to the United States and spend one month in New York City and
one month traveling across the country interviewing people about
nutrition and educating them about his juice fast and what a
powerful tool he expected it to be over the sixty days. After the
sixty days Joe no longer needs his medication and his doctor is
delighted with his condition.
The director/star/co-writer tells his story with illustrations in
the form of amusing animation interspersed with pieces of his
background. He conducts on-the-street interviews about diet,
nutrition, and people's attitudes on both. He openly proselytizes
for a healthy diet of vegetables and fruits. As his own proof of
the vast improvement that a good diet brings he talks with Phil, a
morbidly obese truck driver (429 pounds), and helps a woman who
suffers from migraines. Then about an hour into this 97-minute
film he returns home, his diet a very big health success. So what
will he do for the rest of the film? Joe gets a call from truck
driver Phil, who has decided he desperately needs Joe's diet and
his help. Phil is one of two brothers from Iowa, both morbidly
obese. So we see Phil's story as he is successful enough on the
diet that he becomes the local advocate and teacher of good
nutrition.
This all gives the feel of an infomercial crossed with a Biblical
story. Of course, Joe does not seem to be selling anything for
money. He is only trying to get people to salvage their lives by
improving their diets. His approach is a radical one, but one
which seems to be successful. Repeatedly we see Cross feeding
vegetables into his juicer and we hear people giving their opinion
of the flavor. There is a spectrum of people: some like it and
some find it odious. This is one film that suffers from not
providing a sample for the viewer to taste.
I have no reason to doubt Joe Cross's facts. Most people in both
the United States and in Australia have little more than a
rudimentary knowledge of nutrition and lack the will power to
confine themselves to a diet that could add years to their life,
but which lacks the appeal of fast food and pizza. Cross brings
his message on strong, but it is one that will not bring a very big
following. Also, Cross includes images of food that are far more
tempting than healthy. Seeing this film on an empty stomach might
have just the opposite effect than intended. But this film makes a
useful pairing to Morgan Spurlock's SUPERSIZE ME with its journal
of an unhealthy diet. Spurlock and Cross sent the same message by
documenting opposite diets. In the end Cross comes out the winner.
I rate FAT, SICK & NEARLY DEAD a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1227378/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fat_sick_and_nearly_dead_2011/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Truth, Justice, and the Un-American Way (letter of comment
by Taras Wolansky)
This news item about Action Comics #900 is a ruefully amusing sign
of the times:
"Superman replies that it was foolish to think that his actions
would not reflect politically on the American government, and that
he therefore plans to renounce his American citizenship at the
United Nations the next day--and to continue working as a superhero
from a more global than national perspective."
http://tinyurl.com/void-superman
[-tw]
Mark replies:
It is a sign of the times. I think the "American Way" no longer
means what it used to. There is much less an "American Way" now
than there used to be that even most of the country at least pays
lip service to. We are becoming less and less a country that
values fairness. The country is moving away from the ideal of
making things uniformly not terrible (maybe not good, but just not
terrible) for everybody in the country. The American Dream now
seems to be to game the economic system and/or game the political
system for personal benefit. I think that when Michael Douglas as
Gordon Gecko told the country satirically that "Greed is Good" he
didn't make sufficiently clear that that was intended to be, and
was, a reprehensible philosophy. Too many people were seduced by
the message and happily took it seriously. I think DC Comics
realizes its readers no longer feel reverent toward the current
"American Way" but are not yet cynical about the world as a whole.
I suspect Captain America will not be following suit. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Cubicles (letter of comment by Nathan)
In response to Mark's comments about hot-bunking cubicles in the
04/29/11 issue of the MT VOID, Nathan writes, "Actually, in the
company I work, our cubicles are less than 6' square. And if you
work in support, where there is 16 hours/day of coverage, hot
bunking in cubicles is done. I find it revolting, missing my semi-
private office that I last had in 1996. But then again, corporate
life has done nothing but decline since I started my career in
1986." [-n]
Mark responds, "Ah, you should have seen Bell Labs Holmdel in 1978.
Now that was a great environment. You want a great environment
now, you probably have to go to Google." [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Brain Teasers (letters of comment by Kip Williams and Tim
McDaniel)
In response to Evelyn's comments on whether brain teasers become
out-dated ("You would think that brain teasers and logic puzzles
are things that do not become outdated..."), Kip Williams writes:
Au contraire! The thing that stood between me and Henry Ernest
Dudeney, writer of many great puzzles, is the dead past of British
coinage and postage. So many puzzles in his books seemed to hinge
on knowing what the values of UK stamps were, and how many
farthings made a furlong.
Which reminds me that weights, measures, and distances in these
puzzles are another obstacle, with the decimalization of things, at
least for some audiences. They may still use rods and pecks, but
they're not widely understood in this urban age.
Who knows how many things will be incomprehensible? Puzzles
hinging on 33s, 45s and 78s? Phone dial foolery? DOS jokes?
[-kw]
Tim McDaniel responds:
No, it's how many farthings make a shire.
(It's a trick question. You can't make a whole Shire out of
Farthings.) [-tmd]
And Kip replies:
"You're crazy! You'll never beat a Mingle and a Snazzle with a
lousy Farfle!" [-kw]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
HOW I KILLED PLUTO AND WHY IT HAD IT COMING by Mike Brown (ISBN
978-0-385-53108-5) is by the discoverer of Quaoar, Sedna, Haumea
and Hi'iaka, Makemake, and Xena and Gabrielle (Eris and Dysnomia).
Brown spends a lot of time discussing exactly what a planet is,
i.e., the definition of planet. But he never gives the definition
in a single bullet-list, and what he says does not seem to match
what I thought was finally decided by the International
Astronomical Union. First, he says that the IAU said that a planet
has to be round, or roundish, anyway. That is, its shape has to be
affected by its own gravity. Second, it has to orbit the sun. And
as a third point, he says that the IAU said that a satellite of a
planet is not a planet if the center of mass of the satellite-
planet system is within the planet, but is a planet in its own
right if the center of mass is outside the planet. But in fact
this third point got dropped (due to technical difficulties), and
replaced by one saying it has "cleared its neighborhood" of smaller
objects around its orbit. This would eliminate all the asteroids,
and most of the trans-Plutonian objects, but it seems to me that
Sedna still meets these requirements. However, since Brown never
gives the exact wording of this requirement (or even mentions it!),
it is hard to know.
In addition, according to Wikipedia, Alan Stern objects that "it is
impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between dwarf
planets and planets," and that since neither Earth, Mars, Jupiter,
nor Neptune have entirely cleared their regions of debris, none
could properly be considered planets under the IAU definition.
Mark Sykes, points out that "since the definition does not
categorize a planet by composition or formation, but, effectively,
by its location, a Mars-sized or larger object beyond the orbit of
Pluto would be considered a dwarf planet, since it would not have
time to clear its orbit."
Actually, it isn't clear what degree of "roundness"--"hydrostatic
equilibrium"--is required either.)
(The problems with the "center of mass" requirement are
interesting. The rationale is that if the center of mass is
outside the larger then the smaller is not really orbiting the
larger, but they are both orbiting a "neutral" point. However, by
this reasoning, Jupiter is not orbiting the sun, but the center of
mass for those two objects is outside the sun. And since the moon
is moving away from us, at some point, the center of mass of the
Earth-Moon system will be outside the Earth. Does that magically
turn the moon into a planet?)
Brown seems to think it is important not to expand the
definition/idea of "planet" to include Kuiper Belt objects,
asteroids, etc. On the one hand, he says, "Definitions like this
are unimportant, [many astronomers] say. I, However, will tell you
the opposite." On the other, he says, "[Let] me tell you why you
should never think about the IAU definition of the word 'planet'.
In the entire field of astronomy, there is no word other than
'planet' that has a precise, lawyerly definition, in which certain
criteria are specifically enumerated. ... [In] astronomy, as in
most sciences, scientists work by concepts rather than
definitions."
To me this latter attitude is just plain wrong. Scientists work by
definitions. If you ask a zoologist what a mammal is, he can cite
a definition: three bones in the inner ear. If you ask a biologist
what a fruit is, he can cite a definition: part of a flowering
plant that derives from specific tissues of the flower, mainly one
or more ovaries. These definitions may get modified or changed
with time as new discoveries are made, but they do exist.
And the common usage of these terms may not match the scientific
definitions. In the case of mammals, in casual usage, a mammal is
basically an animal that has hair and bears live young. The fact
that this does not include pangolins or echidnae doesn't bother
most people, though people do often add duck-billed platypuses as
an afterthought. The fact that a tomato is biologically a fruit
does not mean that people will call it one, or vice versa.
Mushrooms are considered plants by the general public, but not by
biologists.
Oh, and Brown also tells the story of how the Spanish tried to
claim the discovery of most of Brown's objects by hacking into the
telescope databases to see where he had been viewing, and then rush
their claims to the press while Brown followed standard
astronomical procedure.
ON TOP OF THE WORLD: FIVE WOMEN EXPLORERS IN TIBET by Luree Miller
(ISBN 0-89886-097-0) is published by "The Mountaineers" and so is
somewhat biased in glorifying the adventures of these women. But
readers may disagree somewhat. For example, Nina Mazuchelli did
almost all her exploration carried in a Barielly dandy by four men.
She only walked when the bearers were too weak from hunger (due to
poor planning regarding provisions) to carry her.
Not all the women explorers were so catered to, and their
motivations changed over time from missionary work in the late 18th
century to exploration and study for Alexandra David-Neel in the
early 20th century. The focus shifted from imposing a Western view
onto the Tibetans to learning an Eastern view from them.
I took a break from my reading for the Sidewise Award (and before
starting on the Hugo Award nominees) to read a new Jules Verne
novel. No, not PARIS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY--that is now an old
Jules Verne novel. The new one is THE SECRET OF WILHELM STORITZ
(translated by Peter Schulman) (ISBN 978-0-8032-3484-0). I know
what you're thinking: wasn't that published in 1963 in the I. O.
Evans translation? Well, sort of. First of all, the French text
Evans used was one edited--one might almost say re-written--by
Verne's son, Michel Verne. The introduction to this edition
provides details, but the major changes include changing Jules
Verne's original setting of the late nineteenth century to the
eighteenth century, and changing the ending. This in turn entailed
changing any anachronistic references, so out went the steamship,
the railway, the references to Napoleon, and so on. And the
introduction implies that Evans's translation may also not have
been the best, though it seems to tread lightly here.
Now, early translations of Verne have been notoriously bad.
Possibly the worst example is the line from 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER
THE SEA: "And, provided with a lentil, he lighted a fire of dead
wood that crackled joyously." "Lentil" in French, means "lens";
the legume takes its name from its similarity of shape, but no one
tries to light a fire with a legume. More recent translations have
usually avoided such gaffes, so I was distressed to read in this
translation of THE SECRET OF WILHELM STORITZ, "Most of the dishes
were spiced with paprika, as they are throughout Hungary ... the
Hungarian pallet is particularly fond of that spice!" (In case
your proofreading skills have become rusty, that should be "the
Hungarian palate".)
Verne is often considered prescient in scientific matters, but he
seems to have predicted the start of World War I, when he wrote
well before 1914, "The Serb is born a soldier, lives the life of a
soldier, dies a soldier. Isn't it to Belgrade, its capital, that
all the aspirations of the Slavic race turn? And if, one day, this
race rises against the Germanic one, if revolution erupts, the flag
of freedom will surely be carried by a Serbian hand!" The only
thing he didn't forecast was Gavrilo Princip's name.
And regarding invisibility, Verne was fairly cavalier about it,
since not only did the potion make the person invisible, and also
their clothing, but apparently also whatever clothing they put on.
(One wonders if the clothing they took off became visible.) But
over time, all the molecules in our bodies are replaced. (I seem
to remember that they all change every seven years.) So if an
invisible person waits seven years, will all the invisible
molecules be replaced with visible ones? And will the person be a
ghostly image after three and a half years? I find it ironic that
Verne complained about H. G. Wells's scientific laxity, yet Wells
seemed more concerned about accuracy than Verne in his portrayal of
invisibility.
In any case, I will say in passing that I would consider this 2011
translation to be sufficiently different from the earlier
translations to be eligible for nomination for the Hugo Award. How
to compare it to works first written this year is another matter
entirely. I do confess that the idea of having Jules Verne get a
Hugo nomination is appealing.
FIXING MY GAZE by Susan R. Barry (ISBN 978-0-465-00913-8) is in
many ways the result of a real-life experiment very similar to the
thought experiment in Frank Jackson's classic work, "What Mary
Didn't Know" (1986). As described in the notes in FIXING MY GAZE,
"[Jackson proposed that] Mary is [a] brilliant [neuroscientist] and
knows everything there is to know theoretically about color and
color vision. However, she has lived all her life in a black-and-
white room, her entire body covered in black-and-white clothes, so
that she saw absolutely no color. Finally, Mary is let out of her
room. She sees red for the first time. Is red what she imagined?
Had she been able to imagine any of the colors that she now sees?
Has she learned something new about the world?" (The paper is one
of the most important papers in the field of the mind-body problem,
along with the similarly-themed "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" by
Thomas Nagel.)
As Oliver Sacks says in his introduction to FIXING MY GAZE, Barry
lacked stereoscopic vision, but "she was a professor of
neurobiology, and she had read plenty of papers on visual
processing, binocular vision, and stereopsis. She felt this
knowledge had given her some special insight into what she was
missing--she knew what stereopsis must be like, even if she had
never experienced it."
But (as Sacks writes), in December 2004 Barry wrote him, "You asked
me if I could imagine what the world would look like when viewed
with two eyes. I told you that I thought I could.... But I was
wrong." Sacks continues, "She could say this with some conviction
because she had suddenly, unexpected acquired stereovision herself,
and the reality of this, the actual experience, was utterly beyond
anything imagination could have conceived.
Barry also describes one reason that it has been so rare for people
to acquire stereoscopic vision later in life: "[Many] adults with
binocular vision disorders are told their deficits are permanent,
so they seek no further treatment." This is almost an exact
parallel to what was shown about autism in the film TEMPLE GRANDIN:
everyone was told that there was no hope for people with autism to
learn to cope with it, so there was very little actually done to
test this hypothesis. (Ironically, when I closed the book after
typing this, I noticed for the first time that the blurb on the
front cover is by Temple Grandin!)
When does SNOW CRASH by Neal Stephenson (ISBN 0-553-56261-4) take
place? It was published in 1992, but assuming it is a
straightforward future setting leads to problems.
For example, Hiro's father was born in 1928, and Hiro was born in
his "late middle age." If that means around 50, then Hiro was born
in 1978. Hiro seems to be about 30, so that would make it 2008.
L. Bob Rife was born in 1948, so he would be 60 in 2008, and Uncle
Enzo would be about the same.
But Rife bought the U.S.S. Enterprise *after* General Jim's Defense
System and Admiral Bob's Global Security were formed, and it has
been drifting around for at least two years. Given a history that
matched ours until 1992, there just doesn't seem enough time to
privatize the military, not to mention to set up all the burbclaves
and FOQNEs.
There are also complaints about how some of Y.T.'s weaponry
violates Newton's Third Law of Motion, as well as other technical
complaints. And then there are the objections to the racial and
ethnic stereotypes, the unlikelihood of some of the organizations,
and so on.
The problem, I think, is that people are trying to apply realistic
rules to a satire. No one complains about ANIMAL FARM by saying
that the animals in it display stereotypes. No one complains that
the insect in THE METAMORPHOSIS is impossible because of the
square-cube law. No one complains that the idea of visiting the
worlds of classic literature in THE EYRE AFFAIR is contrary to
science. (For that matter, hardly anyone complains when we have
faster-than-light travel in science fiction.) It's called willing
suspension of disbelief. Is the world Stephenson describes in
SNOW CRASH plausible? No, not in its detail. But as a
"heightening" of trends in our world to provide social commentary,
it works just fine. We don't have the Enforcers and The Cops, but
we do have private security companies. We don't have burbclaves
but we do have gated HOAs. We don't have "You have a friend in the
Family" ads for the Mafia, but we do have the Yakuza providing
disaster relief in Japan. We don't have the Reverend Wayne's
Pearly Gates, but we do have any number of similar religious
organizations. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Man is the only animal that can remain on
friendly terms with the victims he intends
to eat until he eats them.
--Samuel Butler