@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
         @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
         @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
         @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
         @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 05/22/98 -- Vol. 16, No. 47

       MT Chair/Librarian:
                     Mark Leeper   MT 3E-433  732-957-5619 mleeper@lucent.com
       HO Chair:     John Jetzt    MT 2E-530  732-957-5087 jetzt@lucent.com
       HO Librarian: Nick Sauer    HO 4F-427  732-949-7076 njs@lucent.com
       Distinguished Heinlein Apologist:
                     Rob Mitchell  MT 2D-536  732-957-6330 rlmitchell1@lucent.com
       Factotum:     Evelyn Leeper MT 3E-433  732-957-2070 eleeper@lucent.com
       Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
       second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
       201-447-3652 for details.  The New Jersey Science Fiction Society
       meets irregularly; call 201-652-0534 for details, or check
       http://www.interactive.net/~kat/njsfs.html.  The Denver Area
       Science Fiction Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of
       every month at Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.

       1.             URL             of             the             week:
       http://www.spiritone.com/~jlorentz/hugos/final.htm.   Hugo  ballot,
       with links to most of the nominated stories and writers.  [-ecl]

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

       2. Recently I was discussing the new James Bond  novel  ZERO  MINUS
       TEN.   While  I  am on the subject of spy fiction a friend asked me
       recently to name what I thought were the  really  good  spy  films.
       What  immediately  came to mind was the Bond series, but then I was
       stumped for even a second best.  Actually there have been few  film
       series  that  really  could be said to be about a spy.  For a while
       there were several spy films made, but rarely in  series  and  what
       were  made  generally  were  not very good.  Part of the problem is
       that too many spy films were made that were intended to send up the
       genre.   These  days  almost all spy films are send-ups.  The genre
       has too many hyenas picking on too few lions.

       Most Westerns take themselves fairly seriously.   There  have  been
       some  comic  Westerns,  even  classics like DESTRY RIDES AGAIN, but
       they have been a relatively small minority.  Not all Westerns  have
       been  of  the highest quality, perhaps.  But by in large the makers
       of Western films have generally been  content  to  let  the  viewer
       escape  into  the  world of their films and not keep being reminded
       that these outdoor dramas with horses could be pretty unreal  stuff
       themselves.

       The action spy film has not done nearly so  well.   The  major  spy
       series  has  been  the  James Bond films, of course, but there have
       been relatively few good spy stories in  even  that  series.   FROM
       RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDERBALL, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, FOR
       YOUR EYES ONLY, and LICENSE TO KILL  are  probably  the  only  Bond
       films  that  really qualify.  Even then there are lots of whimsical
       bits.  And of course there are the Bondisms, the  wisecracks  after
       violent  actions  that  have  become almost cliche in action films.
       People who really do have licenses to kill other  people  in  their
       professions  are  more likely to have heavy fits of depression when
       they really do have to kill.  But of course they are trying to show
       James Bond is above all that.  (The whole "license to kill" concept
       in the James Bond series seems more for  image  anyway.   With  the
       exception  of  one scene in the very first Bond film, DR. NO, James
       Bond kills only in self-defense.  Self-defense does not  require  a
       license.)

       But James Bond sort of defined the genre and there really has  been
       no other series that has remained serious for more than a couple of
       films.  Other good relatively serious spy films include THE IPCRESS
       FILE,  FUNERAL  IN  BERLIN,  and most of the films based on John Le
       Carre novels.  For those lucky enough to have seen the  British  TV
       series  THE  SANDBAGGERS,  it  was  quite  good,  as were the early
       seasons of MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.  But most of  the  Bond  films,  the
       Matt  Helm  series,  the  Flint  films, and hosts of others down to
       AUSTIN POWERS, probably the majority  of  spy  films,  treat  their
       material  in a whimsical, tongue-in-cheek manner.  They do not want
       to be taken seriously; they aspire only to being a  little  bit  of
       throwaway fun.  There is, of course, a market for the whimsical spy
       films, but they generally just feed off of the relatively small set
       of more serious films.

       This is not to say that there have not been some decent spy  films,
       not  many  but some.  Many were made during or at least about World
       War II.  Arguably CASABLANCA is really a spy film.  But somehow the
       World  War  wartime  spy  film seems a different breed from what we
       would want to consider the secret agent film.  When your country is
       at  war  it  is  sort  of expected that people will do all in their
       power to help their country.   At those times  spying  is  sort  of
       everybody's  responsibility.   In  CASABLANCA Rick is not anybody's
       agent.  He is just doing what seems the right thing to  do.   Nazis
       are  convenient  villains  to  put  into  films  because  they  are
       unslanderable.  If you say bad things in films about ethnic  groups
       or  particular  religions  you  probably deserve what you get.  But
       there are very few who would call a hatred of  Nazis  "bigotry"  or
       even  a  bad  thing.   The same was pretty much true of Communists,
       particularly in the 1950s.  So there were a lot of very lightweight
       films  with Nazi or Communist villains.  And the villains often are
       only thinly disguised gangsters.  THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN  is,  I
       suppose,  a  sort  of  spy  film.   So are THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL and
       FANTASTIC VOYAGE.  But it seems a real spy film should be something
       more.

       So what are good spy films?  Well darn few of the James Bond  films
       qualify in my opinion.  I think the best of the Bond films have the
       least in the way  of  glitzy  super-villains,  a  bear  minimum  of
       fantastic weaponry, but a good plot, hopefully with a twist or two.
       That would probably make FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE the best Bond  film.
       Some  of  what  was  qualifies  from  John  Le  Carre, particularly
       adaptations done for the BBC.  Other than the films mentioned above
       I  would  add  some  films  that probably nobody has ever heard of.
       There  was  a  1972  film  with  Stanley  Baker   called   INNOCENT
       BYSTANDERS.    One   of  the  classics  is  1962's  THE  MANCHURIAN
       CANDIDATE.  The 1961 THE COUNTERFEIT TRAITOR is one of  the  better
       ones.   NIGHT TRAIN TO MUNICH (1940) is just a bit tongue-in-cheek,
       but still works as a  thriller.   FIVE  FINGERS  (1952)  qualifies.
       Alfred  Hitchcock  did  several  decent spy films including FOREIGN
       CORRESPONENT (1940), NORTORIOUS (1946), the less serious  NORTH  BY
       NORTHWEST  (1959),  TORN CURTAIN (1966), and TOPAZ (1969).  In 1944
       Fritz Lang directed THE MINISTRY OF FEAR which  probably  ranks  as
       one  of  the  good ones.  REQUIEM FOR A SECRET AGENT (1965) and THE
       QUILLER MEMORANDUM (1966) were certainly worth seeing.  [-mrl]

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

       3. DEEP IMPACT (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: Nature does not pull its punches,  and
                 DEEP  IMPACT  pulls far fewer than most similar
                 films, stretching most of its believability  in
                 the  last  reel.   This  is for the most part a
                 very plausible and frightening film  with  real
                 characters  working  out  real  problems in the
                 face of a threat of cosmic  proportions.   DEEP
                 IMPACT  is  a  very promising film from the new
                 production   company   Dreamworks   (and   from
                 Paramount).  Rating: 8 (0 to 10), low +3 (-4 to
                 +4)

       We have had a long period in  which  special  effects  have  driven
       science fiction films rather than characters or ideas.  Last year's
       CONTACT was a very good science fiction film with three-dimensional
       characters.  DEEP IMPACT is the first of two major theatrical films
       (along with at least one TV movie) inspired by  the  Shoemaker-Levy
       comet's  impact  on  Jupiter and speculation of what if it had been
       Earth that had been hit.  At least in plot and ideas  the  film  is
       highly  reminiscent  of  George  Pal's classic WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE.
       However the emotional texture of the film also has some of  ON  THE
       BEACH.  For the admittedly small sub-genre of films about celestial
       impacts on Earth films--not forgetting METEOR--this  is  likely  to
       remain the best.

       Teenager Leo Biederman (Elijah Wood) sights a celestial  body  that
       just  should  not  be  where he sees it.  He reports his finding to
       professional astronomer Marcus Wolf (Charles Martin  Smith).   Wolf
       confirms that indeed it is a new comet.  But Wolf also discovers it
       is on a collision course with Earth.  A year  passes  and  TV  news
       reporter  Jenny  Lerner  trips on something very secret going on in
       Washington.   There  seems  to  be  a  serious  sex  scandal,   one
       sufficient  to  cause  the Secretary of the Treasury to resign.  In
       Washington any sufficiently well kept secret  is  indistinguishable
       from  a sex scandal.  Jenny wants to get the goods on the Secretary
       of the Treasury and instead stumbles onto what is accurately called
       the  biggest  story in world history.  The United States and Russia
       are secretly cooperating on efforts to avert the disaster  that  is
       coming  our  way  in  the  form of Comet Wolf-Biederman.  The story
       moves back and forth among multiple story  lines.   Morgan  Freeman
       plays  a President of the United States whom the script uses mostly
       just to make major announcements.  Spurgeon Tanner (Robert  Duvall)
       is  a crusty ex-Apollo astronaut on a mission to destroy the comet.
       But he has a strained relationship with younger astronauts  on  the
       same  mission.   Leo Biederman must come to terms with the new fame
       he has received having his name associated with a deadly menace  to
       his  planet.   And  Jenny Lerner is resolving her relationship with
       her separated parents.

       The chief problem with DEEP IMPACT is  that  two  hours  is  really
       about a third of what would be needed to do the story realistically
       and cover most of the parts that should be  told.   That  seems  to
       imply  TV  mini-  series.   But  it  requires the wide-screen to do
       justice to the visual aspects of the story.  Certainly in the early
       parts  of  the  film it seems to be rushing through what is just an
       outline of what the story should be.  Much of the story goes by  in
       a   very   superficial  manner.   Interesting  and  some  sometimes
       spectacular scenes are left out that would inevitably take place if
       a  comet were headed for earth.  Cooperation is reached between two
       country's space agencies.  Huge projects that dwarf  the  Manhattan
       Project  occur off-stage.  While in the plot there is hope for some
       people and not others, one would expect great rioting by those less
       fortunate.  This is only hinted at.  While human reactions are much
       more believable than they were in WHEN  WORLDS  COLLIDE,  they  are
       still  far  from  convincing.  We  see  only  frustratingly sketchy
       details in a headlong rush to get to still  meatier  parts  of  the
       story.

       Still the film has a real credibility that is broken  only  in  the
       semi-optimistic  final  reel.   The  emphasis  of  the script is on
       people and not special effects, though  when  the  film  calls  for
       effects,  they  are  there  in force with some very nice sequences.
       DEEP IMPACT and CONTACT are evidence that the science fiction  film
       is not just for thrill-hungry teenagers.  It can tell a story on an
       adult level and convincingly take us places we have never been  and
       in  some cases may never again want to go.  I give DEEP IMPACT an 8
       on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale.  [-mrl]

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

       4. CITY ON FIRE, by Walter Jon Williams (Harper  Prism,  1997,  498
       pp.,  HC,  ISBN:  0-06-105213-2,  SFBC edition) (book review by Joe
       Karpierz):

       I normally don't read Walter Jon Williams.  Maybe  it's  because  I
       associate  his name (maybe incorrectly) with the cyberpunk subgenre
       of sf, one that I haven't really liked since it hit big  time  with
       William  Gibson's NEUROMANCER back in 1984 or so.  So I was already
       at a disadvantage  when  I  picked  up  CITY  ON  FIRE,  because  I
       discovered   that   it   is   a  sequel  to  Williams'  1995  novel
       METROPOLITAN.  But I picked up CITY ON FIRE anyway,  determined  to
       read  it  with  an  open  mind.   And what I found left me thinking
       "yeah, so what?".

       The novel centers around a young woman named Aiah,  who  apparently
       was also the centerpiece of the first novel.  She comes to the city
       of Caraqui, finding a job under Constantine, the character referred
       to  in  the title of the first novel.  She is given the position as
       head of the new Plasm Enforcement Division.   Plasm,  according  to
       the  jacket  of the first novel, is "a mysterious substance created
       by geomancy from the intrinsic power of the city's structures", and
       according  to  the  jacket  of  the second novel, "plasm can propel
       ships or knock down buildings; it can reverse aging,  amplify  sex,
       or  alter  genes.   It's  awesome  geomantic  power  can  penetrate
       anything - ".  We get to  read  about  it  doing  all  that  stuff;
       indeed,  plasm  is  pretty much in the center of everything, as you
       might guess.

       But for me, CITY ON FIRE has nothing new,  except  for  this  plasm
       stuff, and it isn't even new because it was introduced in the first
       book.  The story does follow Aiah as she grows from a  naive  young
       woman  into  a very savvy political creature capable of holding her
       own with Constantine during a war in which she  is  being  used  by
       him.   There  is  a  little mumbo-jumbo about the Dreaming Sisters,
       women who experience and understand plasm, but don't *do*  anything
       with  it.   They figure in the novel's conclusion.  There's also an
       evil critter named Taikoen who lives in the plasm and who to me had
       great  potential  but was never really used for much.  The one idea
       in the book that intrigued me (and therefore probably hooked me for
       the  inevitable  third  book  in  the series) is that there is this
       thing called the Shield placed up in the sky by the  Ascended  Ones
       (we  don't  know  who they are from this novel) to prevent humanity
       from seeing or reaching the stars.  We are tantalized  by  a  brief
       excursion  outside it (which of course is just enough to set up yet
       another book in the series), but we don't know any  more  about  it
       than that.

       Personally, I thought that CITY ON FIRE was  a  decent,  reasonable
       read,  but  that  it  didn't have anything to recommend itself as a
       Hugo nominee.  It certainly wouldn't jump to  the  top  of  my  "to
       read" stack, and I wouldn't push it on anyone else, either.  It was
       okay, nothing more.  [-jak]

                                          Mark Leeper
                                          MT 3E-433 732-957-5619
                                          mleeper@lucent.com

            A liberal is a person whose interests are not
            at stake at the moment.
                                          -- Willis Player