@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 1/14/00 -- Vol. 18, No. 29
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
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 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. It is interesting how over the course of a few decades the
interpretation of just what are American rights have changed
without the actual rights changing. Our interpretation of the
Constitution is in many ways very different than it was when I was
young. We are products of the times we live in and as a result
know why the interpretation changes and we along with the change.
Perhaps even without seeing any change in ourselves end up with
very different opinions from what we once had.
Every once in a while I reach into the past and debate the
college-aged Mark Leeper. He argues what he thought was a fairly
liberal and enlightened viewpoint at the time. I argue what I
think is a fairly liberal and enlightened viewpoint for now. Oddly
enough we still disagree. We find that we disagree on a lot of
different issues though each of us has the best of intentions. The
two different views of an issue frequently give me a better view of
the issue.
Perhaps nothing shows this parallax so much as the current case of
John Rocker. Rocker is a baseball player on the Atlanta Braves who
grew up in Georgia in what I would guess is a not very diverse
society. One gets the impression it was one of the last
communities to use the stone axe and not know about the wheel.
Rocker makes some medium-potent comments about not wanting to be
around immigrants, gays, minorities, women, immigrant women,
minority gays, immigrant minorities, gay women, immigrant gay
minority women, etc. It is very likely that what he is saying is
even true. He really does not like being around this sort of
people. As far as I know he has taken no specific action beyond
some reported aggressive driving. But he harbors these ignorant
opinions. I understand a lot of sports figures apparently harbor
ignorant opinions. Like that sports is important. This is
because, based on a small sample I have seen on TV, a lot of them
appear to be strong but ignorant. They are college graduates, of
course. But they went to colleges where they majored in high-
profile alumni-visible sports. They minored in lower-profile
sports. They didn't have time for electives. They mostly played
baseball or football. And took a heavy load of coursework like
Baseball 101 and Football 101. And they accomplished great things.
They packed the school stadium on Homecoming Weekend. They didn't
spend much time in class. For them pi is something you have for
dessert and Shakespeare is what you do to get it to spray across
the room. If they are ignorant they come by it semi-honestly and
with the best of help from some of our best schools.
This guy Rocker should have it explained to him that you just do
not say this sort of thing. Certainly not where it will be over-
heard and repeated by a reporter. Saying you don't like certain
people like this is just not tolerated, even if you don't.
At this point the college-age Mark Leeper, who till now has been
staring aghast at my middle-aged paunch, jumps up and says,
"Whatever happened to 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death you right to say it?'"
"Not every maxim of the founding fathers has become law."
"It was attributed to Voltaire, actually. But it wasn't even
Voltaire who said it." I always was a wise-ass and a know-it-all
at that age.
"That's right. Voltaire. I'd forgotten. Well, I am not sure I
would want to protect his speech anyway. Voltaire was an anti-
Semite, you know."
"I didn't know that," says the younger me. Where had I heard that?
Perhaps this was here. "This guy Rocker sounds like a real bigoted
redneck," young me notes.
"That sounds just about right."
"Are bigoted rednecks still protected by the Constitution?"
"Tough question. Yes, I guess they are as long as they don't go
over into hate speech. That gets people hurt."
"What's this hate speech? We didn't have it in my day."
"In 'your day'? That wasn't so long ago, you know."
"Sure it was. What are we talking, thirty years? That's quite a
while."
"You had hate speech in your day, it was just not called that."
"We didn't call it that and it was protected. We didn't like it,
but we protected it. The point is you have carved off a whole
bunch of formerly protected free speech and made it illegal."
"Bad speech."
"Whatever. It was the thin end of the wedge. Now you are saying
bigots don't have a right to express themselves. Where's it going
to end? Who's going to be called a bigot next and told he doesn't
have a right to his opinions?"
"But you haven't seen all the trouble hate speech has caused over
the last thirty years. All the turmoil. And Rocker darn well is a
bigot."
"Maybe he is. But you got to protect his right to be a bigot.
Even an anti-Semite. You gotta hope that he gets better with time.
But he has a right to unpopular opinions. That's what Jefferson
would say. Jefferson said a little revolution once in a while was
a good thing. Rocker does not seem to be starting a revolution.
He isn't even trying to convince anyone else. He is only
succeeding in making himself look like a jerk. You probably should
let him. I got to go back now. Oh, and lay off the candy bars,
huh?" [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. THE YEAR 2000 edited by Harry Harrison (Berkley, ISBN 0-425-
02117-3, 1970, 254pp, US$0.95) (a book review by Evelyn C. Leeper):
In 1970, Harry Harrison had thirteen authors write stories set
thiry years in the future, in the year 2000. Well, having arrived
there, I thought this might be a good time to see how close or far
these stories are from reality.
The beginning of the first story, Fritz Leiber's "America the
Beautiful," gives you a feel for what these stories are like: "I am
returning to England. I am shorthanding this, July 5, 2000, aboard
the Dallas-London rocket as it arches silently out of the diffused
violet daylight of the stratosphere into the eternally star-
spangled purple night of the ionosphere." The story itself deals
with both the rising tensions between America and "the Communist
League," and the generally self-satisfied feeling that Americans
have with themselves. If the former has turned out to be false,
there is still some truth in the latter.
The second story ("Prometheus Rebound" by Daniel F. Galouye) reads
like something out of the 1930s, making me wonder what *he* was
thinking the year 2000 would be like.
Before there was Mike Resnick, there was Chad Oliver, and before
there was "Kirinyaga" there was "Far from This Earth," Oliver's
story of progress, if progress it be, in Kenya. It's surprising,
in fact, that this was not one of the inspirations for Resnick's
series, but it wasn't.
Naomi Mitchison's "After the Accident" is a rather straight-forward
genetic engineering story. And "Utopian" by Mack Reynolds reads
like one of those stilted Utopian stories from decades ago, right
down to people saying things like "If we were still using the
somewhat inefficient calendar of your period, this would be
approximately the year 2000."
Like Reynolds's story, "Sea Change" by A. Bertram Chandler deals
with someone who has "time-traveled" (via deep sleep) from 1970 to
2000. And similarly, Chandler also has a theme of "the old best
are sometimes the best," though in a different sense than Reynolds.
Robert Silverberg is one of the two authors who thought the race
issue would be critical over the next thirty years. Though his
racially separated society of "Black Is Beautiful" did not arise,
his story does raise issues that are relevant today, not least of
which is when does autonomy become just segregation under a
different name. (The paperback edition has an unfortunate typo at
the beginning, with "1933" instead of "1983.")
The other story of race relations is "American Dead" by Harry
Harrison, and it paints an even gloomier view of the conflict
between black and white. What is of interest is that neither
Silverberg nor Harrison has any other racial influences in his
story. Missing are the Asians and the Hispanics who certainly have
an impact in the racial politics of the United States in the year
2000.
"The Lawgiver" by Keith Laumer is still very topical today with its
theme of "right-to-life" issues, though a bit heavy-handed, I
thought.
Though in real life J. J. Coupling was involved in communications
technology (under his real name, John R. Pierce, he was an
executive director in Bell Labs when he wrote his story), "To Be a
Man" is more about bioengineering. However, it has some very
"modern" ideas, in particular more of the concepts that Greg Egan
is using these days. (I was particularly reminded of Egan's
"Reasons to be Cheerful.")
One note: of the thirteen authors, only Aldiss, Coupling, Harrison,
Masson, and Silverberg are still alive to see how it really turned
out. And the used bookstore where Mark or I bought this went out
of business a few years ago as well, after being in existence more
than a hundred years. [-ecl]
===================================================================
3. THE CIDER HOUSE RULES (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Solid, well-told if somewhat
predictable story of a young man's life in an
orphanage and his leaving to see a (very small)
bit of the world. It is a story that contrasts
responsibility with freedom and the need for a
home with the need for a life of ones own. But
especially it is a treatise on when it is
justified to break rules. Like a lot of films
based on John Irving novels the feel is less
realistic and more that of an extended fable.
Rating: 7 (0 to 10), +2 (-4 to +4)
Life is bleak at the orphanage at St. Cloud, Maine during the
Depression era. The weather is cold. The doctor who
autocratically runs the orphanage, Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine), is
an ether addict who performs illegal abortions. And of course
orphans learn about rejection the youngest of anybody. This could
be the worst of all possible worlds but for all Larchs
shortcomings, his love and compassion transform the orphanage.
Into this orphanage is brought Homer Wells (played as an adult by
Tobey Maguire), twice adopted and twice returned. Homer is raised
by Larch's love and by the love of the staff. As a teenager Homer
is trained to have a medical knowledge almost rivaling Larch's.
Homer personally wants nothing to do with abortions, and Larch
respects that. Homer delivers children and can handle a wide range
of medical emergencies like a professional.
Homer has never been far from St. Cloud, never seen the ocean,
never even seen a lobster. He longs to see a little of the real
world. When a serviceman brings his girlfriend Candy Kendall
(Charlize Theron)) for an abortion, Homer befriends the two, and
when it comes time to leave Homer asks to go with them. Homer has
no skills he knows how to sell and gratefully takes a job as an
apple picker. The team of farm workers, all black but for Homer,
is led by Mr. Rose (Delroy Lindo). Homer must try to fit into the
team.
Peppered through the story as a continuing theme are rules and
people who break rules. Under age boys drive cars and operate as
doctors. Adult doctors perform abortions. We also see love
against the rules. Irving shows us cases where rule-breaking is
excusable and cases where it cannot be forgiven. The whole story
seems to be a backdrop for examples of when rules should and should
not be broken. It is almost like a school exercise in which one
tries to put as many prepositions in a single sentence as possible,
with the actual meaning of the sentence having only secondary
importance. Irving may be saying nothing more complex than that
rules should be made only with understanding and caution and should
be broken only for unselfish reasons. But in giving all the
examples John Irving, who wrote the screenplay based on his own
novel, has simplified the story to the point where it is quite
predictable. We are pretty sure how it is all going to end, and we
know Homer is going to use his medical knowledge just as surely as
we know James Bond will use all of the gizmos he has been given.
Lasse Hallstrom, director of MY LIFE AS A DOG, tells stories slowly
and deliberately with a lot of personality texture. He takes his
time developing his characters. Toby Maguire's normally pensive
style has been useful in his career. He seems to specialize in
roles in which he is a little bit of an outsider and has to work
out what things are all about. In THE ICE STORM he has to navigate
the adults' world of sexual mores. In PLEASANTVILLE he has to
figure his way in 1950s TV-land. Where another actor might jump
into a situation he thinks about it and intellectualizes it.
Irving and Hallstrom have given Michael Caine a role different from
those he has played in the past. That is not easy to do with an
actor like Caine, but this is Caine as we have not seen him before,
an odd combination of sleazy and loving. Delroy Lindo adds a touch
of magnificence and dignity to a farm worker who is more complex
than he at first seems.
Irving's story is a little simplistic but engaging and the film
captures a sort of nostalgic feel. I rate THE CIDER HOUSE RULES a
7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. MAGNOLIA (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Paul Thomas Anderson's film is much in
the style of Robert Altman's SHORT CUTS. We
follow several tangentially connected story
lines. Anderson has many of his usual familiar
faces present and he does some unusual
experiments with pacing. While the stories are
all compelling disappointingly none of them
really resolves satisfactorily in the end.
Anderson wants to give the entire film a
bizarre tone, but he is only partially
successful. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to
+4) In the spoiler section after the main
review is a heavy spoiler discussing the film's
strangest plot point.
In INTOLERANCE, D. W. Griffith told four different historical
stories at the same time, cutting from one to the other. Each of
the stories builds to a fast-paced climax. In MAGNOLIA, Paul
Thomas Anderson tells several stories each just tangentially
connected to the others. Yet the stories and where they are going
are all independent. What is strange about these stories is that
they are all synchronized. Each story builds to a tense moment (or
what appears to be intended to be a tense moment) but then lets the
tension dissolve. While the tension dissipates one character
starts singing a song and in each plotline the major characters
sing along, even though they are not in the same scene. Then
toward the end the stories each build to a tense moment again. It
is almost as if the characters are somehow psychically linked.
This creates some strange effects. The stories are about empty
desperate people with dysfunctional relationships. The strands
have varying degrees of bizarre content. We have the story of a
dying man Earl Partridge (Jason Robards) wanting to get in touch
with his son and make amends. Phil Parma (Philip Seymour Hoffman)
is his nurse who is frantic to help Partridge achieve his final
goal. Partridge's young wife Linda (Julianne Moore) is getting
more and more anxious as Partridge dies, but for an unsuspected
reason. Frank Mackey (Tom Cruise) runs the kinds of self-help
seminar that businesses like so much, but he aims his at teaching
disaffected men how to be real shit-heels in dealing with women in
an angry backlash to women's lib. Officer Jim Kurring (John C.
Reilly) is a patrolman who has a need to feel he is making the
world a better place. Jimmy Gator (Philip Baker Hall) hosts a
popular children's TV quiz show that really exploits and destroys
children as we see from the stories of current quiz kid Stanley
Spector (Jeremy Blackman) and former quiz kid Donnie Smith (William
H. Macy). The film juggles all these stories for over three hours,
but even after all this time not one story is resolved
satisfactorily. Each story moves toward a single bizarre common
climax, but it is not one that seems to do much but derail each
story. The common climax itself is ambiguous in many ways and it
fails to really tie up any of the stories. The film seems to be
built around strange events and weird history, but it really has
little to do with the content of the stories, though they all are
connected in part by one weird event.
MAGNOLIA will probably bring some much deserved attention to Paul
Thomas Anderson, though in my opinion his two previous films, HARD
EIGHT and BOOGIE NIGHTS were better told stories. It is
interesting that one starts to look forward to actors from
Anderson's company. John C. Reilly seems to be a standard fixture.
Particularly notable is Philip Baker Hall who gave a mesmerizing
performance from the first scene of HARD EIGHT. Here he several of
the characters are mesmerizing, but that characteristic is not
really used.
As studies of characters these stories are each worth following.
As well-rounded stories with a beginning, middle and end, they
leave something to be desired. But the film is willing to do the
unexpected and that helps make the film worth sitting through. I
rate it a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4
scale.
Heavy spoiler... Heavy spoiler... Heavy spoiler... Heavy spoiler...
During the strange climactic event of the film we get multiple
messages from the filmmaker that the event we are seeing really
does happen. And in actual fact, it does. Since Biblical times
rains of frogs have been interpreted as signs of displeasure of the
gods. It is, however, a perfectly natural, if somewhat unnerving,
phenomenon. The cause is associated with whirlwinds. We know that
tornadoes over land can rip up land and even objects of some size
from the ground and hurl them into the air, holding them aloft.
The reader may remember the unfortunate cow in TWISTER. Smaller
objects can be hurled high into the atmosphere and then be kept
aloft by the updrafts for surprisingly long periods of time much as
hail and chunks of ice are. When the whirlwind is over water,
animals near the surface, frequently fish and frogs, may suffer the
same fate. Essentially they are vacuumed up by the whirlwind, held
aloft by updrafts, and finally dropped elsewhere.
So while the rain is possible, some doubts do creep in. The rain
of frogs depicted in this film may be of greater scale than I had
pictured for a rain of frogs. It seems unlikely the frogs would
still be alive when dropped. It is not clear that geographic
conditions are right for Los Angeles to have this sort of
phenomenon. (Frankly I have no idea on these points.) Otherwise
the event was quite believable. What we see in this film is much
more credible than the phenomena we saw in VOLCANO.
In the film it is left ambiguous if the rain is a sign from God
since there are many references to Exodus 8:2. "And the frogs shall
come up both on thee and upon thy people, and upon all thy
servants." However a rain of frogs, though it feels Biblical, is
most definitely NOT a Biblical portent. Note that the previous
verse says "And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly which
shall go up...," so the Bible is referring not to a rain but to an
infestation from the river. The only other reference to frogs in
the Bible is as a symbol for uncleanness in Revelation 16:13.