THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
07/14/06 -- Vol. 25, No. 2, Whole Number 1343
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright 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:
Readercon Report (comment by Mark R. Leeper)
The Puzzle of Ancient Navigation by Stars (comment by
Mark R. Leeper)
Orange Juice (letter of comment by Andre Kuzniarek)
Transporter (letter of comment by David Goldfarb)
Trailers (letter of comment by James E. LaBarre)
A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION (letter of comment by Bobbi Fox)
THE GREAT YOKAI WAR (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
THE OH IN OHIO (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading (Agatha Christie) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Readercon Report (comment by Mark R. Leeper)
I have just returned from Readercon, the science fiction
convention with a literary bent. What a show they put on!
Whether your "thing" is the Celtic imagery of Cordwainer Smith,
the semiotics of Samuel Delany's subplots, the use of
alliteration in pulp science fiction, or the subtext of John
Crowley's LITTLE BIG, Readercon has something for just about
everyone. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Puzzle of Ancient Navigation by Stars (comment by Mark
R. Leeper)
A few years ago there was a book by Dava Sobel and a PBS
television program, both having the title LONGITUDE. (Actually,
the book was titled LONGITUDE: THE TRUE STORY OF A LONE GENIUS
WHO SOLVED THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM OF HIS TIME.) The
subject of this program was the difficulty in and before the 18th
Century of navigating at sea. One would think you might be able
to navigate by the stars and the position of the sun. However,
it was essentially impossible to do that with any exactness until
very accurate timepieces were invented. The stars that are
overhead right now will be a thousand miles over to the west of
where you are in an hour. It goes without saying that if you are
off by just a hundred miles you can sail right past the island
you are looking for and never see it. Yet somehow the ancient
Polynesians were able to find specific small islands after
traveling by primitive canoes across thousands of miles of ocean.
I never was able to figure out how they could do that. I was
curious enough about this to look it up on the Internet, but
sites that talk about ancient navigation, such as the PBS site
for the program "Longitude"
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/longitude/secrets.html), just
side-stepped this question.
Simply put, to find the right island the Polynesians needed to
get to the right longitude; you cannot find your longitude with
any certainty. without a good timepiece. The ancient Polynesians
did not have ANY timepieces. How did they get to the right
longitude without even knowing what it was? Think about how you
might find a specific island using only what was available to the
ancients.
We were in Hawaii recently and went to a planetarium program on
the subject of ancient seamanship, and now it makes more sense to
me. The subject was how ancient Polynesians navigated by the
night sky and still got where they wanted to go.
Well, what can you tell easily? The night sky would tell you
your latitude, just not your longitude. Well, how do you find
your latitude? That is fairly easy. The star we call Polaris,
the North Star, is pretty near being in direct line of the axis
around which the Earth spins. If you use the constellations to
find the North Star you can measure the angle it is over the
horizon and find out how far north or south you are. That is
your latitude.
The problem, again, was that if two boats were traveling on
parallel courses two hundred miles to the west and east of each
other they could be at the same latitude and would see the same
sky but a slightly different in time. Without an accurate
timepiece you could not tell the two locations apart. Yet the
differences could make all the difference of whether the island
was found. Navigating by the stars will get you to the right
latitude but not the right longitude. And the ancient
Polynesians had no accurate timepieces.
The presentation told the story of someone trying to repeat the
feat of ancient navigation in modern times. I waited through the
whole planetarium show and they apparently were not going to
answer how the longitude problem was solved. For me that was the
big question, but they answered it with little fanfare as if it
was a minor point. They had only a vague idea of the position of
the island, but they knew the latitude and if you are smart that
is all you need.
The boat intentionally steered well east of their destination.
They did this until they were at exactly the right latitude.
Again with a clear sky you can find your latitude. You can find
that fairly exactly. The sailors knew they were due east of
their destination. They then turned due west, again by the sky.
That is, the North Star was directly to their right. In theory
this would bring them to land, in practice it might be a little
off.
When you get near the island you still may not see it on the
horizon. At this point there is a new direction device. They
waited until late daytime. When they started seeing seabirds
they knew they were near land and followed the birds. The birds
would be headed to land for the night. At no point did they know
their longitude so they never knew exactly where they were.
Knowing latitude and having a rough idea of the longitude was
enough. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Orange Juice (letter of comment by Andre Kuzniarek)
In his article on "100% pure" in the 07/07/06 issue of the MT
VOID, Mark said, "Similarly when you take the water out of orange
juice and put in different water, what comes out may be
indistinguishable from real juice, but it no longer is." [-mrl]
Andre Kuzniarek writes, "It's quite distinguishable for sure.
Nothing beats fresh squeezed orange juice, but that is a rare
treat in restaurants these days. Even the nicer breakfast
specialty joints tend mix concentrate with fresh to stretch it.
In stores, Tropicana and various orange growers market a
pasteurized OJ that is not from concentrate, and I've heard
reports it outsells the other concentrate-based juices. It's the
only kind I buy because I'm sensitive to the acids in
concentrate-based OJ. They grind up the entire orange, skin and
all, then attempt to remove the nastiness in processing, but it
doesn't work out too well in the concentrate. Perhaps they don't
use the skin in the non-concentrate stuff, but even if they do,
they seem to do a better job de-acidifying the result. Minute
Maid and other brands attempt to compete with the non-
concentrated stuff by selling theirs in the same sort of
packaging and calling it 100% pure, squeezed-style orange juice,
but the ingredient list explains it's from concentrate.
Apparently, if you apply the modifier 'style', a product can be
anything you want to call it." [-ak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Transporter (letter of comment by David Goldfarb)
And in that same article on "100% pure" in the 07/07/06 issue of
the MT VOID, Mark said, "I think every time they transport Kirk he
dies and an exact replica takes his place." [-mrl]
David Goldfarb writes, "There was discussion of this question in
the first licensed Star Trek novel, SPOCK MUST DIE. Frankly, I'm
with Spock on this one: a difference that *makes* no difference
*is* no difference." [-dg]
Mark replies, "So then you would not mind dying if you were sure
you would be replaced by a perfect, scientificially constructed
imposter? This is assuming he would have all your memories and
was not aware he was an imposter. That is really what we are
talking about here. To me it *would* make a difference even if
to the rest of the world it would not. The accurate name for the
device is not transporter, it is reconstructor." [-mrl]
David responds, "It seems to me that your use of the word
'impostor' is, in the exact and little-used meaning of the phrase,
begging the question. Ever read Greg Egan's 'Learning to Be Me'?
I've read it and thought about it, and I'd be willing to replace
my brain with a Ndoli jewel. (Truly that is a story which tests
whether the reader is *really* a materialist! He seems to
postulate that use of the Ndoli devices is nearly universal,
though; I find that unlikely, thinking that there'd be quite a few
people taking positions like yours.)" [-dg]
["Learning to Be Me" is available in a few anthologies, including
Gardner Dozois's YEAR’S BEST SCIENCE FICTION: EIGHTH ANNUAL
COLLECTION and Jack Dann's IMMORTALS, and Egan's own collection
AXIOMATIC. -ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Trailers (letter of comment by James E. LaBarre)
In his article on movie trailers in the 07/07/06 issue of the MT
VOID, Mark wrote, "The Digital History web site has 692 film
trailers of generally well-known films that are easily viewable.
They play with the software already on most PCs." [-mrl]
James E. LaBarre says, "**BZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!**
Wrong!!!!!! The trailers are encoded in some sort of proprietary
MicroSoft format (ASF). For those of us using superior operating
systems (such as Linux) which MS has decided to blacklist, the
codecs are not readily available. Sure, with some hacking I
could get them to (probably) work, but if some archive can't be
bothered to use open standards, or at least some widely adapted
specification, then *I* can't be bothered to waste my time with
them." [-jeb]
Mark replies, "I stand by what I said. As a long-time UNIX-shell
programmer I would like to have LINUX and someday may go to it.
But Linux users are still in the minority. Unless I am out of
touch I think most PC users are not that technical and do use the
Microsoft that came on their PCs." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION (letter of comment by Bobbi Fox)
In response to Mark's review of A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION in the
06/30/06 issue of the MT VOID, Bobbi Fox writes:
I disagree that the movie was about the American Public Media
produced show of the same name, even though its screenplay was
written by Garrison Keillor, and features many of the artists and
back-stage personnel of the show.
Instead, I think it was about an Alternate Universe "A Prairie
Home Companion," a real (that is, a show that had begun 50 years
or so ago) variety show that somehow had managed to stay on the
air. (My other half Daniel Dern points out that Guy Noir being a
real person was a dead giveaway, but I'm willing to waive that
point, being a big Kevin Kline fan :-)
Thus, the "Letter from Lake Wobegon," whose omission you rued,
would have been inappropriate--since that remains the major
parodic element in the current show in *this* universe.
We talked at Readercon about Keillor's intent with the show.
According to Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Prairie_Home_Companion), it
first aired in 1974; I first started listening to it when living
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1980. At that time, it definitely
felt to me more like a gentle, but affectionate, parody of the
"old-timey" variety shows than a show whose *purpose* was to be a
variety show.
I think it was only after Keillor was reality-slapped with the
realization that he was *not* going to be The Star Writer for the
New Yorker (oops, was that too snarky? :-) that APHC in its
revived incarnation (it "went dark" from 1987-1993) began to take
seriously its role as a variety show. Obviously, there still is
some parody in the show; otherwise us East Coast elites would
never listen :-) [-bf]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE GREAT YOKAI WAR (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A war is fought in one night with an evil lord and his
robotic minions against humans and the monstrous spirits of
Japanese folklore. Some of the scale of this film rivals that of
THE LORD OF THE RINGS. This is a wild adventure that is not
always easy to follow, but it is a font of comedy and macabre
imagination with a wonderful Japanese flavor. Rating: +2 (-4 to
+4) or 7/10
If I have an enthusiasm for world literature I owe it in large
part to one Bernhardt J. Hurwood and his book MONSTERS GALORE.
This compendium of monster lore took a kid who was really into
horror pictures and introduced him to Hieronymus Bosch, Sawney
Beane, Lafcadio Hearn, the "Caprices" of Goya, Elizabeth Bathory,
and Japanese folk horror stories. The Japanese stories included
vampire cats, and women ghosts in the snow. I now know these to
be stories about monstrous spirits called Yokai. Lafcadio Hearn
told such stories in his collection KWAIDAN. Now Takashi Miike
has made a film that pits futuristic robots (read "Terminators")
against humans and Yokai. Yokai are apparitions scary to
humans--not actually malicious, but they are supernatural and
danger sometimes surrounds them. Yokai take on a whole tutti-
frutti assortment of forms. There are women with necks longer
than a fire hose and others with heads like cats. There are
people who are half-turtle (unless you are the psychological type
who sees them as turtles who are half-human). There are
beautiful snow ghosts and ugly ogres with ram horns. They are
perhaps what we in the West might call hobgoblins. We see a few
such demons in films like KWAIDAN, but never on a scale like we
see here.
Takashi Miike, one of Japan's more bizarre directors, brings us a
story of the Yokai being defenders of humanity against an evil
genius. Like "Harry Potter" films, this is really a kids' film
that is good enough for adults. The story has a calf born with a
human head who warns that evil is coming. And come it does. The
plot, which is not abundantly explained, has evil Lord Kato
wanting vengeance on all of mankind. He is going to seize power
with an army of robots, at least some of which are forged from
Yokai whom he has dropped into his pit of molten metal. He is
opposed, naturally enough--or supernaturally enough--by the
Yokai.
Ryunosuke Kamiki plays young Tadashi Ino whose parents are
separated. He comes with his mother to a new town. As with that
of the girl in SPIRITED AWAY, it is not a transition he is making
well, but still he is chosen to be the Kirin Rider at an annual
festival. A Kirin is a dragon-like mythical beast with a single
horn is uses to punish wrongdoers. (There is a picture of it on
the beer of the same name.) Tadashi little realizes--nor does
everyone else--that his acceptance of this responsibility will
make him the key in the battle between the Yokai and the robots.
The Kirin Rider, it seems, is the only person who can obtain a
magic sword from Goblin Mountain where the Goblin King guards it.
Well, you can see where all this is leading. Some of the imagery
in this film looks like it could have come form a painting by
Hieronymus Bosch. Not all the effects created are completely
believable, but that is true of THE WIZARD OF OZ also.
It is good to see a film use the imps and demons that I have
liked since I was a kid. As yet I am not seeing this film being
released in the United States to more than a few small art
houses. That would be a real loss. I rate this film a +2 on the
-4 to +4 scale or 7/10. Parents should be warned that though the
main character is a child, there are some scenes that are fairly
horrific. On the other hand the American concept of horror is
someone with a sharp instrument chasing young people around a
room while Miike's concept here is more like showing a blank wall
and then seeing two eyes open up in it. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE OH IN OHIO (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is a lukewarm sex comedy about a Cleveland couple
in their mid-30s who split up because they are sexually
incompatible. Parker Posey and Paul Rudd star in this story of
two people trying to find sexual fulfillment after their split.
The film smolders a little but never has much fire. It has a few
smiles, but very few laughs. Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
We have recently seen a comedy about a forty-year-old virgin.
Now we have a film about a woman in her thirties who, though
married, has never had a climax. Priscilla Chase (played by
Parker Posey) has a marriage that is falling apart because of her
overwhelming disinterest in sex. Her husband Jack (Paul Rudd) is
becoming more and more frustrated at his inability to arouse his
wife. Jack's frustration is becoming increasingly obvious to the
students and teachers at the high school where Jack teaches
biology. It seems to be particularly obvious to Kristen, an
attractive student who had been steered from drugs to academics
almost exclusively by her fascination with Jack and now has a
desire to know him better. His lack of fulfillment and
unhappiness lead him to leave Priscilla and take up with Kristen.
Jack gives in to the temptation to have sex with his student
while Priscilla looks to battery-powered pleasure aids. Suddenly
Priscilla finds she cannot only achieve climax, she likes it and
wants more of it. Sex becomes the most important thing in her
life and she begins to explore all the various sexual avenues
open to a good-looking woman. These include going to a bizarre
class in pleasuring herself given by a weirdo played almost
pitifully by an over-aged Liza Minnelli.
Freshman screenwriter Adam Wierzbianski's script is often
humorous, but more often just vulgar. When the humor does work
it comes most often from one of three sources. One is Keith
David, playing a high school coach who is Jack's friend and
confidant. He is probably under-used in this film, though his
personality is a definite plus. Priscilla has her own confidant
in her friend Sherri, but Miranda Bailey just does not have the
deliver that Keith David does. The other source is Danny DeVito
who has just a marginal place in the film until the third act.
DeVito cannot help being magnetic. The film takes some odd turns
that last third which is more serious and is as much of a payoff
as this film has. Even so, the viewer is left feeling he perhaps
missed something when the end credits roll without the plot being
very much resolved. On the other hand perhaps that is better
than using a pre-packaged and over-familiar ending.
For a film with a sexy theme the only visible nudity is in
silhouette. However, the dialog frequently falls into the gray
area between the risqué and the vulgar. This is a first feature
film for director Billy Kent from a first-time screenwriter. It
has its moments, but only a few. I rate THE OH IN OHIO a low +1
on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I have been re-reading a lot of Agatha Christie novels lately, in
conjunction with listening to the BBC adaptations of them. I
will not comment individually on each one, but I will note a few
motifs that seem to recur. (I hope these will not be considered
spoilers, since I will not mention specific books for them, or
even any titles at all, but if you want to avoid all possibility
of spoilers, you may want to skip this.)
I have listened to nineteen adaptations of Hercule Poirot and
Miss Marple stories. In these, one very common "trick" seems to
be the serendipitous remark or event (eight books out of
nineteen). By "serendipitous remark" I mean something like the
following: The murder was done with an icicle, which then melted.
Later, when Hercule Poirot is thinking about the case, someone
else in the room wonders, "Now where did I put that doohickey?
It couldn't have just vanished into thin air." And Poirot
realizes that the murder weapon *could* have vanished into thin
air, etc. (I made this example up; it is not one of the ones
Christie uses--at least in any of the stories I read!)
What is strange about this is that sometimes this remark Or
happenstance) is omitted from the adaptation. The result is that
sometimes the key clue to the solution just is not there. The
writer is skillful enough to make the other clues carry the load,
at least superficially, but at times one does wonder just what
made the detective realize that a key witness had lied (or some
such).
Another oft-repeated idea is the mis-identified body (eight out
of nineteen, including one book with *two* mis-identified
bodies!). A corpse is found and identified--somehow--as Fred
Smith. Then later, we find the solution hinges on the fact that
it is not Fred Smith at all, but John Wilson. The reasons for
the mistaken identification vary, but none of them would work
very well today with DNA testing. Then again, a lot of older
mysteries would be solved very rapidly when the CSI team
discovered that the red stain on the shirt was red ink, not
blood, or that the bullet was dropped from the clock tower, not
fired. (I made these up too.)
Another slightly less common but nevertheless re-used idea is the
false target (six out of nineteen). This comes in two forms: the
victim whose death is purely accidental to the real murder,
either as window-dressing or mis-direction, or the murderer
making it appear that he is the real target of the attacks.
What this means is that while each individual book seems to be a
well-constructed mystery, when one reads a lot of them in a row,
it becomes easier and easier to solve the mysteries. All one has
to do is figure out who the corpse *really* is, assume some of
the deaths are window-dressing, and wait for someone to say
something just a bit too out of the ordinary.
(Then again, I have also said that theme anthologies and single-
author collections are also a mixed blessing. Trying to read
seventeen dragon stories in a row makes the later ones seem
repetitive, even if they are not. So reading nineteen Agatha
Christie mysteries in a row is really not recommended either.
Having said that, with PBS now running four new "Miss Marple"
stories, I will end up watching them and then reading those books
soon as well.) [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Unquestionably, there is progress. The
average American now pays out twice as
much in taxes as he formerly got in wages.
-- H. L. Mencken