THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
07/13/12 -- Vol. 31, No. 2, Whole Number 1710
Batman: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Robin: 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
The latest issue is at http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm.
Topics:
Oops! (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Barbra Streisand: Somewhere (Else, Please) (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
STAR WRECK: IN THE PIRKINNING
MT VOID Member Donates Science Fiction Magazine Collection
to Columbia
Comments on THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD (Part 2) (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
The Ancient Greeks and Their Color Sense (comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
PATRIOCRACY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
How to Vote the Hugo Ballot (letter of comment
by David Shallcross)
This Week's Reading (AN ECONOMIST GETS LUNCH, DEAD AFTER
DARK, THE MEOWMORPHOSIS, and IF CHINS COULD KILL)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Oops! (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Bill Higgins pointed out that my comments on William Tenn's OF MEN
AND MONSTERS, Rudyard Kipling's THE JUNGLE BOOK, Nancy Kress's
AFTER THE FALL BEFORE THE FALL DURING THE FALL, and Frank
M. Ahearn's HOW TO DISAPPEAR had already run in the 06/15/12
issue. I *thought* I had run them before, but when I looked,
somehow I didn't find them. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Twenty Most Beautiful Bookstores in the World
Pictures at http://tinyurl.com/void-beautiful-bookstores.
==================================================================
TOPIC: Barbra Streisand: Somewhere (Else, Please) (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
I was hearing on the radio Barbra Streisand singing the song
"Somewhere" (a.k.a. "There's a Place for Us") from WEST SIDE STORY.
WEST SIDE STORY is the reframing of ROMEO AND JULIET to a 1960s New
York City gang war setting. In this song two young people who
desperately love each other have been ripped apart by the hatreds
all around them. They are totally destroyed by the unremitting
enmity between their two warring communities. This song is the two
of them giving each other the last little bit of comfort they can.
It is extremely touching. And how does Streisand sing it? She
rolls her voice. I am not sure how to describe it. Maybe the word
is coloratura. She is playing with her voice as she sings it. It
is like in the middle of this tragic situation she started cracking
their knuckles. It is just horrible. I wish someone would take
away her singing license. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: STAR WRECK: IN THE PIRKINNING
Apparently there is a feature-length Finnish fannish satire of
STAR TREK with good special effects:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-725105947005153945
More information can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wreck
==================================================================
TOPIC: MT VOID Member Donates Science Fiction Magazine Collection
to Columbia
As reported by http://www.sfsite.com/news/:
"Fan Fred Lerner has donated his collection of science fiction and
fantasy publications to the Columbia University Libraries. Lerner
attended Columbia College and received his doctorate from
Columbia's former School of Library Service, where he wrote the
dissertation "Modern science fiction and its reception by the
American literary and educational communities, 1926-1970". His
donation is the first such donation made to Columbia and contained
nearly complete runs of several science fiction magazines."
[And, no, I don't expect it includes the MT VOID, since that has
been almost entirely electronic for years. -ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Comments on THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD (Part 2) (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
Last week I was discussing Ray Harryhausen's fantasy classic, THE
7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD, heaping it with moderate praise. Continuing
where I left off...
I guess I also saw some problems with the film. That is not
surprising. This was Harryhausen's first color feature film.
Color complicates the task of doing special visual effects. Film
stock was cruder in the 1950s and scenes had to be carefully color-
balance controlled or the colors would change, and it would ruin
the stop-motioneffect.
Supposedly in the film the dragon protects Sokurah's lair. She is
kept on a chain to control her much as you might a dog. And the
chain is coiled on a reel. But the reel to pull in the dragon's
tether was right there in plain sight. Sinbad just turns the reel
to pull in the chain. Anybody could have gotten past the dragon in
the same way. What kind of security was that for Sokurah's lair?
(Side thought: can you imagine what kind of a life that dragon had
if it was constantly chained to the wall? No wonder the dragon was
angry and mean. It has to sit there in the middle of dragon
droppings.)
The spiral stairway was a great setting for the fight with the
skeleton. But I am unclear what the stairway was doing there in
the first place. It didn't seem to have much function. There
didn't seem to be anything to climb up to above it. Sinbad and
the skeleton climb to the top and then just stop.
Something that is particularly irksome is Sinbad's ship. The
filmmakers used what may have been stock footage for the ship
sometimes and their own ship other times, but the two versions of
Sinbad's ship are very different. One is an Arabic looking boat
with a single triangular sail. The other is a galleon and has
three square sails. The two ships could hardly be less like each
other. Also it is not clear how Princess Parisa could be shrunk
down to a few inches tall and not lose her voice. Nor could she
survive the shaking she gets hanging from Sinbad's belt.
But Kerwin Mathews makes a really good swashbuckling hero. And he
really knows how to shadow-box with a Harryhausen creation that he
would be seeing as just a stick. Since the skeleton would be
inserted in the film much later, he has to memorize what movements
the skeleton would make and his counter moves. After Harryhausen's
effects he is the best thing in the film. Sadly, playing opposite
one of the screen's best Sinbads, Richard Eyer makes one of the
screen's worst genies. Eyer was born in Santa Monica, California
and he gives the genie a performance every bit as exotic as a kid
from Santa Monica, California. I suppose the producers decided
that the kids in the audience needed to see a character they could
identify with. Here he is a genie who, like Pinocchio and "Star
Trek"'s Data, wants to be a real boy. Eyer is perhaps best
remembered for playing the title role in THE INVISIBLE BOY, acting
opposite Robbie the Robot.
Okay, now what film am I talking about? It is directed by Nathan
Juran like 7TH VOYAGE was. It stars as its hero Kerwin Mathews
like 7TH VOYAGE. The villain is played by Torin Thatcher, like in
7TH VOYAGE. And it makes extensive use of stop-motion animation
like 7TH VOYAGE. That's got to be THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD, right?
Wrong. It seems that another company tried to make their own film
borrowing as much as they could from THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD. In
1962 Edward Small and Robert Kent wanted to make another film that
was going to be their THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD. Their film was
JACK THE GIANT KILLER released through United Artists. They got
the same director and the same two major actors. They also got
their own stop motion animators, Gene Warren, Wah Chang and Tim
Baar. So did they succeed? Obviously not or more people would
have heard of the film. It's not a bad film for the Saturday
Matinee crowd. Still if I were going to perform major surgery on
the film I would take out the irritating leprechaun. (If you have
Netflix streaming, incidentally, you can see the film there. It
also can be found on YouTube.)
As for performing major surgery on JACK THE GIANT KILLER after the
film was released, producer Edward Small actually had to do that.
Columbia threatened to sue over the similarities of JACK THE GIANT
KILLER to their THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD. Small had the film re-
edited. He decided it would be better to turn it into a musical
and so his company wrote some songs for it. But the film was
completed, how could they get the stars like Kerwin Mathews to
mouth the words? They had someone else sing the songs on the
soundtrack and to make Matthews's mouth move they would run the
film forward and backward to give the effect that Kerwin Mathews'
mouth would open and close. It looked terrible. Even worse Jack
would be standing on a ship with water as the background. The
water would flow back and forward in tune with his mouth. I saw
the film when it was first released and it was fine, then it was
re-edited into a musical and for years that was the only version
available. These days Columbia must be more tolerant because
though the film is rare, the musical version is much, much rarer.
And we can all be grateful it is so rare.
JACK THE GIANT KILLER on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vïCyFeI5dNA
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Ancient Greeks and Their Color Sense (comments by Evelyn
C. Leeper)
I have recently been reading THE ODYSSEY, and also have read about
how the words for colors develop in a language, so recent podcasts
and articles about the use of color in Homer are of particular
interest.
Background: Linguists have discovered that all languages create
words for color in a particular order. The first words created are
for black and white. Next invariably comes red, and after that
yellow and green, although the order of the latter two may vary,
and last comes blue. Apparently orange, purple, brown, and other
more specific colors such as aquamarine do not count, although in
some languages there are more terms than we have for "basic"
colors. For example, Russian has a word for light blue (goluboy)
and another for dark blue (siniy), but no word for just blue.
In the 19th century William Gladstone, when he was not being Prime
Minister of Great Britain, was becoming a scholar of Homer, and he
was the first to point out that Homer's use of words for color was,
well, odd. Homer rarely mentioned color, and never mentioned blue.
The term "wine-looking" (which we are more familiar with these days
translated as "wine-dark') was applied both to the sea and to oxen.
Gladstone's explanation was that the Homeric Greeks had no sense of
color other than black, white, and red. Linguist Guy Deutscher
(among others) claims this is wrong, that the Greeks could
distinguish colors every bit as we can.
Ananda Triulzi, however, says that Homer's colors include "metallic
colors, black, white, yellowish green and purplish red." Homer
refers to the sky as "bronze" and honey as green ("chloros"). He
also refers to Hector's hair as blue ("kyanos"), which would seem
to contradict Gladstone's claim that Homer never refers to blue.
Triulzi also seems to attribute this to a less evolved color vision
on the part of the Homeric Greeks. But she thinks there were also
cultural forces at work, and that the distinctions between "color,
texture, and shadow" were less important to the Greeks than to us.
Many have pointed out that 2700 years is not long enough to evolve
such a detailed color perception as we have from the primitive one
some people attribute to the Homeric Greeks. Others note that what
we call "blonde" hair is referred to as "blue" in several other
languages.
I have my own theory. It comes from reading that Obama is black,
Al Pacino is white, the flame-colored Prius in the parking lot is
a green car (and for that matter, that the new guy in the office is
green), that Lucille Ball's hair is red, and that Texas is a red
state but Illinois is a blue one. An alien reading all of this two
thousand years from now might be forgiven for thinking we had a
very odd color sense. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: PATRIOCRACY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: It is no secret that the politics of this country are
highly polarized and filled with more fire and smoke than with
light. That is the problem that Brian Malone's PATRIOCRACY
examines. You will not find a whole lot in PATRIOCRACY the film
that you do not already know something about. If you did not know
about these issues you probably would not be seeing this
documentary in the first place. This film is a diagnosis of the
problem without much in the way of a cure, though it does propose
some solutions and tries to be optimistic about them. What you
will get is at the least a reasonably complete statement of the
problem of the polarization in one compact summary. Rating: high
+1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
For the past four years the United States has been as politically
polarized and vitriolic as it has been in a century. The Congress
has been at near standstill with a battle between confirmed
liberals and extremist conservatives. Those who have tried to
bridge the gap with moderate views have been admonished, sometimes
their careers have been destroyed, and one, Gabriel Giffords, was
nearly shot to death. Rallies of protest are frequent and the
rhetoric is often hate-filled and vicious. Denver-based
writer/director Brian Malone's film falls in two parts, one is a
statement of the problem and one is of Malone's approaches to a
solution. Both parts seem optimistic for the size of the problem.
Along to provide voices of reason are respected experts like Bob
Schieffer and Alan Simpson.
In looking at the polarization Malone examines several arenas of
controversy contributing to the schism. He examines the role of
the Internet. There was a time when if one had an outlandish
political opinion, one was at least exposed to more moderate
viewpoints on television and in the newspapers. But now the
Internet connects people allowing someone with such a perspective
to find many other people with similarly extreme viewpoints. On
blogs, on commentary radio and television, one can surround oneself
in a virtual community of people with similar ideas reinforcing
those opinions in one another. One can easily avoid being exposed to
countervailing opinions.
Malone looks at Fox News and MSNBC, which masquerade as news
networks though they actually collect no news of their own.
Frequently they simply just spread and even create rumor. Their
programs look physically like network news programs with news-like
graphics, newsroom-like backgrounds; they have the format of news
programs with official-looking anchor people, but they provide the
pre-chosen spin to news that has already been reported elsewhere.
Malone calls then entertainment shows rather than news programs.
Malone looks at how Fox News and MSNBC each provided their own spin
to the Giffords shooting and the deficit crisis standoff.
The director looks at the 112th Congress, which Bob Schieffer
characterizes as the worst, the nastiest, and the meanest Congress
in his memory. He looks at the effects on elections of the
Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court which allows
corporations to anonymously funnel huge funding into political
campaigns as if the corporations were citizens. He considers that
effect that ruling will have.
The film spends about seventy minutes presenting the aspects and
facts of the polarization. Nothing it presents is at all
surprising and most of it is familiar. But the case for there
being urgent problems is cogent for those not already convinced.
The last twenty minutes is spent on his suggestion for a solution
to the problem. That there is a solution sounds good, but his
solutions are not so convincing. Ex-Congressman Mickey Edwards has
several steps but they are of dubious practicality. One of his
steps is "reform campaign spending." (Great idea. I'll get right
on it.) One is to get people to "forfeit party allegiance." (How
hard can that be?) And so forth.
The approach used in the film is one of even-handedness. The film
sides neither with the rightists or the leftists. That would be a
quick way to alienate half of the audience. But Malone does get
his point across. The United States political system is not yet
irreparably broken, but it definitely needs some maintenance to get
it working again. I am not greatly optimistic about Brian Malone's
solutions or that enough people have the will and power to correct
what is going wrong. But Malone makes a convincing case, if one is
needed, that things that are wrong are going very wrong. I rate
PATRIOCRACY a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. PATRIOCRACY
will be available on DVD and digital download on July 17, 2012
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1916719/
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/patriocracy/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Problems with E-books (letter of comment by Arthur T.)
In response to Evelyn's comments on e-books in the 06/29/12 issue
of the MT VOID, Arthur T. writes:
In addition to e-books with silly errors and possibly being
disappeared, there's a question of privacy:
http://tinyurl.com/void-consumerist-ebooks
which, in turn points to the source article:
http://tinyurl.com/void-wsj-ebooks
[-at]
[The actual URL for the first link contains the string "barnes-
noble-amazon-know-which-sections-of-fifty-shades-of-grey-youre-
reading-over-and-over", which gives you a hint of what it says.
-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: How to Vote the Hugo Ballot (letter of comment by David
Shallcross)
In response to Dale Skran's reviews of SOURCE CODE and CAPTAIN
AMERICA in the 07/06/12 issue of the MT VOID, David Shallcross
writes:
I hope Dale L. Skran, Jr. isn't actually voting the Hugos as
>[1] SOURCE CODE
>[2] GAME OF THRONES
>[3] HARRY POTTER
>[4] CAPTAIN AMERICA
>[5] No award
>[not voted] HUGO (since I have not seen it)
because the Hugo vote counting process treats this as saying, "I
would rather that no award be given out in this category than that
HUGO gets it," which seems a rather strong statement to make about
a movie one hasn't seen. Basically, everything not given a
numerical rank is treated by the process as tied for last place.
Myself, I never rank "No award" unless I have seen all of the
nominees in the category. [-ds]
Mark asks for clarification:
I don't understand. He is saying he did not vote on HUGO. If he
had given HUGO a [6] then he would be voting "No award" above HUGO.
He just says he did not vote on HUGO. Isn't that the right thing
to do? [-mrl]
David explains:
The Hugo award vote-tallying algorithm is specified to work as
follows (I leave out some rules for ties, as they have changed over
the years, and still aren't all-inclusive):
Initially, no items have been eliminated.
Then, loop
for each ballot, count it as voting for its highest-ranking
item that has not yet been eliminated
if there is an item that has more than 50% of these votes,
break the loop
otherwise eliminate the item that got the least number of these
votes
end loop
The remaining item appears to be the winner, but there is one final
test. Compare the number of ballots ranking it above "No Award"
with the number of ballots ranking it below "No Award". If the
ballots ranking it below "No Award" is greater, the item is
eliminated.
Administrators have stated that, for the purpose of the final test,
a ballot that ranks an item but doesn't rank "No Award" counts as
ranking the item above "No Award", and a ballot that ranks "No
Award" but not the item counts as ranking the item below "No
Award". For the entire algorithm then, leaving one item not ranked
gives the same output as ranking that item last. In either case,
if HUGO and some other dramatic presentations haven't been
eliminated yet, then this ballot casts a vote for one of the other
dramatic presentations. If only HUGO and "No Award" are left, this
ballot casts a vote for "No Award".
http://www.thehugoawards.org/the-voting-system/ probably explains
this better than I have.
In particular it reads: "lack of preference is, by definition,
lower than any preference." [-ds]
Mark concludes:
I guess it has been shown (by Condorcet?) that any voting system is
broken in some way. If by ranking four presentations and saying
each it better than "No Award" is effectively saying something
unintended about the fifth presentation, that is a serious flaw.
His ballot seems like the intuitive way to express his attitudes.
[-mrl]
Evelyn adds:
If you did not see the fifth item because you somehow knew you
would hate it, this system seems to work. (Although clearly you
could be wrong about actually hating it. I just read a posting on
Usenet where someone say he did not read Neal Stephenson's
CRYPTONOMICON because he did not like anything Lovecraftian.)
However, if you have seen four of the five and *hated* one of
those, then what? You want to rank the three you liked above "no
award" and the one you hated below it. But then what do you do
with the one you did not see? Or what if you did not see one of
them that you wanted to see, but was unavailable?
Basically, the Hugo voting system (a.k.a. instant run-off,
previously mis-named "the Australian ballot") works only if
everyone is familiar with everything on it. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
In AN ECONOMIST GETS LUNCH: NEW RULES FOR EVERYDAY FOODIES by Tyler
Cowen (ISBN 978-0-525-95266-4), Cowen looks at food from an
economic standpoint. Some of this may sound familiar, e.g., the
idea that foods grown on another continent and brought in by ship
may have a lower carbon footprint than locally grown foods. But
Cowen spends more time talking about such things as the specifics
of various ethnic cuisines. For example, Mexican cooking involves
cutting meat thinner or shredding it, while American cuisine has
thick steaks--why? Mexican beef is grass-fed, so the meat is
stronger tasting, gamier, and "chewier" (tougher). American beef
is corn-fed, hence milder and more tender.
As for why most American food is--or at least was--fairly mediocre,
Cowen's theory is that the causes are primarily:
- the bars to immigration between 1920 and 1968
- Prohibition (which closed a lot of high-quality restaurants)
- World War II (women working in war jobs needed convenience more
than high-quality, and the high-quality meat was reserved for the
military anyway)
- television (we want to prepare and eat quickly so we can watch
television)
- spoiled children (our children want bland, simple, sweet foods,
so we give them to them, while in other countries, children eat
what the parents decide to serve them)
There is also a great chapter--perhaps the best chapter in the
book--on learning how to shop in an Asian supermarket.
DEAD AFTER DARK by Charlaine Harris (ISBN 978-0-441-01597-9) is the
first of Harris's "Sookie Stackhouse" series. Sookie Stackhouse is
a telepathic waitress in Bon Temps, Louisiana, in a world where
there are vampires and they have, in their own words, "come out of
the coffin." (Is this world an alternate world, or a future world,
or what? There is no way to tell.) Sookie gets involved with a
vampire who has just arrived in town, but they both get caught up
in a series of murders which may or may not have been committed by
a vampire. So we have a telepathy-vampire-murder mystery-romance
novel. This may be trying to juggle too many balls at once.
The series has been compared to Laurell K. Hamilton's "Anita Blake"
series, but since I have not read any of those, I cannot judge the
comparison. DEAD UNTIL DARK is acceptable enough, but not so
enthralling as to make me continue with the series.
THE MEOWMORPHOSIS by Franz Kafka & Coleridge Cook (ISBN 978-1-
59474-503-4) begins, "One morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up
from anxious dreams, he discovered that he had been changed into an
adorable kitten. He lay in bed on his soft, fuzzy back and saw, as
he lifted his head a little, his brown arched abdomen divided into
striped bowlike sections." That whirring noise you hear in the
background is ... well, you know the rest.
I *believe* that PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES by Jane Austen and
Seth Grahame-Smith was the first of the mash-ups, spawning a genre
so popular that there is now a publisher (Quirk Classics) devoted
to it. PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES already has both a prequel
and a sequel, and there are also SENSE AND SENSIBILITY AND SEA
MONSTERS, THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN AND ZOMBIE JIM, and
ANDROID KARENINA. (The latter seems to be the only science fiction
in a sea of horror novels.)
I report all this, not because I have actually read THE
MEOWMORPHOSIS--frankly, the thought appalls me--but because it
seems as though these days whenever someone comes up with a new
idea which might be good for a piece of short fiction, it
immediately gets extended into a novel, then a series, and then is
copied by numerous other authors until one is sick to death of it.
As a friend recently said of another fad, "If I never read another
Victorian steampunk alternate history, it will be too soon."
IF CHINS COULD KILL by Bruce Campbell (ISBN 978-0-312-29145-7) is
Campbell's informal autobiography--informal in the sense of
sounding more like he was just talking to you rather than writing a
book. And what you discover is that, while a star like Tom Cruise
may live a life of luxury, someone like Bruce Campbell spends most
of his working time in terrible conditions, covered with mud and
being put through dangerous stunts.
I did find his take on California a little misguided. He writes,
"I wasn't aware how lame the fruits and vegetables were back East
until I set foot in a California supermarket. Suddenly, I had
three choices of lettuce other than iceberg, and I could get
strawberries." This was in 1982, and it may say more about 1982
than about "back East". (And since when is Michigan "East"?) Now,
if I go into a store and see only three kinds of kinds of lettuce
other than iceberg, it seems like a really poor store, and that is
true in Massachusetts as much as the Garden State of New Jersey.
But this is a minor item and, after all, the book is not about
produce. If you have enjoyed any of Campbell's work (his first big
film was THE EVIL DEAD, but he may be best known for the television
show BRISCO COUNTY, JR.), you will probably like this book. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Older people shouldn't eat health food, they need
all the preservatives they can get.
--Robert Orben