THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
01/24/14 -- Vol. 32, No. 30, Whole Number 1790
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Co-Editor: 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:
Correction
Mark Leeper Interview
Separated at Birth (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
United States Southeast: Round Trip New Jersey to Texas
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
My Rules As a Film Reviewer (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
The Golden Age (television reviews by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
THE LAST DARK by Stephen R. Donaldson (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
Race and DNA (letter of comment by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
The Center (letter of comment by Andre Kuzniarek)
This Week's Reading (ROGUE MOON) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Correction
In response to Evelyn's comment on Poe's age in the 01/17/14 issue
of the MT VOID, John Purcell writes:
Whoops! Wrong math for Poe's age. He would be 205 Sunday. [-jp]
Evelyn [who had said 105] responds:
Whoops, indeed. At this point I don't know if I did the math
wrong, or just made a typo. Probably the former. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Mark Leeper Interview
Mark was recently interviewed by KiDz Hub; the interview can be
heard at http://www.spreaker.com/user/kidzhub/red-white-party_1
from 18:30 to 30:07. Photos from the interview are on Facebook at
http://tinyurl.com/mrleeper-kidzhub1.
==================================================================
TOPIC: Separated at Birth (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Name a well-known science fiction film in which an outlaw captain
who opposes the government of the Empire brings aboard new
passengers including an old mystic and a boy who is trying to save
his sister.
That's right. You got it. The film is SERENITY. You must have
heard this one before.
(Thanks to Shanna Swendon for pointing out the similarities between
SERENITY and STAR WARS.)
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: United States Southeast: Round Trip New Jersey to Texas
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Last summer Evelyn and I took a sightseeing road trip from home to
the World Science Fiction Convention in San Antonio, Texas. My log
is now ready to be published and can be found at
http://leepers.us/texas.htm. (You will notice there is a gap in
the middle. It is the good-looking Leeper who will write about the
convention in her con report. Watch this space.) You can look
below to see some of the major sites we saw.
08/16/13 New Jersey to Manassas Virginia: National Cryptography
Museum
08/17/13 Manassas, VA to Asheville, NC
08/18/13 Asheville, NC to Chattanooga, TN: University of Tennessee
campus
08/19/13 Chattanooga TN to Huntsville AL: US Space and Rocket
Center
08/20/13 Huntsville AL to Montgomery AL: Selma to Montgomery
08/21/13 Montgomery AL to New Orleans LA
08/22/13 New Orleans LA: The French Quarter
08/23/13 New Orleans, LA: National WWII Museum
08/24/13 New Orleans LA to Fort Worth TX
08/25/13 Fort Worth TX
08/26/13 Fort Worth TX: The Robert E Howard Museum
08/27/13 Fort Worth TX Stockyards, Kimball museum
08/28/13 Fort Worth TX to San Antonio TX
09/02/13 San Antonio, TX: The Alamo
09/03/13 San Antonio TX to Little Rock AR
09/04/13 Little Rock AR: The William Clinton Presidential Library
and Museum
09/05/13 Little Rock AR to Nashville TN: The Battle of Parker's
Crossroads
09/06/13 Nashville TN
09/07/13 Nashville TN to Lexington KY
09/08/13 Lexington KY: Frazier Museum
09/09/13 Lexington KY to Roanoke VA
09/10/13 Roanoke VA to New Jersey
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: My Rules As a Film Reviewer (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I last week wrote about the process I use to write a film review.
That essay was self-contained, but I think I should add something
about what I consider are the ethical responsibilities of a film
reviewer. I am sure there will be other film reviewers who will
disagree, but this is my list.
(By the way I use the general term, film "reviewer" not "critic."
All film critics are film reviewers but not all film reviewers are
film critics. I never call myself a film critic. I guess that is
my first rule.)
There are common sense rules that I think a reviewer should respect
and follow, but since I have not gotten buy-in from anybody these
are my rules for myself. I want to state the ground rules I
follow. Second and foremost is the Hippocratic rule of film
reviewing: DO NO HARM. (Incidentally, the oath to do no harm does
come from Hippocrates, but it is not in the Hippocratic Oath itself
as any doctor can tell you.)
DO NO HARM should be the first rule for any film reviewer. Do not
harm the viewing experience for your reader. Your reader may be
going to give some precious time and perhaps some hard-earned money
to see the film. Do not harm this person's experience. I take
this so far that I have on occasion lied to the reader to not spoil
plot twists. Honesty is less important than preserving the viewing
experience.
The question of what is or is not a plot spoiler could be a
separate topic all by itself. For me a "spoiler" is a revelation
of a plot twist where that twist occurs more than ten minutes into
a film. Ten minutes is just my rule of thumb. There are films
that do not get to their premise until well past the ten-minute
mark. I either have a spoiler with a warning or I have to be
tricky.
I often try hard to not reveal a twist even by only implication.
For example if John believes X and the viewer eventually finds out
X is false I will probably not say "John believes X" but "John
knows X." That is a fib in good cause.
Good reviewers will at least give a spoiler warning if a spoiler is
coming up. Not all reviewers are "good" in this regard. I have
pointed out spoilers that should have warnings and have been
accused of being of the "spoiler police" for saying that spoiler
rules should be adhered to. So be it. I have heard another
reviewer say that he can freely spoil surprises in the film he is
reviewing because it came "pre-spoiled" by being a bad film. That
reviewer went on to tell the twist ending of the film. Such
reviewers are stealing from their readers regardless of his
attitude toward this film.
I have seen film reviewers go all "creative" with their writing
style. Some will in doing it give away the surprise ending of a
film because it makes their writing sound better or make it funny
or make it stylistically interesting. A film reviewer or critic
has to remember that she or he is writing egoless text that should
improve or at least not damage the experience of the reader. Do
that reader no harm. That is the primary rule.
That is my major rule. I have a few more minor rules.
-- See a lot of films. If that sounds like just a responsibility
and not a pleasure you should not be a film reviewer. Little kids
come out of movies saying "Wow, that was the best film ever made."
What they mean is that is it the best they have seen. If they have
seen only a handful of films that means little. To appreciate a
film you have to have seen similar films so you can compare. If
the reader knows the film you are praising does not nearly come up
to most films the reader has seen you have blown your credibility.
Speaking of credibility...
-- Review a lot of films. If your reader has read a lot of your
reviews he/she will know, say, to trust you on comedies but not on
science fiction films that is much better than not knowing you at
all. Remember...
-- Your goal is to help your reader to make intelligent film
selection decisions. That is a very different goal from getting
the reader to agree with your assessment of the film. But the
reviewer should get a feel for why some people disagree with you.
So...
-- Read some film reviews of that disagree with your point of view.
You have little to learn from someone who agrees with you about a
film. You have much more to learn from reviews you disagree with.
-- Know your reading audience. If someone has been watching film
for only five years they won't care that an idea was used before in
a 1950s film. A knowledgeable reader might find of more interest
in where the idea was used before.
-- Express your true opinion, not what you think you should think
about a film. I find a lot of Michelangelo Antonioni films boring.
I can accept that some people think that Antonioni was a very good
director. I will acknowledge that in my review, but I will not
pretend I like Antonioni films. I cannot review the film as an
Antonioni fan if I am not really one. To thine own self be true.
An extension of this idea is...
-- Don't have guilty pleasures. You find reviewers who say
something like "I know the old Flash Gordon serials are bad, but I
still really enjoy them." If you enjoy a film it did what it was
supposed to do. It is hypocritical to say you enjoy a film and
still call it a bad film.
Those are my rules for myself when I write film reviews. I probably
have more, but none currently come to mind. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Golden Age (television reviews by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
For a while I've been saying that we live in a golden age of TV SF
and fantasy. At one time there were perhaps two or three SF shows
running--STAR TREK and TWILIGHT ZONE, for example. In those days
it was pretty easy to keep up with every SF/fantasy show running on
TV. Now we have, incredibly, seven different shows running ON A
SINGLE EVENING! Yes, not in total, but on a single day. Today,
Monday, January 13, 2014, there are seven SF/fantasy shows
running!!!
CBS runs the new show INTELLIGENCE at 10PM on Monday. I've watched
about half of the first episode, and I plan to watch some more,
although I wasn't instantly drawn into the story. INTELLIGENCE
deals with an operative who has been enhanced by the insertion of
various computer parts, presumably in his brain, that allow him to
access the global information net and to assess data with machine-
like speed. This is clearly SF in the pure sense, although things
are far enough along that maybe it's just a "techno-thriller." I
fully expect that we, or certainly our children, will live to see
the day in which the capabilities demonstrated in INTELLIGENCE will
be the heritage of every child, but that will be a different tale.
Fox starts at 8PM with ALMOST HUMAN, which I have not yet watched,
but I'm informed is pretty good. Another SF show, it is a cop
buddy tale with one of the cops a robot, reminiscent of Asimov's
CAVES OF STEEL but, one assumes, with car chases! Fox follows with
SLEEPY HOLLOW at 9PM, an idiosyncratic fantasy that starts with the
assumption that there really was an Ichabod Crane who slept through
time to the modern age. Frozen in stasis by his witch wife for
protection, Crane has been followed into the future by the Headless
Horseman and other enemies. In the modern day he makes alliance
with the descendants of slaves in his time who are today in the
police force. Together, they wage a secret war against assorted
demons, witches, and other menaces. I've watched a couple of
episodes, and SLEEPY HOLLOW is not a bad show. Too creepy for
some, it has its following.
The CW punches back with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST at 9PM. I've never
found this tale of the beauty (a policewoman) and the beast (a
genetically altered super-solider) all that compelling, but it got
renewed, so someone is watching it.
I'm over on the SyFy channel, which tries to lock in the coach
potatoes with LOST GIRL, ALMOST HUMAN, and BITTEN. I've reviewed
the first two in the MTVOID before, so I won't say much about them
except that they are starting a new season and I'll be watching.
BITTEN is a new SyFy show, apparently having to do with werewolves.
The first episode was watchable and I'll be back for more.
So that's seven SF/fantasy shows JUST ON MONDAY! Tuesday brings us
AGENTS OF SHIELD, THE ORIGINALS, and SUPERNATURAL, all of which
I've previously reviewed for the MTVOID. Wednesday pits REVOLUTION
from NBC against the CW's one-two punch of ARROW and THE TOMMOROW
PEOPLE, all of which I've previously reviewed for the VOID. FX
also offers AMERICAN HORROR STORY: COVEN AT 10PM. In case you're
counting, we're only on day three and we have fourteen total
SF/fantasy shows running.
There isn't a new episode this week, but shortly the VAMPIRE
DIARIES will pick up again on Thursday. Friday pits NBC's GRIMM
and DRACULA against SyFy's new HELIX. GRIMM is a fantasy detective
series that, again, has its fans, but which I don't find that
watchable. I've seen an episode of DRACULA, which is a re-
envisioning of the classic tale, with a secret order of vampire
hunters and DRACULA's pet scientist added in. I plan to watch at
least a few more to see how it goes. HELIX is an SF/horror series
that focuses on an isolated Arctic research station where things
have gone horribly wrong, requiring the CDC to send in an
investigative team. Things get a lot worse. There are echoes of
RESIDENT EVIL here, but some possibilities as well. The pilot
seemed a bit drawn out, as well as overly claustrophobic.
The week ends on Sunday with the rebooted post Red John MENTALIST,
still a Skran family favorite. By my count, this totals nineteen
SF/fantasy shows all running at the same time, or close to three
hours per day. I think I've made my point. Plus, I'm reasonably
confident that I'm missing at least a few cable and on-line shows
worthy of mention, including TRU BLOOD and THE WALKING DEAD. A
golden age indeed! [-dls]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE LAST DARK by Stephen R. Donaldson (copyright 2013,
Putnam, 557pp, $35.00, ISBN 978-0-399-15920-6) (book review by Joe
Karpierz)
I finished THE LAST DARK during lunch the day before I sat down to
write this review. I read the last line, closed the book, took
something of a deep breath, and reflected on what had just
happened. What had just happened was an end to not only "The Last
Chronicles of Thomas Covenant", but an end to the entire Thomas
Covenant saga--period. And I was completely satisfied--well sort
of, you know how these things go.
Stephen R. Donaldson published the first book in the first
"Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever", back in 1977. And
in something like six years, six books across two Chronicles were
unleashed upon the world. Back in the day, they were a favorite of
many. Oh sure, Covenant was a whiny SOB--I think I may have said
that in another review in this series--but the story was compelling
enough for me to keep reading. Oh sure, sometimes the writing was
over the top, but that didn't stop me from reading it. And really,
none of the characters were very likeable, but that didn't stop me
either. So, really, you ask, "why did you read it?" Because I
liked it. That's all I can say.
Along the way, Covenant changed. He stopped being whiny. It
ceased to be all about him and all about he and his companions
saving the Land. In fact, as dense as I am, I just noticed that
this last chronicles was not entitled "The Last Chronicles of
Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever". For, in truth, he had stopped
disbelieving in the Land and all the things that were happening
there, and he started believing in himself and the power of love
and companionship. Which, when you think about it, can really
throw you for a loop if you're used to one thing happening but you
end up getting the other.
Covenant actually developed something of a wry, dry sense of humor
as this final booked unfolded. At one point, early on in the book,
when Covenant is negotiating with the Feroce, servants of the
Lurker of the Sarangrave who Covenant is trying to get to help slow
down the Worm of the World's End--you remember that little tidbit,
don't you? The Worm was awakened when Linden Avery brought
Covenant back to life, and now the Worm is going to well, bring
about the end of the world--and the Feroce are being a bit
apologetic for their lack of ability to something or another.
Covenant says "Is everybody in this bloody mess trying to make
amends for sins they haven't committed?" Yeah, for ten books now,
Tommy boy.
Later in the novel, as we are coming to the big climactic battle,
Covenant is leaving Jeremiah--Linden's adopted son, for those of
you who lost track years ago now--behind, and Jeremiah asks why.
Covenant's response? "It's fun, isn't it. You're like all the rest
of us. Nobody ever hands you an answer. The only thing you can do
is guess. Then you have to take your chances." And isn't that how
it's been for the reader over the 36 years and 10 books? It's
almost as if Donaldson is talking to the reader, giving a bit of a
nudge and a wink, telling us he knows what he's been doing all this
time, and isn't THAT too bad for us?
THE LAST DARK is both similar and completely different to the other
books in the series. Similar in that the writing and language is
still way over the top, but at least we've toned down the 37
syllable words. We still have lots of talking and discussing and
whining and arguing, but this time it's not Covenant, and to an
extent, it's not even Linden. It's Jeremiah, and I guess that's
okay because he's a teenager after all. But what this book really
is about is action. For the last three books, there's not been a
lot of it. Oh, there's been some, as the plot has had to move
along. Now, really, it's time for all the stuff that's been going
on for the first three books to come to a head. The time for moral
conflict, indecision, and time wasting is over. It's time to get
it on.
And this book does just that. There are enough majestic battle
scenes to make any special effects company drool with the thought
of rendering them. The descriptions of the devastated and desolate
areas are magnificent as well. Battles involving the
aforementioned Lurker, She Who Must Not Be Named, various Ravers,
rock monsters, Cavewights, Roger Covenant, and of course Lord Foul
himself, take up a good portion of the book. And we should not
forget the involvement of the Giants, the Haruchai, the ur-viles,
the Waynhim, and just about every other critter from the last 36
years that make an appearance. It is a grand spectacle; of this
there is no doubt.
Before I started writing this review, I read my reviews of the
prior books in the series. Now, as you might guess, this whole
thing really does have to end with a battle to end all battles
between Covenant and Lord Foul. So, I found this in my review of
AGAINST ALL THINGS ENDING:
"All our favorite enemies are still out there, and I suspect this
thing will end up with one big mother of a battle to complete the
saga."
It did indeed.
So, you ask, is it really over? Well, it's hard to call something
the last of something if it is not the last of something. I
believe that it is. He did wrap up *most* everything with a nice
little bow in the Epilogue. Donaldson took twelve years to write
these 4 books. My kids went from being in elementary school to
being in college during that time. That's a long time, and I
suspect Donaldson is fairly well drained at the moment. He is also
66 years old right now. If he takes a year or two break, and then
starts on *anything* else, he'll be in his 70s before the first
book of whatever it is he writes next comes out. That's not too
old to write, of course, but I suspect he doesn't want to go
through more Covenant, and he did say that when he wrote the
original 6 books the ending we got for THE LAST DARK is where he
envisioned this thing ending up, so he's happy with it, and it's
over.
Then why did he leave three things hanging that cry out for more
Covenant books? (I did use the word most in the previous paragraph
for a reason.)
I, for one, think we are and should be done. Let folks wonder
about those three things that I just mentioned. That's okay. Not
all our questions should be answered. After all, as Covenant said
to Jeremiah, "Nobody ever hands you an answer. The only thing you
can do is guess."
Keep them guessing, Mr. Donaldson. We're good right where we're at.
[-jak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Race and DNA (letter of comment by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
In response to Evelyn's comments on race and DNA in the 01/17/14
issue of the MT VOID, Dale Skran writes:
[Evelyn wrote,] "Regarding race, DNA studies show that race as a
DNA concept is not well-correlated with race as a social construct.
According to one study, for example, a Swede and a Maori are closer
in their DNA than a Masai and a Khoisan (both Africans)."
There are some confusing aspects to the above statement.
First, it is not at all surprising that a Swede and a Maori would
be genetically closer than two African groups. Keeping in mind
that humans started out from Africa 50,000 years ago, isolated
African groups have had the most time to differentiate. A
combination of geography and social barriers coupled with time has
created substantial genetic differences between various African
sub-groups. The Swedes and Maori's both descended from Africans,
but with a later branching point between them. It is not at all
surprising to find Swedes are more genetically similar to Maori's
than certain African groups are similar to each other.
Second, the groups chosen don't illustrate the social nature of
race. If we wished to suggest that race was a social construct, we
would attempt to show that Swedes (for example) are more
genetically similar to African's than one African group is to
another African group. It is my understanding, at least from DAWN,
that this is not the case, i.e. that genetic differences correspond
to geographic groupings in pretty much the way you would expect
based on superficial racial appearance.
Thirdly, there exists confusion between what might be called the
"layperson's definition of race," which is based on a few
superficial characteristics like skin color, eye color, and so on,
and "genetic definition of race" which is based on much more than
a small number of superficial characteristics. It should be noted
that there can be substantial skin tone variation within a "genetic
race." "People with dark skin" are not a "race" by any definition.
Finally, some argue that because most human genetic variation is
within "racial" groups rather than between "racial" groups that
there is no significance to "race" however defined. The base fact
here is certainly true. For example, height varies much more
within each "racial" group than between "races." However, this is
not the same as saying that clustering of genetic differences don't
exist that for the most part correspond to the "layperson's
definition of race" modulated by large amounts of racial mixing,
especially in border areas.
The important news about our new knowledge of DNA is that it turns
out the significance of "racial" markers like skin tone and eye
color is non-existent. In other words, if I tell you someone's
skin color, this does not allow for any scientifically based
generalizations. However, the same cannot be said for various
genes that are not uniformly distributed. If I tell you someone
lacks the gene to digest lactose, there is something approaching a
100% chance that they will not be able to handle milk and cheese.
If I tell you exactly which type of gene for lactose digesting a
person has, the geographic origin of their ancestors can be
deduced, since this trait has evolved multiple times in different
areas in different ways. As we learn more about our genetic
heritage, in time this knowledge has the potential to transform our
self-understanding beyond recognition. [-dls]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Center (letter of comment by Andre Kuzniarek)
In response to the article on "the center" in the 01/17/14 issue of
the MT VOID, Andre Kuzniarek writes:
An interesting book on that very point:
THE VIEW FROM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE: DISCOVERING OUR
EXTRAORDINARY PLACE IN THE COSMOS by Joel R. primack and Nancy
Ellen Abrams (http://tinyurl.com/void-view-from-center).
It was a breezy read... [-ak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
In the book-and-film group, we read ROGUE MOON by Algis Budrys
(ISBN 978-0-575-10800-4) as the book to go with the film MOON. The
book was written around 1960, so it seems very dated in spots.
For example, these days there is something called the Bechdel Test:
are there two women in the novel (or film, or whatever) who talk to
each other about something other than a man? (Other variants
require the characters be named characters, or that the
conversation last at least 60 seconds, presumably to avoid counting
something like a checkout clerk asking, "Do you really want these
onions?") But ROGUE MOON does not even get up to the level of
applying the Bechdel Test. There are only two women, who never
meet each other. (In fairness, there are very few male characters
as well.)
What I found more striking was how the characters were referred to.
For example, in the first section of chapter 4, there are three
pages in which we have only two characters. The man (Edward Hawks)
is referred to by last name in every paragraph in which he moves,
speaks, etc., totaling twelve references by name and four by
pronoun. The woman is called by her full name (Claire Pack) in the
first paragraph in which she is mentioned and by pronoun every time
after that (thirty references in twelve paragraphs). I am not sure
which is more annoying: the referencing of Claire almost
universally as just "she", or the need to use her full name. (I
was reminded of THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE, when Sandy is
talking to Miss Brodie about another student, Mary MacGregor, "I
used to wonder why you always called Mary by her full name. I
think it was because you had such a hard time remembering who she
was."
And it is not just the name references that seems (to me, anyway)
to treat women as stereotypical characters, but the constant
descriptions of their clothing, and the adjectives and adverbs
chosen to describe their clothing, their actions, and everything
about them. [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Nothing induces me to read a novel except
when I have to make money by writing about it.
I detest them.
--Virginia Woolf