THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/05/10 -- Vol. 28, No. 32, Whole Number 1583
C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
R2D2: 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
Topics:
A Mathematical Conflict (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Two Great Thrillers and Some Not So Great (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Chopsticks (letters of comment by Jay E. Morris,
Philip Chee, David Friedman, Lowell Gilbert,
Keith Lynch, David Reitman, Kip Williams,
and Wendy Sheridan)
Bad Starts (letters of comment by Kip Williams
and Steve Goldsmith)
THE HURT LOCKER (letter of comment by Jerry Ryan)
AVATAR (letter of comment by Wendy Sheridan)
This Week's Reading (GALILEO'S DREAM, ACRES OF DIAMONDS,
and nitpicking) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: A Mathematical Conflict (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
When the mathematician Ramanujan was sick and in a hospital in
England, his friend and collaborator G.H. Hardy visited him. He
noted that the hospital room number, 1729, was a very uninteresting
number. Ramanujan disagreed. It actually is a very interesting
number, he said. It is the smallest number that can be expressed
as the sum of two cubes. It is 10^3 + 9^3, but it is also 12^3 +
1^3. Hardy was impressed and ceded the point to Ramanujan.
However, if there is anything to be said for democracy Hardy was
too quick. The overwhelming tide of current public opinion, based
on the people I have asked, would be that Hardy was the one who
was correct after all. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Two Great Thrillers and Some Not So Great (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
I was once discussing plays with a friend. He told me that there
was one play he thought was really a very clever murder mystery and
thriller. The play was "Sleuth" by Anthony Shaffer. I never did
have an opportunity to see the play, but I did see the film, made
in 1972 with Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. It struck me when
I saw the film that that was particularly poor casting. I will not
spoil the story (much) but there is a very theatrical gimmick to
the story and it is betrayed by the casting. There is a piece of
information that the viewer is not supposed to know and is supposed
to be surprised when it is revealed. I am trying hard not to say
what the gimmick is, but there is something of the casting of the
film that makes it immediately obvious. I will reveal it at the
end of this article after a spoiler warning. In any case I did not
think it was a good thriller. It was just not clever enough. It
depended on that one gimmick.
Some years later there was another supposedly clever murder mystery
on Broadway, DEATHTRAP by Ira Levin. It also worked by a gimmick.
It is full of major plot twists that I thought were just there for
the sheer joy of having plot twists. It also was disappointing.
So it got me to wondering what were the really good crime thrillers
on the stage. Agatha Christie comes to mind as being really good
at plotting. And I have to admit that WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION
comes pretty close for me. But it the back of my mind it still
does not quite measure up. I had to ask myself what I called
measuring up and realized what I was comparing all these mysteries
to was Alfred Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER. This is based on the
play by Frederick Knott. If I had to hold up a murder story as
being the paragon of the genre, this has to be the film I would
choose.
Why do I hold this one film is so much esteem? I guess first it is
not a mystery at all. It is really an exercise in logic. You know
from the beginning who the villain is. It is Tony Wendice, played
by Ray Milland. He has determined to kill his wife Margot (Grace
Kelly) and his plan is simply brilliant. He did not just come up
with a plan for killing her. He knows what he wants everybody
involved to do and has put together an alternate reality in which
that is what his puppets think is always the logical thing to do.
From the very start, lots of things go wrong. Almost always he has
thought out this eventuality and has a countermove to put his plan
back on course. He is, however, up against a very good detective
and eventually a hole is found. But I think of the film as a very
intelligent battle of wits at a much higher level than the two
plays I mentioned above.
A few years later I saw a sort of horror suspense film, WAIT UNTIL
DARK. The plot is that a blind woman, Susy Hendrix (played by
Audrey Hepburn), has come into possession of a doll that she does
not realize is full of packets of heroin. (Actually she does not
know where the doll is, but that is getting too much into the
plot.) Two criminals (Richard Crenna and Jack Weston) want to get
the doll away from her and a third who is smarter than either of
them joins them. This third is Roat is played by Alan Arkin in a
rare non-comedy role and, boy, is this non-comedy. Roat could be
one of the screen's creepiest killers. And his mannerisms are just
weird. He talks in a singsong voice as if to him everyone he talks
to is a child. Roat concocts a plot to convince Susy that her
husband has murdered someone and the doll is the only piece of
evidence that the police can use to tie him into the murder. But
it is the same sort of well thought out alternate reality that was
in DIAL M FOR MURDER, reinforced by play-acting by all three
criminals. But what makes it interesting is that everybody
underestimates Susy because she is blind. Even without sight she
is far more aware of what is going on around her than they could
guess. It is not incredible like the powers of the Japanese Zato
Ichi who can hear the numbers on falling dice, but it is enough to
make her a formidable opponent. The film and presumably the play
are very cleverly written.
So I am watching WAIT UNTIL DARK and I tell myself this is almost
in a class with DIAL M FOR MURDER (a little more violent and not
quite as complex, but nearly as well-done). Who wrote it? The
film is based on a play by Frederick Knott. That is the same
writer as DIAL M FOR MURDER? Jeez. So what else has he written
other than two really great plays? It turns out not a whole lot
else. Nothing of this quality. He did some TV work. Actually
"Dial M for Murder" was first performed on BBC television in 1952
and then it was put on the stage before Alfred Hitchcock ever made
his version. Frederick Knott died in December of 2002 having
written two really excellent plays. It is a pity he did not write
more along the same lines. There really are not many people who
can match his writing.
SPOILER... SPOILER... SPOILER... SPOILER... SPOILER... SPOILER...
SPOILER... SPOILER... SPOILER... SPOILER... SPOILER... SPOILER...
In SLEUTH a character is introduced whom we are not supposed to
know is someone we have already met but in disguise. The actor who
was cast has a very characteristic way of talking that, in spite of
being a good actor, he could not sufficiently disguise when he did
not want to be recognized. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Chopsticks (letters of comment by Jay E. Morris, Philip
Chee, David Friedman, Lowell Gilbert, Keith Lynch, David Reitman,
Kip Williams, and Wendy Sheridan)
In response to Mark's comments on chopsticks in the 01/29/08 issue
of the MT VOID, Jay E. Morris writes, "I like to use chopsticks
because I have a tendency to wolf down my food. Hard to do with
chopsticks." [-jem]
Philip Chee responds, "Not if you are Chinese." [-pc]
David Friedman adds, "I started using chopsticks long ago on the
same theory, but it no longer works." [-df]
Lowell Gilbert says, "My mother switched the whole family to
chopsticks at some point when I was a child. I seem to remember it
being about two weeks before my brother (Rick) and I were back up
to full speed. Or more-than-full speed, as Mom would have it."
[-lg]
Mark responds, "Sadly it takes only a little practice and you can
wolf with the best of them. Somebody who really wants to wolf can
move those sticks like lightning. :-) The Mandarin for chopsticks
is KWAI-dze, which means 'quick ones'. I am reminded of FANTASTIC
MR. FOX. Fox is an extremely suave character (voiced by George
Clooney) until he has food in front of him, and then it takes about
two seconds for him to clear a plate." [-mrl]
And Keith Lynch asks Lowell, "Was this switch intended to slow down
your eating? If so, what's obviously needed is an unending variety
of very different kinds of eating utensils, so that you can be
switched to a new one every week or two weeks for your whole life
without ever running out. Think of all the new jobs the invention,
manufacture, marketing, shipping, and sale of these new utensils
will create." [-kl]
Kip Williams responds, "Chopsticks should be sufficient, if you
attach a free weight or cinderblock to each one. Even simpler
would be to just eat with one chopstick." [-kw]
Keith replies, "That won't create many new jobs." [-kl]
Daniel Reitman responds, "Well, not manufacturing the chopsticks,
but the pencil sharpeners you'd need to make one chopstick usable
..." [-dr]
And Kip Williams adds, "You can't beat chopsticks for eating food
from the other side of the table. There are some Asian dishes for
which I'll unabashedly go back to Yankee cutlery, of course. It
never occurs to me to eat other cuisine with chopsticks. (I keep
intending to draw a cartoon of a man in a restaurant being told,
'I'm sorry, but we don't provide chopsticks, Senor.')" [-kw]
Also, Wendy Sheridan writes, "The only John Belushi ANIMAL HOUSE
scene I could immediately recall was the one during the toga party
where he drunkenly pours mustard all over his chest (which sort of
defeats the entire purpose of lifting a bowl to the lips for soup
drinking to avoid getting food on one's clothes). Then, I
remembered the cafeteria scene. I can't imagine you ever being so
uncouth as to eat food standing in line at the cafeteria. If we
ever go out for miso together, we can both drink directly from the
bowl." [-ws]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Bad Starts (letters of comment by Kip Williams and Steve
Goldsmith)
In response to Mark's comments on bad starts in the 01/29/10 issue
of the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes:
I read ATLAS SHRUGGED first, then THE FOUNTAINHEAD. I've re-read
both of them (the former almost four times, bearing in mind that at
least one of those times I gave myself leave to skip The Monolog)
and read other fictive items by the author. After a reading or
two, I had come to the conclusion that they were enjoyable as
fiction, and that was about it.
Now, if I'd read ANTHEM first, I wouldn't have read another word by
Rand. It's the shortest, but it's packed with gristle and inedible
pretension. [-kw]
Steve Goldsmith writes:, "I couldn't agree more. I struggled
through a thousand pages of ATLAS SHRUGGED. Talk about right-wing
dogma. It made me need reading glasses for the first time.
Still, now that most of my South-Jersey friends are Republican, I'm
trying to understand their arguments rather than dismissing them
outright." [-sbg]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE HURT LOCKER (letter of comment by Jerry Ryan)
In response to Mark's review of THE HURT LOCKER in the 01/29/10
issue of the MT VOID, Jerry Ryan writes:
I enjoyed the film; actually thought that the slower pacing of
things added to the suspense. I thought that about 5 minutes after
his tour ended, I knew exactly what the closing scene of the film
would be... and I was right.
I was told The Hurt Locker is the hospital. From the film's
website: "In Iraq, it is soldier vernacular to speak of explosions
as sending you to 'the hurt locker'."
[-gwr]
Mark responds, "I think that THE HURT LOCKER is really just a
illustration of the quote at the beginning of the film. As soon
as the main character goes home I knew where the film was going.
Of course that is just the final few minutes of the film anyway.
I don't remember a hospital showing up anywhere in the film."
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: AVATAR (letter of comment by Wendy Sheridan)
In response to Taras's and Mark's comments on AVATAR in the
01/29/10 issue of the MT VOID, Wendy Sheridan writes: "I don't know
if you've seen the scanned page floating around the internet where
a man takes the plot summary for Disney's POCAHONTAS and crosses
out the names and replaces them with the names from AVATAR, but it
makes a very good case." [-ws]
Mark replies, "What you say people are doing with POCAHONTAS to get
AVATAR could just as well be done with DANCES WITH WOLVES or any
one of several other films. I think even DUNE has a similar plot.
I like to point out the that you could write a detailed description
of the plot of THE GODFATHER that also fits GODFATHER II and
GODFATHER III." [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
GALILEO'S DREAM by Kim Stanley Robinson (ISBN-13 978-0-553-80659-5)
is billed as alternate history, but it is really more secret
history. I have liked most of Robinson's work up till recently,
but starting with his "Capitol Weather" series, he seems to have
gotten even more into the "expository lump" mode that characterized
his "Mars" trilogy. And in GALILEO'S DREAM, he continues this
trend. One is taken back and forth between the minutiae of
Galileo's life, and the crash course on math and science from the
17th century on that Galileo is given when he is transported to the
moons of Jupiter in the 31st century. Both are way more detail
than the average reader wants.
And worse, there are errors (typos rather than factual errors, as
far as I could tell). On page 208, it is talking about the quanta
of space and time, and says, "... these were true minimums, because
further division would break either the speed of light or the
exclusion principle. The minimum width established by this
principle turned out to be 10/34 of a meter, and traveling at the
speed of light a photon would cross this distance in 10/43 of a
second." This would make a quantum of space about a foot in
length! What was meant was (10 to the minus 34th power) of a meter
and (10 to the minus 43rd power) of a second.
Worse, Robinson seems to have sacrificed authenticity. Early on,
Galileo and his assistant talk about cardboard (a term not coined
until 1858, and the substance itself as a distinct material almost
definitely post-dates Galileo). During a party in which all are
masked, someone hands Galileo a mask in the form of a wild boar, to
which he says, "I may be a boar, but I am never boring." [page 244]
Does this pun *really* work in Italian (or Latin) (especially since
both "boar" and "bore" are Germanic in origin)? (In Latin, "boar"
is "verres", and "boring", "importunus"; in Italian, "verro" or
"cinghiale", and "annoiare", respectively.)
And when a woman from the future asks (on page 255), "That we might
find out we are like bacteria on the floor of a world of gods?" how
does Galileo understand this? ("Bacterium" is another mid-19th
century word.)
This may all seem like nitpicking, but instances like this kept
yanking me out of the 17th century in a most abrupt manner. I
would have thought I would find the discussions about the philosophy
of science interesting, but somehow it failed to engage me.
[And honest, the Galileo quote at the end of this MT VOID came up
in the schedule independently of this review!]
One of my father's favorite books is ACRES OF DIAMONDS by Russell
Conwell. I am not giving an ISBN for this, because what I am
discussing here are various editions. My father had several copies
on his bookshelf, and flipping through them I discovered that
editors *love* to tamper.
Russell H. Conwell gave the text as a public speech more than 6000
times between 1877 and 1926. Not surprisingly, it was written in
the ornate, declamatory style of the era. So I suppose it is not
surprising that editors in the last forty years feel they should
"update" it--after all, they are "updating" Shakespeare!
So what I had to compare were:
- the 1905 Harper & Brothers Edition, printed in the 1940s, which
claims "This is the most recent and complete form of the lecture."
(~14,250 words)
- the 1968 Hallmark Edition, "Edited for Contemporary Readers by
William R. Webb" (~12,750 words)
- the 1972 Pyramid edition, apparently copyrighted in 1960 by the
Fleming H. Revell Company (~13,000 words)
- the 2003 Barbour Edition, "A Modern Adaptation of the Classic
Message" (~14,000, but hard to tell because it has rendered some
key points in a different font with much more white space around
them)
The first paragraph of the 1905 edition--which I would assume to be
the most accurate to Conwell--reads:
"When going down the Tigris and Euphrates rivers many years ago
with a party of English travelers I found myself under the
direction of an old Arab guide whom we hired up in Bagdad, and I
have often thought how that guide resembled our barbers in certain
mental characteristics. He thought that it was not only his duty
to guide us down those rivers, and do what he was paid for doing,
but also to entertain us with stories curious and weird, ancient
and modern, strange and familiar."
The 1968 edition renders this as:
"While traveling down the Tigris and Euphrates rivers many years
ago, I found myself in the company of an old Arab guide we had
hired at Bagdad. He was unusually talkative, and seemed to think
it was not only his duty to guide us, and do what he was paid for
doing, but also to entertain us with stories."
Ptooi.
The 2003 edition leaves the opening untouched, but makes other
changes. For example, one story Conwell tells is of A. T. Stewart
who started with $1.50, but lost 87-1/2 cents on his first business
venture. He learned from this and invested the remaining 62-1/2
cents wisely. The 2003 edition decided that half-cents would
confuse people, so it dropped them. The result is an arithmetic
error: Stewart starts with $1.50, loses 87 cents, and has 62 cents
left! But I suspect the biggest difference in the 2003 edition is
the formatting to emphasize the key points.
The 1968 and 1972 editions retain the half-cents. In fact, the
1972 edition seems identical to the 1905; the difference in word
count is probably due to sampling error.
When you read (or watch) a work over and over, you keep finding new
nitpicks. In THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, the viewer is supposed to
identify with and sympathize with Paul Krempe, but he seems awfully
"lookist" in his reaction to the Monster. His main concern seems
to be that the Monster is not attractive-looking. And in "The
Boscombe Valley Mystery" by Arthur Conan Doyle, Watson writes, "...
there is every prospect that the son and daughter may come to live
happily together in ignorance of the black cloud which rests upon
their past." Well, there might have been but now that Watson has
told the world about it in his story, it's no longer very likely,
is it? [-ecl]
[Perhaps the names have been changed to protect the innocent. -mrl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Among the great men who have philosophized about
[the action of the tides], the one who surprised
me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent
genius, [but he] became interested in the action
of the moon on the water, and in other occult
phenomena, and similar childishness.
-- Galileo, 1632