THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
04/06/12 -- Vol. 30, No. 41, Whole Number 1696
Ollie: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Stan: 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:
Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
Global Warming (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Not Even Fair Weather Friends (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Movies and Quicksand (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Plastic Bags (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
TEEN A GO GO (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Sid Coleman, A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT
and THE END OF ETERNITY (letter of comment
by John Hertz)
Counting Countries (letters of comment by Lax Madapaty,
Fred Lerner, Tim Bateman, Jette Goldie,
and Keith F. Lynch)
THE MENTALIST (letter of comment by Andre Kuzniark)
This Week's Reading (THE TRAGEDY OF ARTHUR, THE SCHOPENHAUER
CURE, and A THEORY OF JUSTICE) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups (NJ)
April 12: THE POSTMAN by David Brin, Middletown (NJ) Public
Library, film at 5PM, discussion after
April 19: WHERE GOOD IDEAS COME FROM by Steven Johnson, Old Bridge
(NJ) Public Library, 7PM
May 24: OF MEN AND MONSTERS by William Tenn, Old Bridge (NJ)
Public Library, 7PM
June 21: THE SWEET HEREAFTER by Russell Banks, Old Bridge (NJ)
Public Library, 7PM
July 19: SCHILD'S LADDER by Greg Egan, Old Bridge (NJ) Public
Library, 7PM
August 16: THE ASTONISHING HYPOTHESIS by Francis Crick, Old Bridge
(NJ) Public Library, 7PM
September 27: CYBERIAD by Stanislaw Lem, Old Bridge (NJ) Public
Library, 7PM
October 18: THE KALAHARI TYPING SCHOOL FOR MEN by Alexander McCall
Smith, Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 7PM
November 15: TRIGGERS by Robert J. Sawyer (tentative), Old Bridge
(NJ) Public Library, 7PM
December 20: DEATH OF A SALESMAN by Arthur Miller, Old Bridge (NJ)
Public Library, 7PM
Northern New Jersey events are listed at:
http://www.sfsnnj.com/news.html
==================================================================
TOPIC: Global Warming (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Someone on a mailing list I am on forwarded this link to a 26-
second video from NASA showing the change in average temperatures
over the last 131 years:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
==================================================================
TOPIC: Not Even Fair Weather Friends (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I tell you things are so bad in New Jersey even the trees seem to
be getting ready to leave. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Movies and Quicksand (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A podcast I listen to was discussing that classic of the horror
film, CURSE OF THE SWAMP CREATURE. Toward the end a (bad) man
standing in a swamp up to his waist realizes that under his feet is
quicksand. He slowly sinks into the water. But I thought
quicksand had to be mostly dry to work. Time to do some digging
about quicksand and let them sink in.
One of the standard and time tested ways of dispatching villains
and monsters in horror films is to have them stumble into
quicksand. We see the Frankenstein monster and his current mad
scientist go down in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. We see mummies
swallowed up in THE MUMMY'S GHOST and Hammer Films' THE MUMMY
(1959). That same year quicksand gets another Hammer reference in
HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. A Tyrannosaurus is engulfed by it in
THE BEAST OF HOLLOW MOUNTAIN. We see quicksand sucking someone
down from the bottom of a pond or lake swallow up a man in CURSE OF
THE SWAMP CREATURE. An Arab boy sinks into dry sands in LAWRENCE
OF ARABIA (1962). What is this dangerous natural substance and how
threatening is it really?
Well, to start off, there was some of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA that was
close to history and some was just a load of duck tires. The
incident in which the boy Daud gets sucked into a pit of sand falls
into the load of duck tires category. I am reliably informed that
that incident appears nowhere in Lawrence's memoirs. Independently
of whether it could physically happen or not, the fact is that it
was an invented incident for the screen.
Before I go any further I have to distinguish. There is "bog",
there is "quicksand", and there is "dry quicksand". They have
similar purported effects, but you have a different physical
phenomena going on in each. Most of what you see depicted in films
as quicksand is really just bogs, also called "mire" or "quagmire".
Why do films misidentify mire as "quicksand"? Well, how would it
sound to have Boris Karloff being carried by the Frankenstein
monster yelling, "Don't go that way... Quagmire!" or "Not that
way... Bog!" We are talking about a horror film here. Nobody
gets a chill from the word "quagmire" unless they mean it in terms
of foreign wars. Yes, quicksand is scary, but I am not sure why.
It would be quite a task, probably impossible, to find someone who
was killed by quicksand in the last ten years. Far more people are
killed in bathtubs. We have images that if we fall into mire we
will get muddy and have a cleaning job to do, but we do not get
particularly frightened by the concept. Quicksand conjures up
images of being sucked down in dark suffocating sands.
I will assume the reader already understands the concept of mud.
There is no room here for a great deal of Mud Theory. Mud deep
enough can under the right circumstances be dangerous. But those
circumstances rarely happen.
There is quicksand and dry quicksand. If quicksand is not dry, it
is wet, even if it is called just "quicksand" rather than "wet
quicksand". "Normally, sand that is dry just piles up. It is like
a pile of tiny rocks that come in contact with each other and
friction does not allow much slippage between them. If you walk on
a beach then your foot slips a little into sand, but there is not
much movement or slippage because the fiction stops particles of
sand from slipping past each other. If there is a little water
that seeps in between the gains that can act as a lubricant and the
grains can slip past each other a bit better. Under normal
conditions that is not too dangerous, but it can be messy to step
on. However, if there is force on the water in the sand, like if
it is coming from an underground spring, that can make matters much
more slippery. It is rare, but it could be dangerous.
But what about very wet quicksand? The gentleman in the swamp
creature movie could have been in trouble. He could have sunk into
the mud or sand beneath his feet sufficiently that he could not
keep his head above water. That would be death by drowning, not by
quicksand really. It occasionally happens to animals, but rarely
to humans.
On an episode of "Mythbusters" the experimenters stepped into
quicksand and went in only up to their waists. They considered the
myth of killer quicksand busted. In fact, they are wrong. There
are very occasional cases of quicksand deaths. Actually, the
Mythbusters left out what could have been a crucial ingredient.
They did not shake the quicksand. An earthquake can push the water
harder as it seeps through the sand and the shaking also acts to
break the friction bonds between sand grains. During an earthquake
the liquefaction phenomenon people are warned about is essentially
a quicksand effect. The ground seems to liquify and things--
theoretically including people--can sink in it.
Then there is dry quicksand. I infer from the Wikipedia article
that it must be a very rare phenomenon since they claim that until
recently it was considered only folklore. It is an effect that can
be demonstrated in laboratory. Air blowing through loose sand
apparently can blow it apart so that it is less dense. There is
more air between the particles so in a sense the sand has been
whipped up so it is less dense. The important fact is that it
becomes compressible when force or weight on top squeezes the air
out. But then much the same can be said for snow. And dry
quicksand seems to be more compressible than snow. Again there is
not much to worry about here.
The conclusion is that you should not believe everything you see in
movies. You are more endangered by the possibility of stepping in
mud or snow than you are from stepping in quicksand. But you know
that kind of danger. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Plastic Bags (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
When we were in Arizona recently, we drove from Phoenix to near
Tucson on Route 79, a beautiful road through the desert. Or it
would be beautiful, were it not for the plastic bags that pollute
the landscape. All along the road, you see them hanging on cacti,
shrubs, and trees. The fact that most of the plants have spikes,
or thorns, or needles just makes it so much easier for the bags to
get hung up on them permanently, so the problem is even worse than
in other areas of the country. There were some stretches where the
bags had been removed. I noticed that the stretches cleaned by
organizations tended to be cleaner than those that are cleaned by
"The Smith Family" or "In Remembrance of Joey". (It is actually
pretty disrespectful to Joey's memory that they put up the sign and
let the roadside get as messy as it does.)
For what it's worth, the stretches cleaned by both the Republicans
and the Democrats of the Saddlebrook are equally clean.
It is so bad that even in Arizona, Bisbee is making stores charge
for them, and Tucson is considering it. It is not popular with a
lot of people there but frankly, it is a real shame that such
beautiful scenery is marred by all that unnecessary garbage.
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: TEEN A GO GO (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Melissa Kirkendall takes a look at the Rock and Roll
explosion following the fame of the Beatles, 1964 to 1972. The
unlikely scene of a lot of the action was Fort Worth, Texas, home
of an entire culture of "garage bands." This was a pivotal change
in American culture, and it was kids in their mid to upper teens.
Kirkendall tells us the story of the Rock and Roll youth movement
and those exciting eight years.
Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
I was around for but not into the 1960s Rock and Roll scene that
followed the British Invasion with the popularity of the Beatles.
The "Ed Sullivan Show" featured the Beatles on March 13, 1964, and
overnight the style of long hair, English mannerisms, and bands
with four or five musicians became the standard for teens all over
the United States.
I did not participate but was the right age and I remember the
revolution and what was really the invention of what we now call
the "youth culture." Also this is about the phenomenon that swept
the country but one of the centers of the excitement was, of all
places, Fort Worth, Texas. Now normally Fort Worth is not even the
cultural leader of the twin cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. But
it did seem to be the center of garage bands--bands of kids in
their early to mid-teens who formed groups and practiced typically
in their garages because there parents would not allow the loud
noise in the house. In this time Fort Worth became to Rock and
Roll sort of what Roger Corman was to American cinema. It was a
kind of proving ground for what was to come in Rock and Roll.
Several teen Go-Go clubs opened in town, and if your group was
booked for an A Go-Go, you were pretty much already a star.
TEEN A GO GO is Melissa Kirkendall's reminiscence of that exciting
time. It tells the story of what happened but concentrates mostly
on interviews with the musicians, the disk jockeys, executives, and
fans. It moves back and forth between telling the story and
interviews with participants. There are plenty of musicians still
around. None of the Fort Worth crowd seems to have made more than
negligible money from their music--that has gone to the
corporations. But this was a wholesome creativity. Rock and Roll
comes off as well adjusted compared to the rock that followed. In
telling the story I do not believe there is ever an occasion in the
film even to use the word "drug". Sex is never mentioned much more
than to say the guys really liked to have girls screaming for them.
(There are two murders mentioned in one story, but they do not
appear to having anything to do with the music.) These are people
who in those eight years from 1964 to 1972 had a fun and creative
time as teenagers and then went on to do something else with their
lives. Records were made of the teens, frequently with just one
take of the song. Many of these records have become valuable
collectors' items. Most of the music is unfamiliar (to me at
least) though the premiere group, The Elites did have a song, "One
Potato, Two Potato, Three Potato, Four" that did get national play.
Curiously there is no mention of the fact that there are very few
girls in the bands. A girl band is discussed, but there are no
bands of mixed gender, with the possible exception of bands with
Go-Go girls who were pretty much just stage decoration.
Kirkendall co-produces, directs, and edits, each for the first time
on a feature film. The technical work could use some work. There
are occasional jumps in sound level between scenes. When music
historian Joe Nick Patowski is interviewed his glasses
distractingly reflect bright light and street scenes.
TEEN A GO GO is a reminder of a simpler and more innocent time when
"Rock and Roll" was enough by itself and did not need to be "sex,
drugs, and Rock and Roll." I rate the film a +1 on the -4 to +4
scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1811328/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Sid Coleman, A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT and
THE END OF ETERNITY (letter of comment by John Hertz)
In response to Mark's comments on Sid Coleman in the 02/17/12 issue
of the MT VOID, John Hertz writes:
Mark says he was unaware of Sid Coleman until Greg Benford posted
an appreciation at http://www.gregorybenford.com. Benford's
appreciation was (as he says) previously in TRAP DOOR 25 and was
noted in VANAMONDE 770. The fine drawing of Coleman by Dan Steffan
was used as one of the samples on Steffan's page at the Rotsler
Award Website (http://www.scifiinc.org/rotsler). [-jh]
And in response to Evelyn's comments on A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN
KING ARTHUR'S COURT and THE END OF ETERNITY in the 03/09/12 issue,
John writes:
Evelyn speaks of A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT
(Twain, 1889) and THE END OF ETERNITY (Asimov, 1955). As it
happens these are two of the books I've noted at "Collecting
Science Fiction Books" (http://www.collectingsf.com), under "A
Fan's View". You might like to see my perspective. [-jh]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Counting Countries (letters of comment by Lax Madapaty,
Fred Lerner, Tim Bateman, Jette Goldie, and Keith F. Lynch)
In response to Evelyn's comments on counting countries in the
03/30/12 issue of the MT VOID, Lax Madapaty writes:
Just last week I was wondering how many countries there are in the
world today. 194 per UN? Or 195 with South Sudan?
Did you visit all the countries that were part of a single country
in the past? Example: of the former Yugoslavian countries did you
visit the parts in Slovenia, say Lubljiana?
I don't count airport layovers and "sightings" from a distance. It
is--did I spend at least a night in that country not counting
airport stays? I stepped in Italian soil on a bus trip from
Slovenia and "saw" Sweden from the edge of Denmark but they don't
count.
I think I am now at 32. [-lm]
And Fred Lerner writes:
Counting countries visited (or rather, determining what counts as a
country) can indeed get one into the morass of definition. I don't
count landing in or passing through an airport as adding a state or
country to my list; but if I changed planes at Schiphol and made a
brief foray into Amsterdam, even if only for an hour, I would count
that. I also count driving or riding through a state or country as
qualifying, even if I never leave the vehicle and set foot on land.
(And of course merely flying through a country's airspace does not
constitute a visit.)
Once when visiting my daughter in Sweden we drove through a very
narrow stretch of Norwegian territory, and I got out of the car and
stood on the Norwegian side of the boundary marker. Elizabeth
maintained that I could not on that account add Norway to my list
of countries visited, but I disputed the point. Finally I
explained the controversy to an eminent Norwegian physician who
happened to be visiting my workplace, and he ruled that my daughter
was right, and my brief footsteps on Norwegian soil did not entitle
me to claim a visit to Norway, so I surrendered the point.
I think the only country I've visited that you folks haven't is
Portugal. [-fl]
And Tim Bateman writes:
I am interested to see that your visit to the United Kingdom did
not include England, although I would wager you a Kit-Kat that you
overflew it at some point when travelling from Scotland to Wales.
And then there is the 'Six Nations' football tournament, wherein
the six nations are England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France and
the one I've forgotten (Italy?).
[Regarding the three "one-offs": Palestinian Territories, United
Nations, and Vatican City,] I'd be inclined to count Vatican City
but not the other two. Although I'm not sure... [-tgb]
Jette Goldie responds:
Not necessarily--if she went from Scotland to Northern Ireland by
ferry, then ferry to Wales (although I think she'd have to have
gone to the Republic of Ireland to catch a ferry to Wales). [-gd]
Keith F. Lynch adds:
By "United Nations" is meant the building in New York City? I
wouldn't count that as another country. If it does count, I could
visit a hundred countries tomorrow, entirely on foot, by visiting
embassies in DC. [-kfl]
Evelyn responds to all:
As for the number of countries in the world, there are 193
countries in the United Nations, plus Vatican City (a.k.a. the Holy
See) as a permanent observer. The United States recognizes 195
countries (it also includes Kosovo). Taiwan is on neither list.
I did note in my list that we had listed Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia,
and Serbia. We did not get to Montenegro or Macedonia.
Staying overnight seems a reasonable criterion until one starts
looking at places like Monaco or (at the extreme) Vatican City. I
don't think most people *can* stay overnight in Vatican City. One
might quibble about our inclusion of Germany (several hours in
Frankfurt during a stop-over--but in the city, not just the
airport).
Yes, I've been to England--Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland
were "countries" I said I could add to the list, which already
included the United Kingdom. If I listed England, then I would
have to remember to deduct one from the list first.
Yes, the sixth nation in the tournament is Italy.
I guess I would count the United Nations because it issues its own
Stamps (I used to be a stamp collector, which is where my notion
of countries started), and the buildings in New York City are all
that there is to it. Interestingly, I got no feedback on whether
Gilbralter and Hong Kong should be counted separately or not.
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE MENTALIST (letter of comment by Andre Kuzniark)
In response to Dale Skran's review of THE MENTALIST in the 03/30/12
issue of the MT VOID, Andre Kuzniark writes:
That was a great summary and analysis by Dale on THE MENTALIST.
I might add that what also intrigues me about this show is the
tempered nature of the production. The incidental music is
evocative without being melodramatic or in your face. The
characters usually interact without bombast--the specific team
members working with Jane generally operate with cool precision.
In essence, the overall tone of the show is cerebral in nature that
matches its theme and is refreshing in contrast to the rest of
what's on prime-time TV. That said, be careful watching while on
antihistamines--the calm and cool pacing can be meditative enough
to knock you out when you're under the influence. [-ak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE TRAGEDY OF ARTHUR by Arthur Phillips (ISBN 978-1-4000-6647-6)
is the most extreme example of the "unreliable narrator" that I
have seen. Arthur Phillips the author of THE TRAGEDY OF ARTHUR has
written a novel in the first person about Arthur Phillips the
character, a writer whose biographical details match the author's
to a high degree. In the novel, the character has two objects of
interest: a 1904 edition of the play "The Tragedy of Arthur" by
William Shakespeare, and a 17th century folio of the same play with
Shakespeare's name as author on the frontispiece. However, the
character's father is a consummate forger of art and documents, and
he is the person who has given the character both the book and the
folio. So the question is, are these objects real or are they
forgeries?
One key argument made in the book is that it does not matter
whether the play is real or a forgery: if it is good, it is good in
itself. But our attitudes toward Shakespeare have blinded us to
this. For example, we say that Shakespeare is great, and his
contemporaries are mostly mediocre, but the narrator writes, "We
now find it hard to enjoy any of his contemporaries very much, but
at the time, the same people who liked his plays liked the other
guys'. We've lost the ability to appreciate those others, because
we've been too obsessively appreciating him." [pg 226]
This adulation ("Bardolatry", as it has been called) also leads us
to spend a lot of time and effort coming up with reasons why
Shakespeare wrote this or that bad line, or had this or that
awkwardness. As the narrator say to a group staging HAMLET,
"Shakespeare was the greatest creator of Rorschach tests in
history. That's why we keep going back to him for the ten
billionth production of this lame play. Look, look: you have a
weak spot where Will's not thinking very clearly, and the character
rambles on, and Will Sticks in a joke that he likes about flowers
that look like wieners. It plainly doesn't belong there. Any
editor would cut it. It breaks the rhythm and the logic of the
scene. And your sweet old Gertrude noticed it and rightly points
out the weak spot. Anybody else, we'd say, 'Whoops. Not buying
it, Will.' If I wrote it they'd send me home to rework it.
Instead, what do you all do? You all talk it out until you make it
make sense for him. He wrote it, so it must be right. You six
very intelligent people form a committee to offer him your help,
and when you've done the best you can, consulting old books of
other would-be helpers, when you actually come up with some very
clever solutions, you marvel at *him* for composing such a subtle
moment." [page 94]
And another character points out what now seems obvious: "Okay, so
all your Shylock has to tell that little bitch is, 'Hey, it's
Antonio's debt to pay me, so he can cut his own flesh without me
and give me my pound, and if he spill his own blood or cuts out too
much, that is *his* problem. Now *pay* me, Christian bastards!'
Am I not right?" [pg 100]
The basic problem with the novel, of course, is that had there
really been such a book and folio as it claims, they would have
been all over the news. So in spite of all attempts to make the
question of attribution ambiguous, it is hard not to feel that we
know the solution/answer to it. The good news is that there is
enough substance independent of the attribution issue to make this
worth reading.
Oh, and it also includes the entire text of THE TRAGEDY OF ARTHUR
by William Shakespeare. It is certainly an impressive effort, but
I found it unconvincing as being a play by Shakespeare for four
reasons:
1) It is too short--at only 2808 lines it is shorter than most of
Shakespeare's other tragedies. This would make sense if it was
written by Arthur Phillips--it cannot be easy for a modern author
to write a play in iambic pentameter using Tudor language and
references, so one would expect such a play to be as short as
possible. But this is not conclusive--it is about the same length
as JULIUS CAESAR and longer than MACBETH or TIMON OF ATHENS.
2) There is a higher proportion of prose to iambic pentameter in
THE TRAGEDY OF ARTHUR than in Shakespeare's other plays.
Shakespeare used prose when "low characters" talked to each other
or made speeches (e.g. the cobblers at the beginning of JULIUS
CAESAR). Arguably, prose is easier to write than iambic
pentameter, so it is not surprising that a modern author imitating
Shakespeare would try to write as much prose as possible.
Stylometrics would probably be able to analyze this better than
just my feeling about it though.
3) The word choice is more obscure than in other Shakespeare plays.
I realize that this sounds like the opposite of the first two, but
it is much easier to decide to change "bundle" to "fardle" than to
write another few lines in meter. One need only have a list of
unfamiliar words from Shakespeare as one is composing and try to
throw one in whenever possible. In an attempt to sound authentic,
I think Phillips overdoes it. It is similar to the problem of
trying to generate random patterns manually--we tend to *over*-
randomize.
4) I do not believe that Shakespeare would use the word "pregnant"
in his stage directions (e.g., "Enter King, Queen [pregnant],
..."). In fact, while Shakespeare used the word several times, it
was never as meaning "with child" except when a double entendre,
and I wonder if it was considered somewhat improper at the time.
(I will admit that I am not a Shakespeare scholar [nor do I play
one on television :-) ], but I have read all of Shakespeare's
plays, including the "Apocrypha"--plays that have been at times
attributed at least in part to Shakespeare, but now generally are
believed *not* to have been written by him. So I can claim to be
at least as familiar with Shakspeare as most other amateurs.)
THE SCHOPENHAUER CURE by Irvin D. Yalom (ISBN 978-0-066-2144-12)
tries to blend psychotherapy and philosophy, and a lot of people
like it, but it just does not work for me. I have two problems
with it. First, Julius Hertzfeld seems to put Philip Slate into
his group therapy sessions for insufficient reasons. Slate wants
to get certified as a psychotherapist, but Hertzfeld does not think
he is ready. So instead he puts him into a group therapy session
with other patients, without appearing to think about how it will
affect *their* therapy. And second, when he is in the group, all
he does is quote Arthur Schopenhauer ... at length ... at great
length. All that keeps it from being labeled an info-dump is that
Schonpenhauer wrote philosophy rather than science or history or
something explicitly fact-based. If a patient in a group therapy
session is actually allowed to monopolize it as much as Slate does
by reciting long stretches of his favorite philosopher, this does
not speak well for the effectiveness of group therapy. I will
admit that I am not a psychologist, so I may be misunderstanding
what is going on here. But to an outsider, it does seem as though
Slate is a disruptive influence and Hertzfeld does nothing about
it. (SPOILER: That all this Schopenhauer actually helps cure the
group members is clearly a plot contrivance rather than something
that seems likely to happen.)
John Rawls has proposed a theory of justice that says that the just
system is what you would pick if you knew you were going to live in
it, but did not know who you would be. (His term for this is the
"veil of ignorance.") For example, many people see themselves as
being happy in ancient Athens, but that is because they assume they
would be free men. If you told them that they would be sent back
there as a female slave, they would probably decide that it was not
a perfect society after all.
Rawls proposed this theory in 1971 in A THEORY OF JUSTICE (ISBN
978-0-674-01772-6). One can see intimations of it in such unlikely
works as the film DARK CITY (1998), but I think it first showed up
in Jorge Luis Borges's "The Babylonian Lottery". As Borges wrote
(in 1941, thirty years before Rawls), "Like all the men of Babylon,
I have been a proconsul; like all, a slave; I have also known
omnipotence, disgrace, imprisonment." This is the result of the
lottery, that regularly "re-deals the cards" and re-assigns new
positions in society to everyone. That this does not cause Babylon
to become a more just society is not a refutation of Rawls--after
all, this is fiction.
(One could argue that term limits is a way of implementing the
premise of Rawls's theory--if an elected official knows he will be
out of office after N years, he will presumably be less likely to
accrue power to the position at the expense of the common citizen
that he will again become.) [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
My intention here is to make it clear that not
a single cell of my composition, here in regard
to "The Raven", is found by chance or intuition,
that the composition moved towards perfection with
the precision and inevitability of a mathematical
equation.
--Maurice Ravel