THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/11/16 -- Vol. 35, No. 20, Whole Number 1936
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 or posted 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:
Supermoon on November 14
Swimming and the Apollo Program (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I Give My Rating System +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
LAURA (film comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Rocket Fuel (letters of comment by Philip Chee
and Kerr Mudd-John)
MISS PEREGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN (letters
of comment by Kevin R, Tim Merrigan, and Philip Chee)
The Interplanetary Experience (letter of comment
by Tom Russell)
This Week's Reading (FIVE-FINGER DISCOUNT) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Supermoon on November 14
From gizmodo:
"Entire lifetimes have come and gone without the moon looking quite
as large as it will this month. On November 14th, skygazers will
witness the closest full moon, or "supermoon," of 2016. But more
excitingly, it'll be the closest full moon since 1948--and we won't
get another one like it until 2034."
Mark adds, "And is Central New Jersey lives up to its traditions
that night the sky will be overcast." [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Swimming and the Apollo Program (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was watching a swim race where the when the swimmers swam one
length of the pool and slapped the pool edge on the far side and
then returned in the direction they came from and swam right back.
Slapping the wall showed they made it. It occurred to me this was
the same strategy as the Apollo Program had for reaching the moon.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: I Give My Rating System +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
One of the most frequently asked questions I get about my reviews
is why do I have such a strange rating scale. Why do films get two
different ratings, one of which has to do with negative numbers and
one that does not? I certainly have what looks like the most hi-
tech rating system of any reviewer I know. Actually, it is not so
complicated even if it looks that way.
It has been a few years since I explained the rating system in the
MT VOID, so it is probably time to explain again. People ask me
why I invented this strange -4 to +4 rating system. The simple
answer is I have never invented my own rating system. I have
always borrowed someone else's rating system at a time when it was
commonly used.
Years ago I was a fan of CINEFANTASTIQUE MAGAZINE, the periodical
that had the most intelligent reviews of then current fantasy
films. I was a reader and so were a small group of friends who
kept close together by frequent mail and visits. We picked up the
rating system the magazine used. They rated films on a -4 to +4
scale. +4 was their highest rating, and -4 was their lowest
rating. I liked it because it really could be thought of as using
the bell-shaped curve used in statistics. An average film got a 0-
rating. Each point was a certain number of standard deviation away
from the average film's quality. I never went through the
calculation to figure out how many standard deviations corresponded
to one rating point, and that would not really be possible. The
films I see are skewed upward in the ratings. I see mostly films I
expect to be good. I would not intentionally pay to see a film I
expect to rate a -2 for example. So most films I review would be
well above the average film.
Then there was an additional problem with the rating system. It
must have been something like 80 percent of film got a +1 or a +2.
That left room for a lot of variation between the highest +1 film
and the lowest. So I divided the each band in three levels.
Instead of having only +1 in that range I divided the range into
low +1, +1, and high +1. That made the scale three times more
precise.
For years my rating system and I were happy. But by then more
people were reading my reviews and they did not understand why use
a -4 to +4 scale. Understandably, it confused them. They may not
have taken statistics. They often suggested that a 1 to 10 scale
was in much more general use. But then my friends would not be
sure what -4 to +4 rating would correspond to a 1 to 10 rating. It
had become to compare films on different rating scales I decided to
use the same solution that the carvers of the Rosetta stone had. I
would rate every film both on the -4 to +4 scale I had been using
for years and on the 1 to 10 scale that was which was commonly used
in the outside world.
Now that sounded to me very accommodating. People could just use
whichever scale was more comfortable to them. Problem solved, huh?
Well, people still puzzled why would anyone use two rating scales?
So I just let people pick the scale they want. This is no stranger
then having labels printed in English and Spanish. I frequently
see that at the grocery. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: LAURA (film comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I just watched LAURA again, and while it is a wonderful movie, the
actions of the police are so unbelievable as to make the whole film
fantastical.
For example, Det. Lt. Mark McPherson (Dana Andrews) goes to
question Walter Lydecker (Clifton Webb). When he is done and says
he is going to talk to McPherson, Lydecker just tags along with
him. Do the police always let one person involved in a murder
accompany them and remain present while they question another?
Then he lets yet another person join the ever-growing group
observing his questioning of possible suspects--and not just watch,
but interject questions and comments.
Later, McPherson goes back to Laura's apartment, takes out her
letters and diary and starts reading them. Doesn't he need a
search warrant? Shouldn't the letters and diary be taken to the
police station and logged in as evidence? Even later, he returns
again, takes out the letters, *pours himself a drink*, and in
general makes himself at home. Really?
He taps Laura's phone, apparently on his own say-so.
He follows Shelby Carpenter (Vincent Price) to Laura's cabin in the
country, which is clearly out of his jurisdiction (he is a New York
City detective). From here he removes another piece of evidence,
again with no paperwork.
Then he goes to Lydecker's apartment, again without a search
warrant. (How did he get the key?) While he is there he damages a
valuable antique on a hunch. (Later, it is clear he did not need
to damage it after all.)
On the plus side, McPherson does prevent Lydecker from removing
items from Laura's apartment. But frankly, I would also object if
someone claimed that several valuable antiques were merely on loan
from him to Laura, without presenting some proof.
I know things used to be more lax, but this seems to be not just
doing things to make the investigation go faster, but also doing
things that can only confuse and slow it. [-ecl]
Mark responds:
This is yet one more classic film that on close scrutiny does not
really bear close scrutiny, like CASABLANCA, THE GUNS OF NAVARONE,
and THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Rocket Fuel (letters of comment by Philip Chee and Kerr
Mudd-John)
In response to Greg Frederick's comments on fueling rockets in the
11/04/16 issue of the MT VOID, Philip Chee writes:
[Greg writes,] "The Moon is a great place to test equipment and
technology needed for an eventual mission to Mars. The Moon is
only three days travel from the Earth and there is only a few
seconds of time delay in radio communications with Earth too. So,
if something does go wrong help is not far away."
Or a nuclear waste dump could explode sending the moon hurtling
through a space warp or two (or was it a black hole--I can't
remember). [-pc]
Mark asks:
Did they say "space warp" or "black hole"? I think they just needed
you to suspend disbelief. [-mrl]
To which Kerr Mudd-John replies:
This all happened 17 years ago. PKUATB. [-kmj]
[Please Keep Up At the Back"? -ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: MISS PEREGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN (letters of
comment by Kevin R, Tim Merrigan, and Philip Chee)
In response to Mark's review of MISS PEREGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIAR
CHILDREN in the 11/04/16 issue of the MT VOID, Kevin R writes:
Marvel has their character, Swarm, probably inspired by the 1974
novel by Arthur Herzog, subsequently a film in 1978. Marvel's
version came out in 1977.
Many a super hero has [power over air, including incredible lungs]:
also a couple of the Wild Cards. Kal-El has done that for decades.
[Being invisible is] not original or unique to Marvel; Wells, of
course, the comic strip Invisible Scarlet O'Neil dates from 1940.
Radio's the Shadow,
if not the pulp version.
Starting with Supes, who doesn't [have super strength]?
["and yet another has the power to make vegetables grow fast"
-mrl]
Chlorophyll Kid from the Legion of Substitute Heroes (1963) got
there years ago, as did Marvel's villain Plantman from the same
year. Layla, the love interest in Sky High (Danielle Panabaker as
Layla) had that schtick, as does the Batman villainess Poison Ivy.
["The twins can--no, that would be telling." -mrl]
One hopes Burton came up with something original for those two.
Shape-changers [like Jake] go back to mythology, of course. Is
Burton playing with mythological archetypes? I'd let him off the
hook for not being too original, then.
[-kr]
Mark responds:
Actually, invisibility goes back to Plato's Republic and the myth
of Gygas.
As for the twins, I don't know if it showed up in comics before,
but it has been used before. [-mrl]
Tim Merrigan notes:
As to Mr. Burton being original there is the tiny detail that this
film is based on a book. I, personally, could stand for
producers/directors of films based on books to be a skosh less
original than most are. [-tm]
Kevin replies:
Yes, know that you remind me. I haven't kept up with the YA-SF/F
'splosion since I left bookselling. I know of Percy Jackson and Ms
Everdine the Archeress, but haven't read any of that, nor watched
the films. Yet.
A quick glace at the wiki shows some weirder stuff, and, as usually
happens when Hollywood gets its hands on books *or* comics, the
filmmakers have changed a few characters' powersets. Typical.
[-kr]
Philip Chee adds:
[Re growing vegetables fast:] Tsk! Tsk. Silly you. You forgot The
Swamp Thing!
One could argue changing the special ability of Negasonic Teenage
Warhead improved on the original.
Invisible Boy from Mystery Men (via Flaming Carrot) can be
invisible but only when nobody is looking at him. [-pc]
Kevin responds:
Swampy is a comparative latecomer to that list. Layla is much
newer, but her character is of an age with the reviewed film's
ones, and I'm a Panabaker fanboy (she's All Growed Up on "The
Flash.") I tend to think of SW as a horror character, like the
classic monsters, rather than as a superhero. He, the Heap and the
Man-Thing are all versions of Sturgeon's "It!"
Solomon Grundy owes a lot to Roger Kirk, too.
I could have included the Silver Age Atom's foe, Jason Woodrue, aka
The Floronic Man/Floro, etc. Also Golden Age Flash villainess The
Thorn could control plant life. [-kr]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Interplanetary Experience (letter of comment by Tom
Russell)
In response to Evelyn's comments on the XKCD interplanetary
experience in the 11/04/16 issue of the MT VOID, Tom Russell
writes:
"to try and" seems to be more common now than "to try to" [-tlr]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
FIVE-FINGER DISCOUNT: A CROOKED FAMILY HISTORY by Helene Stapinski
(ISBN 978-0-375-75870-4) is described on the back as "an
extraordinary tale at once heartbreaking and hysterically funny."
"Heartbreaking" I agree with, but "hysterically funny"? Really?
It also says, "By turns hilarious and alarming, uproarious and
depressing..." Again, the alarming and depressing manages to
overwhelm the hilarious and uproarious.
Stapinski describes her family, which had two relatives in a mental
institution, including her grandfather, who was coming home with a
gun to shoot the entire family when he was stopped by the police
just outside the building door. There are also bookies, numbers
runners, and a variety of relatives who supplement the income from
their jobs by bringing home anything not nailed down: steaks and
lobsters from the cold storage facility where her father worked,
books from the book bindery where her aunt worked, soap and
toothpaste from the Colgate factory. pencils from the pencil
factory. They didn't need detergent; the first time Helene's
mother washed the clothes her brother had worn to work at Colgate
the suds overflowed the washing machine, because the clothes had
been full of detergent dust even before she added more. From then
on, they never had to had detergent as long as her brother had that
job.
So, okay, there are amusing stories. But reading about decades of
corruption in Jersey City that left the streets potholed, the parks
full of broken glass and syringes, and organized crime moving in on
the "independent" numbers runners was hardly funny, and the stories
of the corruption of the Jersey City Catholic Church hierarchy (at
least in their parish), including "oversexed priests" and a
parochial school that seemed determined to avoid teaching anything
to its students besides that the ERA was evil, now that Noah's Ark
had been found the world was coming to an end, and if your parents
were divorced, you deserved to be humiliated in front of the whole
class.
I won't say the book is uninteresting, or boring, but don't expect
a laugh riot. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Ignorance is always ready to admire itself.
Procure yourself critical friends.
--Nicolas Boileau, 1674