Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
01/24/20 -- Vol. 38, No. 30, Whole Number 2103
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, *mleeper@optonline.net *
Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, *eleeper@optonline.net *
Sending Address: *evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
*
All material is the opinion of the author and is copyrighted by the
author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to *eleeper@optonline.net
*
The latest issue is at *http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm
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
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm*.
Topics:
Mark Leeper's Top Ten Films of 2019 (film comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
COLOR OUT OF SPACE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
POSEIDON'S WAKE by Alastair Reynolds (audio book review by Joe
Karpierz)
THE AMERICANS (letter of comment by Dale Skran)
Antarctica, Calgary Convention, and Old Time Radio
(letter of comment by Dale Speirs)
Statistics and MOBY-DICK (letter of comment by John Purcell)
This Week's Reading (LITTLE WOMEN) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Mark Leeper's Top Ten Films of 2019 (film comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Well, it is time again to list my top ten films of the previous
year. I am sorry that my list comes out after so many others have
been published. Some reviewers announce their top ten lists in the
middle of December. How they know that nothing better will come
out in the next two weeks, I have no idea. As for me, I am lucky
if I have seen all the major films of the previous year by the end
of January. I have decided not to include films that I have seen
over the year that have not yet been released in the United States.
Too many of my readers will have forgotten I rated some of these
highly by the time they finally do get released. I believe that
the following in some order are what I think are the ten best 2019
films I saw.
1) JOJO RABBIT: Near the end of WWII a ten-year-old German boy who
idolizes the German military finds he has to make some hard
choices. While the film usually has high spirits, there are times
when the viewer will not find the story a happy one. But this film
is unusually creative.
Director: Taika Waititi
Writer: Taika Waititi
2) THE AERONAUTS: With a little flair borrowed from Jules Verne, we
get a story of two mid-19th century explorers who attempt to travel
by balloon higher above the Earth than any humans had ever been to
that point. The two leads from THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, actors
Felicity Jones and Eddy Redmayne, are reunited in a piece of proto-
science fiction. Of their two characters one is serious and in the
process of inventing what will be the new science of meteorology.
The other is a daredevil adventurer for whom the record-breaking
flight is little more than a publicity gag. Ms Jones is an exciting
woman taking a bite out of life and in return it may well take a
bite out of her.
Director: Tom Harper
Writer: Jack Thorne
3) THE REPORT: This film has a three-word title that requires
special equipment to print. It is THE XXXXXXX REPORT. But the
middle word has been redacted. It is so secret you cannot know the
name of its author. The subject of the report is the notes on an
investigation as to whether the United States has used torture
among its special interrogation techniques. This is one of those
films that shine a light on what our country does not want our
people to know.
Director: Scott Z. Burns
Writer: Scott Z. Burns
4) DARK WATERS: This film starts with one farmer's observation that
his cattle are dying. There is a conspiracy by in this case DuPont
Chemical where there the environment is being poisoned and it is
very hard to stop because big money stands in the way. This film,
a true story, has special interest since the main character
actually works for the corporation committing the crime. This is
every bit as scary a horror story as anything that Hammer Films
ever made.
Director: Todd Haynes
Writers: Mario Correa and Matthew Michael Carnahan
5) HARRIET: It has been years since I heard about Harriet Tubman
and I guess I had always assumed that Harriet Tubman was remembered
because she was a cogent advocate for abolition of slavery. This
film shows her being a sort of action hero risking her life e to
save hundreds of people from slavery.
Director: Kasi Lemmons
Writers: Gregory Allen Howard, Kasi Lemmons, Gregory Allen Howard,
and Tom Harper
6) WHO WILL WRITE OUR HISTORY: This is a documentary about brave
people. In the Warsaw Ghetto almost a half million Jews are
interned. Weapons for defense are available only for a high price
in lives and blood. The only weapon that could be afforded is
documentation of the hell they face on a daily basis. They have to
write their own histories and accounts of what they have
experienced or personally seen. If the Germans find their accounts
they would most likely be instantly murdered.
Director: Roberta Grossman
Writer: Roberta Grossman
7) KNIVES OUT: This is a case of a film company wishing they had a
MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS sort of story. It is an ensemble
piece of a group of people at a country house and one of them is
murdered. Daniel Craig with a funny voice is the detective, though
he denies he is solving the crime even when the audience expects it
of him. The film's biggest flaw is that it is so typical of its
genre.
Director: Rian Johnson
Writer: Rian Johnson
8) SOBIBOR: The question is frequently posed as to why the Jews did
not fight back and resist their own murders. There were, in fact,
600 internees who attempted an escape and of that number about half
escaped into the surrounding countryside. This docudrama tells the
story of how the escape was planned and executed.
Director: Konstantin Khabensky
Writers: Konstantin Khabensky, Aleksandr Adabashyan, Anna
Tchernakova, Andrei Nazarov, and Ilya Vasiliev
9) THE SPY BEHIND HOME PLATE: This is a biography of Moe Berg an
American League catcher and a coach. He travelled internationally.
He was a polymath with an extremely broad base of knowledge in many
languages. This prepared for a second simultaneous career as an
agent for the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), during World War
II. His task was to discuss with European physicists the
likelihood of Germany developing a nuclear bomb.
Director: Aviva Kempner
Writer: Aviva Kempner
10) MARRIAGE STORY: Noah Baumbach directs his own screenplay about
a marriage that is on the brink of destruction. The film stars
Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson, both seeming to be ubiquitous
on the wide screen this year. The film in fact seems strongly
reminiscent of KRAMER VS. KRAMER has in its view of the destruction
that a divorce brings to members of a family. In the first minutes
of the film one feels these two people should really be together.
Then the subject of the film is how they hoveringly tear at each
other. Everything really comes to a boil when the lawyers get
involved. That brings forth a heavy dose of mixed emotion and turns
their lives into a battleground.
Director: Noah Baumbach
Screenplay: Noah Baumbach
That seems like a downbeat selection of films. If that bothers
you, try THE AERONAUTS. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: POSEIDON'S WAKE by Alastair Reynolds (copyright 2016, Ace,
copyright 2016, Recorded Books, 492pp. e-book, 27 hours 4 minutes
audiobook, ASIN (e-book): B00X5937LW, ASIN (audio book):
B0163BDK42, narrated by Adjoa Andoh) (audio book review by Joe
Karpierz)
POSEIDON'S WAKE completes Alastair Reynolds' "Poseidon's Children"
trilogy, begun with BLUE REMEMBERED EARTH (2012) and continued with
ON THE STEEL BREEZE (2014). Much like ON THE STEEL BREEZE, WAKE
can be read as a standalone. While there are only a couple of
characters that have made it from the previous book to this one, it
is definitely a continuation of the story started in the first book
of the series. However, enough time has passed in the story that
it's not really necessary to have read the first two book; there is
enough "what has gone before" woven into the narrative in an
unobtrusive way that the reader will not be lost without having
read the first two books.
The story kicks off on the planet Crucible, where a simple message
is received from deep space: "Send Ndege". Ndege is a member of
the wealthy, powerful, and famous Akinya clan. She has been placed
under what amounts to be permanent house arrest on Crucible for her
part in an accident that killed over 400,000 people. While the
feeling within the Akinyas is that Ndege has done enough to redeem
herself that she would be allowed to go, she is deemed too old to
travel into space on this mission. Her daughter Goma joins the
mission to Gliese 163 on board the ship Travertine to determine who
sent the message and why.
Alastair Reynolds really has become a modern master of space opera
and hard science fiction. His depictions of the universe and the
people within it invoke memories of previous generations of science
fiction writers, but with the modern sensibilities of the current
state of the field. His stories are of immense scope and wonder.
POSEIDON'S WAKE is no different in this respect.
The story follows the crew of the Travertine eventually to the
Poseidon system, where a great and powerful civilization of old has
placed evidence of a dark secret upon the water world of Poseidon
itself, which can only be reached by non-mechanical creatures that
the civilization, known as the M-builders, allow to reach the
surface. The secret leaves those who encounter it in deep despair.
As much as I am a sucker for all things grand and cosmic, I feel
that POSEIDON'S WAKE misses the mark in a lot of ways. The secret
is never followed up on, and this is one thing that would draw me
further into the book. The elephants are here, as they have been
since the beginning of the trilogy, but other than providing a
mechanism for Reynolds to revisit this universe in a future book, I
really don't see the point (and I know I could have missed the
point entirely) of them. There is a large number of interesting
things that are introduced, played around with a bit, and put
aside, never to be resolved. And maybe that's the point; to set
things up for more books in this universe in the future. However,
this volume doesn't really resolve anything, and it doesn't seem
like much is accomplished. While the book is not empty by any
means, it's not full enough of stuff to justify its length.
Adjoa Andoh continues to be a terrific narrator here. Once again,
her reading never took me out of the story, and her ability to
change voices between all the various characters that are present
in a particular scene made it easier for me to keep track of which
characters are saying what - and there are a lot of them. It's so
much easier when a listener can keep track of characters during a
long and complex novel, and Andoh is adept at it.
However, for me, POSEIDON'S WAKE misses the mark. It's not a bad
book, it's not a good book. It's just a book. [-jak]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE AMERICANS (letter of comment by Dale Skran)
In response to Taras Wolansky's comments on Dale Skran's review of
THE AMERICANS in the 01/17/20 issue of the MT VOID, Dale writes:
Taras says, "Reading Dale Skran's review of THE AMERICANS, it
occurred to me that what probably would have happened to such a spy
family is that they would have been turned in by a defector, if
they didn't defect themselves. The first thing a Soviet spy
learned on entering the United States was that everything he had
been told about the United States was a lie, and that everything
was better in the United States than in the Soviet Union. Whereas
in the 1940s the Rosenberg spy ring could steal every military
secret the United States had, by the 1980s the Soviets were falling
hopelessly behind in military technology: strong evidence that
their spy apparatus in the U.S. was failing." [-tw]
One of the strengths of the Americans is how honestly it deals with
these issues. In the very first episode Phillip proposes to
Elizabeth that they defect. Phillip is very aware of the
superiority of America, and eventually takes up western style
dancing and EST to calm his nerves. Phillip is able to continue to
work as an agent via an ability to dis-associate two parts of his
personality: a psychopathic killer who works for the KGB, and a
regular American dad who runs a travel agency. He is fully both of
these people, just not at the same time.
Elizabeth, on the other hand, holds tightly to a long gone Soviet
Union of suffering and heroism that she is defending. The story
she lives by is true--Russians suffered terribly in WWII, and
fought heroically. It can be argued that the Russians should get
far more credit than Americans usually give them for defeating the
Nazis. Elizabeth constantly sees very real American self-deception
and weakness.
Like many foreigners, she sees Americans as decadent, not fully
grasping little details like the fact that the most destructive war
America has been involved in was our Civil War, and that was
Americans fighting Americas in America. Freedom to pursue life,
liberty, and happiness can often operate like decadence until
Americans are pushed. And then it is found that Americans do not
take well to being pushed. Just ask Bin Laden how that worked out.
As a practical matter, the identities of sleepers would be among
the most top secrets in Russia, so it is not likely that any
defectors would know enough to be able to give up Philip and
Elizabeth.
The difference between the KGB pre-1970 or so and afterwards, is
that for much of the 20th century there were large numbers of
"useful idiots"--intellectuals with top secret clearances highly
placed in US weapons projects that steadily fed the Soviets
American secrets. As time went on, and news of what the Soviet
Union was really like leaked out, the supply of "useful idiots"
diminished, and the KGB was less effective at stealing technology.
The Soviet spy apparatus did not collapse until the fall of the
Soviet Union with the result that when Russia sent sleeper agents
they were rank amateurs that the FBI caught with ease. [-dls]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Antarctica, Calgary Convention, and Old Time Radio (letter
of comment by Dale Speirs)
In response to Evelyn's comments on THE WORST JOURNEY IN THE WORLD
in the 01/17/20 issue of the MT VOID, Dale Speirs (from Calgary)
writes:
The latest issue with its discussion of Antarctic exploration was
apropos to this Cowtowner. We have just completed a week of -30C
weather, but a chinook is scheduled to arrive January 19 and bring
the temperature up to zero.
There are those who go on modern Antarctica treks. I suggest they
could get the same effect by walking from Winnipeg to Calgary along
the Trans-Canada Highway (about 1,500 km) in January. In that
direction specifically, so they will be facing into the prevailing
winds as they trudge across the treeless prairies.
Permit me to get in a plug for Calgary's annual readercon, When
Words Collide coming this August. It may seem a while away but the
convention always sells out by June, as do the hotel room bookings.
Membership is limited to 750 plus about 250 volunteers and guests,
so it has the feel of a village. Details from
*http://www.whenwordscollide.org http://www.whenwordscollide.org*.
THE MT VOID mentions old movies a fair bit. May I also recommend
old-time radio shows, available by the thousands as free mp3s from
http://www.otrrlibrary.org *. Better than
paying for audiobooks if
you want something to listen to on your commute.
Comedy, mystery, fantasy, science fiction, and variety shows from
the 1930s to middle 1950s abound. For SF, consider DIMENSION X and
X MINUS ONE. Lots of weird fiction in series such as QUIET PLEASE,
LIGHTS OUT, DARK FANTASY, and MYSTERIOUS TRAVELER, just to name a
few. [-ds]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Statistics and MOBY-DICK (letter of comment by John Purcell)
In response to Mark's comments on mathematics in the 01/17/20 issue
of the MT VOID, John Purcell writes:
Good morning, Mark and Evelyn. I trust you are well and enjoying
yourselves. There are a couple quick comments your latest VOID
brings to mind, so let's get this over with.
First up, I am not very mathematically inclined; I can handle it up
to simple algebraic equations, but things like calculus,
trigonometry, and other esoteric computational methods are way over
my head. So when I started working on my Masters Degree, the
thought of successfully completing Statistics very nearly threw me
into shock. I was worried sick that I couldn't handle it.
Fortunately, the SPSS software I purchased (a requirement for the
degree that wasn't too much of a financial hit) helped immensely,
so imagine my relief when I actually passed that Stats class with a
C+; that was the only course in my entire MA program with a grade
lower than a B. Same thing for my doctoral coursework in
Educational Psychology. In fact, it took me three tries to
successfully pass Behavioral Statistics: the first time I withdrew
after two weeks, the second time I did a Q-Drop halfway through
because I was failing the course, then the third time I took it as
an online course during summer session. Being the only course I
was taking and setting my own pace was probably the smartest thing
I have ever done. Needless to say, I did pass--this time with a
rousing B-minus! Any lower I'd have to retake that Behavioral
Statistics class--which, by the way, abbreviates to BS. Rather
appropriate, don't you think?
The funny thing about taking statistics is that I actually found
the process of doing regression analyses and working with standard
deviations, scatter plots, and other statistical evaluation methods
quite interesting. Having the computer do all the hard
computational work--it's in the name of the beast, so let the
machine do all that work--really helped. Plunk the numbers into
their proper locations in the equation you're using, push a key,
and voila! out pops the numerical answer. Piece of cake. It
turned out that I have no problem looking for patterns or
understanding principles of analysis. But doing the computations
by hand ... no. Just. No.
The latest movie in the STAR WARS saga doesn't really interest me
that much, except for maybe just going to see it--gawd-almighty, I
hope they don't make any more of these fershlugginer movies in this
SW milieu--so I can simply say, "Fine! I have seen them all!"
It's kind of like that old television commercial where this guy is
internet surfing on his home computer, and the message pops up on
the screen, "You have reached the end of the Internet." All he can
do is stare blankly at the screen and mouth a silent "whoa!"
That's how I feel about the "Star Wars" movies. When will they
end? Why can't Hollywood just get to the end of it all and leave
it alone? Enough is enough.
In response to John Hertz's comments on MOBY-DICK in the 01/17/20
issue, John writes:
I love the book MOBY DICK (color me a devout Herman Melville fan)
and the original movie version starring Gregory Peck. The language
of that novel never fails to amaze me, and the details Melville
incorporates are, in my mind, the best part. It is one of the
greatest American novels ever written, if not the greatest. I know
some people will argue about that final comment of mine, but there
is no question that MOBY DICK is an astonishing literary
achievement. I adore that book. I also think "Bartleby, the
Scrivener" is one of the spookiest stories I have ever read. A
great story. It is sadly unbelievable that Melville died penniless
and unknown. Thank the literary gods his work was rediscovered.
Well, that should do it for this letter. Once again I thank the
two of you for continually publishing MT VOID. I don't write to
you folks often enough, but this weekly fix is something I always
look forward to reading. Thank you for your devotion to the cause,
and take care. [-jp]
Mark responds:
Well, I am okay but below prime thanks to Parkinson's. That is
playing hell with my mathematical reasoning. Prior to the attack I
was better. No, I don't think Statistics is BS, but you have to
study it.
I also was a big fan of "Star Wars" for a while but I have no
ambition to see the new film. I will wait for it to come up on
Netflix. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Having just seen the new movie of LITTLE WOMEN I figured I should
probably finally read the book (which was a favorite of my mother's
when she was young).
One thing I noticed was that while everyone rags on Jules Verne for
his Moebius-like chronology of 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA and THE
MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, no one seems to call Alcott out for her errors.
The book clearly starts *during* the Civil War ("You know the
reason Mother proposed not having any presents this Christmas was
because it is going to be a hard winter for everyone; and she
thinks we ought not to spend money for pleasure, when our men are
suffering so in the army"), so it is December 1861 at the earliest.
[The timeline I cite below says it must be December 1862.] So
later, when Amy writes, "To this will and testiment [sic] I set my
hand and seal on this 20th day of Nov. Anni Domino 1861," she
clearly has the year wrong.
There are few external events mentioned to pin down the date. At
one point Alcott writes, "The three years that have passed have
brought but few changes to the quiet family. The war is over, and
Mr. March safely at home." If this is three years from the year
that March returned on Christmas Day, then it must be 1866 at the
earliest.
In the film, Jo was the oldest. The book starts with Meg at
sixteen, Jo at fifteen, Beth at thirteen, and Amy's age not given,
but younger still.
In the film, Jo has some traits considered masculine, but this is
actually more subtle than in the book. Alcott writes, "Jo wanted
to lay her head down on that motherly bosom, and cry her
grief and anger all away, but tears were an unmanly weakness,"
When her father returns after a year, he says, "I don't see the
'son Jo' whom I left a year ago." But even after this, "Jo felt
quite in her own element, and found it very difficult to refrain
from imitating the gentlemanly attitudes, phrases, and feats, which
seemed more natural to her than the decorums prescribed for young
ladies."
Today this would all seem natural, given that both men and women
wear pants, walk with their hands in their pockets, and in general
act much more similar than they did in Alcott's day.
It would not be surprising if people reading all this read Jo as a
lesbian, or with lesbian leanings. This might be re-inforced by
Jo's interest in "love of all kinds": "Mothers are the best lovers
in the world, but I don't mind whispering to Marmee [her mother]
that I'd like to try all kinds. It's very curious, but the more I
try to satisfy myself with all sorts of natural affections, the
more I seem to want. I'd no idea hearts could take in so many."
SPOILER (can one spoil a book that is 150 years old?)
But pretty clearly this is not the case, as the rest of the novel
(and series) shows.
END SPOILER
The contrast is sharp between Jo's freedom and the constraints
indicated by "Meg's high-heeled slippers were very tight and hurt
her, though she would not own it, and Jo's nineteen hairpins all
seemed stuck straight into her head, which was not exactly
comfortable, but, dear me, let us be elegant or die."
Apparently authors were not treated very well by publishers back
then: "And when I went to get my answer, the man said he liked them
both, but didn't pay beginners, only let them print in his paper,
and noticed the stories. It was good practice, he said, and when
the beginners improved, anyone would pay." Alas, this still goes
on.
People also aged faster. "Amy is with truth considered 'the flower
of the family', for at sixteen she has the air and bearing of a
full-grown woman." On the other hand, Jo thinks, "Almost twenty-
five, and nothing to show for it, and "At twenty-five, girls begin
to talk about being old maids, but secretly resolve that they never
will be. At thirty they say nothing about it, but quietly accept
the fact, and if sensible, console themselves by remembering that
they have twenty more useful, happy years, in which they may be
learning to grow old gracefully." In other words, the best they
can hope for is a life expectancy of about fifty. (And Beth--
SPOILER--dies at nineteen.)
The book has no villains, and everyone is so concerned about doing
good and helping people, especially the poor. But their help is
sometimes a bit patronizing. The Hummels are a poor family who
live nearby. Alcott writes of Jo's cooking efforts, "While the
cooking mania lasted she went through Mrs. Cornelius's Receipt Book
as if it were a mathematical exercise, working out the problems
with patience and care. Sometimes her family were invited in to
help eat up a too bounteous feast of successes, or Lotty would be
privately dispatched with a batch of failures, which were to be
concealed from all eyes in the convenient stomachs of the little
Hummels." Somehow sending all one's cooking failures to the poor
and considering it charity seems mean.
Another difference between the book and the film is that in the
book Jo says, "I'm glad Amy has learned to love him. But you are
right in one thing. I am lonely, and perhaps if Teddy had tried
again, I might have said 'Yes', not because I love him any more,
but because I care more to be loved than when he went away." In
the film, she has not come to this conclusion when Teddy returns,
she doesn't discover that he and Amy are married until they return,
and it takes her a while after that to get over it.
"Haughty English, lively French, sober Germans, handsome Spaniards,
ugly Russians, meek Jews, free-and-easy Americans, all drive, sit,
or saunter here." One rarely sees Jews stereotyped as meek.
"Demi learned his letters with his grandfather, who invented a new
mode of teaching the alphabet by forming letters with his arms and
legs, thus uniting gymnastics for head and heels." And you thought
this was invented by the Village People.
The movie is also made with modern sensibilities. In the book, Jo
says, "Boys. I want to open a school for little lads--a good,
happy, homelike school, with me to take care of them and Fritz to
teach them." In the film, she wants to starts a school for girls,
but then says she will take boys also.
In the book, Alcott also says, "There were slow boys and bashful
boys, feeble boys and riotous boys, boys that lisped and boys that
stuttered, one or two lame ones, and a merry little quadroon, who
could not be taken in elsewhere, but who was welcome to the 'Bhaer-
garten', though some people predicted that his admission would ruin
the school." In the movie, the dances and parties we see African-
Americans mixing with whites (although not actually dancing with
them), so in the movie version it seems unlikely the school would
be an issue.
[There is a suggested timeline for LITTLE WOMEN and its sequels at
*https://louisamay.livejournal.com/19017.html
https://louisamay.livejournal.com/19017.html*.]
[-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
*mleeper@optonline.net *
Dr Donne's verses are like the peace of God; they pass
all understanding.
--James I