THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
09/21/12 -- Vol. 31, No. 12, Whole Number 1720
Starsky: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
Hutch: 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:
Faster-Than-Light Drive May be Possible
The Rich Get Richer (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Ending the Hugo Award for the Best DOCTOR WHO Episode of the
Year: An SF Polemic (comments by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
Mark Weighs In on DOCTOR WHO (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Cataloging Books (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Lessons from Harry Potter (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
SUPER HERO PARTY CLOWN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Snowflakes (letter of comment by Tom Russell)
Body Armor (letter of comment by Jay E. Morris)
This Week's Reading (ROAR! A CHRISTIAN FAMILY GUIDE TO THE
CHRONICLES OF NARNIA) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Faster-Than-Light Drive May be Possible
"A Starship Enterprise-style warp drive could be a real
possibility, according to a non-profit group of scientists and
engineers.
Computer models have shown that it's theoretically possible to
achieve faster than light travel by warping spacetime in a bubble
around a starship--exploiting a loophole in Einstein's Theory of
Relativity."
Full article at http://tinyurl.com/void-ftl.
==================================================================
TOPIC: The Rich Get Richer (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was listening to a song that went "Hallelujah, c'mon get happy.
Get ready for the Judgment Day." I am a little bemused about the
theology behind this song. The implication seems to be that if you
are unhappy and unfortunate in this life, Judgment will go against
you and you will be unfortunate in the next life also. The people
who are fortunate currently should be rewarded and made even more
fortunate. It's amazing an old song like that can so well sum up
today's extreme right-wing policy. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Ending the Hugo Award for the Best DOCTOR WHO Episode of the
Year: An SF Polemic (comments by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
[Note: this issue we will have two editorials. First a piece by
frequent contributor Dale Skran, then an editorial-length response
from me. -mrl]
The 2012 Hugo awards have just been announced, and the DOCTOR WHO
Episode "The Doctor's Wife" won Best DOCTOR WHO Episode of the Year.
The 2nd place was taken by "The Girl Who Waited," and the 3rd place
by "A Good Man Goes to War," also a DOCTOR WHO episodes. This Hugo
was once given to non-DOCTOR WHO dramatic presentations, but since
this has not happened in a while, the term "Short Form Hugo" will
no longer be used, and instead was replaced by "Best DOCTOR WHO
Episode of the Year."
In 2011 the winner of the "Best DOCTOR WHO Episode of the Year" was
"The Pandorica Opens/ Big Bang." In 2010 the winner was "The
Waters of Mars." In 2009 something by some oddball named Whedon
(who may have directed some successful movie lately) won. In 2008
the DOCTOR WHO award winner was "Blink." In 2007 the DOCTOR WHO award
winner was "The Girl in the Fireplace." In 2006 the DOCTOR WHO award
winner was "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances."
It is too painful to continue. I submit to you that DOCTOR WHO was
*not* the best SF TV show during the entire period from 2006 to
2012 with the exception of one program produced by this Whedon, who
has the unfair advantage of being very talented and inventive.
During this period, the following SF/Fantasy shows had significant
runs on network and cable TV:
- LOST
- FRINGE
- SANCTUARY
- EUREKA
- HEROES
- HAVEN
- ALPHAS
- PRIMEVAL
- SMALLVILLE
- STARGATE SG-1
- STARGATE ATLANTIS
- STARGATE UNIVERSE
- BATTLESTAR GALACTICA
- TORCHWOOD
- SUPERNATURAL
- VAMPIRE DIARIES
- MERLIN
- NIKITA
- THE SECRET CIRCLE
- DOLLHOUSE
These are just the examples I can come up quickly. I'm not going
to claim that every episode of every show listed above was Hugo-
worthy, but some of them certainly were. DOLLHOUSE was a very
imaginative and risky show. FRINGE had some excellent episodes. I
didn't like how LOST ended, but the ride was great. BATTLESTAR
GALACTICA and STARGATE had strong episodes. It's shameful that a
show as excellent as EUREKA has never even been nominated for the
Hugo. I could go on, but it makes more sense to seek some
understanding of how the Best Dramatic Presentation--Short Form
became the Best DOCTOR WHO Episode.
This is strictly speculation, but short of a massive growth of
British fandom, coupled with a massive collapse of non-British
fandom, the root issue most probably is the fact that the current
rules for the short form call for the nomination of a named one-
hour episode, and not a series as a whole. This makes the
nomination process quite cumbersome, and tends to dilute the fandom
for each series over a large number of episodes. In fact, the
better the series the more likely that there will be many good
episodes, with a few fans nominating each one. Somehow, DOCTOR WHO
fans have gotten around this issue. I have nothing against DOCTOR WHO
fans, and, *gasp*, I must confess that I am a member of a DOCTOR WHO
fan club, mainly because it is the only local SF group in my area
that is active. And hey--they publish a useful and interesting
newsletter!
Again, speculation on my part, but it would not be too far fetched
to find that a modicum of organization by DOCTOR WHO fans allows votes
to flow to a few top episodes. It is also likely that the
appearance of Neil Gaiman as a DOCTOR WHO writer has brought in new
fans and increased the quality of the writing. Regardless of the
reason for Whosian supremacy, the current approach is too easy for
organized groups to log-roll. It is time to return the short form
Hugo to its original intent--to honor the best SF television
series. The language needed to implement this change is simple:
The Hugo Award for Dramatic Presentation Short Form will be given
to the best series of programs meeting the following criteria:
- Individual episodes are 60 minutes or less in length
- The series is indefinite in nature, i.e. it is not a
miniseries or adaptation that comes to an end after a fixed number
of segments. This type of programming is more properly treated in
the Long Form category.
- At least one of the episodes aired during the previous
calendar year. For example, for the 2012 Hugo any series that
continued from 2010 into the spring of 2011 would be eligible, as
would any series that ran during the summer of 2011, and as well as
any series that started in the fall of 2011, completing in 2012.
- One-shot shorts, wherever broadcast, are not eligible. If we
want to honor these works, there should be a new Hugo--Best
Dramatic Presentation--One-Shot Short Form.
- Any means of distribution, including the Internet, is valid.
That's it--it's all we need to restore truth and justice to the SF
world. We are asking fans for a list of their favorite SF TV
shows, without regard for specific episode names or whether the
entire season fit into the previous year. You can still campaign
for a series, but the named episode dilution effect will be
removed. If DOCTOR WHO continues to win, so be it. But at least
other series will have a chance. At least DOCTOR WHO will only fill
one nomination slot! If DOCTOR WHO wins for another 6 years in a row
after these changes, I will be reduced to proposing a new Hugo--
Best SF Series Short Form that is not DOCTOR WHO!
Meanwhile, I urge those who agree with me to not vote a DOCTOR WHO
episode with a place on the Hugo ballot until these changes are
made. This will have the effect of voting against DOCTOR WHO in all
possible circumstances. Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!
Apologia 1: I have been holding back on sending this essay to the
MTVOID for a while because I felt a bit troubled in that I have not
seen many of recent the Hugo winning DOCTOR WHO episodes. I have seen
a lot of DOCTOR WHO over the years, and I have seen some of the more
recent episodes. I just don't think that on the whole, they are
very good SF, or very interesting to watch. However, I was finally
persuaded that I should send the essay in anyway in the interest of
promoting discussion. This has the happy advantage that I can skip
watching the recent winners of the Hugo for the Best DOCTOR WHO
episode of the year.
Apologia 2: As I you may be aware, I am a regular viewer of
TORCHWOOD, which *is* a DOCTOR WHO spin-off. All I can say in my
defense is that whatever is good in DOCTOR WHO has been drained into
Jack Harkness and made much better in TORCHWOOD. I consider the
British SF program SURVIVORS one of the all-time great SF TV
series. I also enjoyed PRIMEVAL, another recent British SF show. I
adduce these facts to demonstrate that I don't have some deep-
seated animus toward British TV or actors. [-dls]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Mark Weighs In on DOCTOR WHO (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
In the guest editorial above Dale Skran wrote about the apparent
stranglehold that the program DOCTOR WHO has on the Best Dramatic
Presentation (Short Form) Hugo Award. This is a complaint that I
have heard from Dale and others previously. The question is, what
change if any is needed to the Hugo rules.
Dale is an avid fan of several television series, and in his
article he gave many examples of what he considers are good science
fiction TV series. He said that DOCTOR WHO could not be the series
with the best episodes every single year.
I will give my view on this issue, though I do not have a dog in
this fight. And then again I do. I am not involved because I
largely do not watch science fiction television series. I do not
get the BBC America Channel so could not see the current DOCTOR WHO
episodes. And while several of the TV series that Dale mentioned I
could have seen with my cable package, I do not generally follow
any TV series at all. I watch feature films and some PBS. What I
do watch I watch on DVD too late to vote on it for the Hugos. So
in general I do not vote in the Dramatic Short Form category
because I have not seen enough to make an intelligent voting
decision. I became much more involved with the Hugo and what it
represents during the twelve years Evelyn was nominated for the
Best Fan Writer Hugo twelve years in a row and lost every single
year to the same person. So it basically is the same issue that
Dale is bringing up.
I think the general assumption is that for each category there is a
best candidate for that Hugo (considering "No Award" as a
candidate). The Hugo voting is a process of determining the best
candidate. And some also believe that the process, if fair, will
not pick the same winner every year. Those are reasonable
statements of how people approach the Hugos. Personally I do not
think any of these statements are true. In each category the Hugo
is awarded to the candidate that the most people want to see win.
That does not say much about the actual quality of the nominated
work that year. It says that the work had visibility and the
electorate liked it. It need not be the best piece of science
fiction. In fact what makes a work actually good are a large
number of possible virtues. That makes choice of the winner highly
subjective. It is highly unlikely that one candidate is really
better than another in every single aspect. That means that you
cannot say absolutely that any one nominee is better than another
for all people's tastes.
I feel Dale's pain that what may be superior pieces of science
fiction from TV series may be losing to inferior science fiction
from DOCTOR WHO year after year. But I think Dale is making the
situation worse for himself by interpreting the Hugo as an award
for the best science fiction. DOCTOR WHO is winning year after
year because it is succeeding in delivering the greatest amount of
science fiction pleasure to the greatest number of voters in a
proper interval of time. You cannot determine quality
democratically. You can only determine popularity by a vote. It
is a misinterpretation of the Hugo to assume that the voting picks
the best nominee. It chooses which nominee has delivered the most
pleasure. And in theory that really can be DOCTOR WHO year after
year.
What frequently happens in voting situations in which the same
candidate wins year after year is that that candidate disqualifies
himself or herself for a number of years to give another candidate
a chance to win. It is a noble thing to do and totally wrong-
headed. Once the leading contender disqualifies himself or
herself, nobody else can win either. Oh, someone else can get a
Hugo rocket for their fireplace and it can claim to be for best
such-and-such, but it is really for second-best. Even if that
nominee would have won, that is no longer possible. Even if the
super-nominee would not have won that year, it will be assumed that
he or she would have. Rare is the year I cannot find a film I
think is better than the one that wins in Best Dramatic Work--Long
Form. I generally it is seen by too few people to make actually
win.
I guess my response to Dale is that it is quite possible that for
several years straight DOCTOR WHO has given the greatest science-
fictional pleasure to the greatest number. It need not be the very
best science fiction. The first "Star Wars" film was really bad
science fiction but good entertainment, and it pleased a lot of
people. That is not the same thing as delivering really stimulating
ideas, but delivering a lot of enjoyment is something that comes
close to be determinable by poll. For myself, I do not know much
beyond broad strokes what makes one piece of science fiction better
than another. The idea of putting to a vote what is the best piece
of science fiction is at best horrific. Large crowds do not decide
that. While it bothered me year after year to see Evelyn lose out
on her Hugo to the same person, I would not have changed a thing.
Barring outright cheating I think the person who gets the rocket is
the person who should. [-mrl]
[I will just say that as someone who followed the mechanics of the
splitting of the Hugo, the chances of splitting it again into "Best
Series Episode" and "Best One-Shot Short" are vanishingly small.
The split--which was crafted over several years--was specifically
by length, not by medium (e.g., movie vs. TV). The irony is that
everyone feared it would become "The Best Buffy Episode" Hugo.
-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Cataloging Books (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I wrote in the 06/08/12 issue of the MT VOID about cataloging
problems: how to catalog and distinguish among various formats of
books. I did not talk about magazines and other items, but my
recent experience at Worldcon showed me that the problem is even
bigger than I discussed.
At Worldcon, we got a paperback, some trade paperbacks, a hardback,
an advance reading copy, some magazines, a fanzine, a booklet
advertising a science fiction cruise that contained half a dozen
science fiction stories, four "samplers" from an Italian publisher,
each containing a half-dozen science fiction stories from a larger
work (one sampler was Latin translations of stories and
autographed by one of the authors!), and a Worldcon souvenir book
and pocket program book. Thank goodness we did not get any audio
books, CD-ROM discs, or some new, as-yet-unthought-of (by me,
anyway) format. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: SUPER HERO PARTY CLOWN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: An amiable, slight, and overly familiar story gives us a
boy so shy he cannot talk to the girl he likes without wearing a
costume. Eugene wears the superhero suit of Arachnid-Man at
children's parties. He is not really a tough dude, but plays one
when hired for kids. He finds he is pitted against a rival for a
cute girl's affections and the rival becomes another party clown
superhero. Eugene has to be a hero both in the real world and as
Arachnid-Man. Jeremy M. Inman writes and directs his own premier
film. The film has a story and it moderately works on the screen,
but there is not enough original here to attract much attention.
Rating: low +1 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
Eugene Stimpson (played by Randy Blair) believes that kids need
heroes. He is doing his part by dressing up as Arachnid-Man for
children's parties. In real life he is shy and hopes to have a
chance with Emily Talbot (Shelby Barnes), a girl he has had a flame
for since high school. She does not even seem to know he is alive,
but he becomes friendly with the Arachnid-Man who was hired for her
little brother's birthday party. Eugene is afraid to tell her that
he is the secret identity of Arachnid-Man. But his high school
rival Todd Walker (Adam Sessa) gets a job from the same company
playing Captain Tremendous, a superhero a lot like Captain Marvel.
We have a story on two levels with the introvert Eugene rivaling
Todd and Arachnid-Man against Captain Tremendous.
The non-super introvert hiding in a superhero suit is a fairly
common device. We saw it in Matthew Vaughn's KICK-ASS and done
well in Takashi Miike's ZEBRAMAN (2004). Guys who cannot converse
with girls and need fictitious personas to communicate through go
at least back to LILI (1953).
There are some problems with the screenplay that needed to be
addressed. For a comedy there is little attempt at humor. The
film is frequently cute, but it could have done well with a few
good laughs. The comedy never rises above being just agreeable.
There is a perfunctory attempt at making Eugene an idealist who
thinks that being a party clown is in some ways a noble and
important calling. It never works and so it is hard for the viewer
to really be rooting for Eugene. Again, some stronger emotion is
needed.
An important aspect of the story is that some people do not
recognize that the guy in the Arachnid-Man suit is really the
Eugene Stimpson whom they know well. Sadly, it might have worked
in a comic book but on the screen we can see the shape of Eugene's
head, hear his voice, and see how tall he is. It becomes obvious
to the viewer that the spandex costume simply would not make Eugene
unrecognizable.
Writer/director Inman makes the mistake of showing us scenes from
what is supposed to be a classic Arachnid-Man film. Unfortunately,
he has neither the talent nor the budget to create these clips
properly so they look like they really came from a blockbuster.
These are supposed to be clips of a highly polished Hollywood comic
book film. It was gutsy for Inman to attempt to make these clips,
but he would have been better off keeping them off-screen so the
viewer could imagine they were like something out of SPIDER-MAN.
There is some minor chemistry between Blair and Barnes, but the
emotional level is so small and slight that it never engages the
viewer. Even the title could use more pizzazz. Maybe it could
have been called something like SUPERHEROES FOR HIRE. The viewer
is less likely to say "YEAH!" when the film is over and more likely
to just say "OK." I rate SUPER HERO PARTY CLOWN a low +1 on the -4
to +4 scale or 5/10. SUPER HERO PARTY CLOWN comes to DVD and
Digital on September 25 this year.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1663675/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Snowflakes (letter of comment by Tom Russell)
In response to Mark's comments on snowflakes in the 09/07/12
issue, Tom Russell writes:
Good reference on snowflakes:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/primer/primer.htm
[-tr]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Body Armor (letter of comment by Jay E. Morris)
In response to Mark's comments on body armor in the 09/14/12 issue
of the MT VOID, Jay E. Morris writes:
At first I thought you were on to something with the idea about
body armor. But then I realized that it wouldn't be any different.
Most people would complain it's too bulky or too heavy or too hot
or just that the whole idea of body armor scares them. The
minority that takes responsibility for themselves would wear it,
except of course to those places where it's forbidden because it
might upset someone. Then one day something happens and once again
the individual has to place himself in harm's way to protect those
who won't protect themselves. [-jem]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
ROAR! A CHRISTIAN FAMILY GUIDE TO THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA by
Heather Kopp with David Kopp (ISBN 978-1-59052-536-4) is not
labeled as being for home schooling, but the inclusion of quizzes
makes me think it is more than just a Christian guide to Narnia.
For each chapter of each Narnia book, the Kopps give a plot
summary, "Grown-Up Thoughts", "Let's Talk about It", and "Wisdom
for Narniacs". The first has things like:
"When Puddleglum drinks too much, his rationalizing is humorous--
'better make sure,' 'but is it the same all the way down?' 'This'll
be a test.' But it's sad, too, and a recognizable pattern for most
of us. We face different giants, but we all tend to sip our way,
one excuse at a time, from little test into big trouble."
The second asks children, "Have you ever been as cold as Jill and
Eustace were? So cold your face turned blue? What happened?" or
"How would you feel if you had to knock on a giant's door?" And
the third part has the quizzes I mentioned earlier.
There are also supplementary chapters for parents which cover
questions like, "Why would a Christ-follower like [C. S. Lewis]
assemble such a supernatural cast of sorcerers and spell-casters to
spin his stories for our children?" particularly when the Bible is
so emphatic that witchcraft and sorcery are the tools of the Devil.
Apparently Moses' magic and Jesus's miracles do not count as
witchcraft, which makes one think that witchcraft is the tool of
the Devil because if it is not the Devil, it is not witchcraft,
although this is not the argument the Kopps make.
And the titles of two more chapters say it all:
"Mercy! How the Wine Doth Flow in Narnia! What was our
beloved Children's author thinking? And how should
Christian parents respond?"
and
"Color & Culture in Narnia: When it's a story about
fair-skinned good guys versus dark-skinned bad guys
(and the author is white), do we have a problem?"
The Narnians also smoke more than most people would like, though
this is apparently less problematic than alcohol.
This might be a good book for a Sunday School or Bible camp reading
of the Narnia books, but trying to take children's non-school
reading and turn it into lessons seems like a bad idea. Mark
claims there are two Kiplings: the good Kipling, and the Kipling
they had you read in school, and I found it took years for me to
actually enjoy MOBY DICK or A TALE OF TWO CITIES after having to
read them in school. (However, I have always had a fond spot in my
heart for JULIUS CAESAR after reading it in eighth grade.) [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
He that complies against his will is of his own
opinion still.
--Samuel Butler