THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
01/03/14 -- Vol. 32, No. 27, Whole Number 1787
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 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:
Film Trivia (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Science Fact, Not Science Fiction
We Are Just Not Built For Space. Let's Go Anyway.
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Cataloging Books Redux (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THE WOLF OF WALL STREET (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
BEFORE THE DAWN by Nicholas Wade (book review
by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
Historic Dates (letter of comment by Peter Rubinstein)
Artwork (letter of comment by John Purcell)
CHARLY (letter of comment by John Purcell)
MAN OF STEEL (letter of comment by Andre Kuzniarek)
This Week's Reading (THE BELLS OF ST. MARY'S and DEATH ON A
PALE HORSE) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Film Trivia (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Wolf-human combinations appear in what two 1930s Universal horror
films? I will publish all people who send in correct answers.
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fact, Not Science Fiction
"11 Science Facts That Seem More Like Science Fiction":
http://tinyurl.com/void-sci-fact
==================================================================
TOPIC: We Are Just Not Built For Space. Let's Go Anyway.
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
One of the mainstays of science fiction stories has been people
living in space stations or on space ships or on other planets.
They all posit futures in which human life is not restricted to
living under this ocean of Earth's atmosphere. We get out; we go
to other planets; we visit other parts of our galaxy. But that is
science fiction. Two events recently have gotten me thinking about
the issue and have raised my level of skepticism that we really
have what it takes to make sizable use of space. I would like to
think that I am wrong. But it will be a long time before we can do
anything like what was done in 1940s to 1960s science fiction and
probably not ever. Our becoming a space-faring race is not
inevitable and may even be impossible. Are we made of the stuff
that can survive the conditions of space that would be required?
Well, we made it to the moon. We had enough of the right stuff to
do that. It is not entirely clear we could do that again today if
we wanted to do it. It would very probably be prohibitively
expensive. But as an existence proof we have shown that we could
make it to the moon. That is not much. It is not leaving the
Earth's orbit around the sun. So what is the next step? Most
people would pick traveling to Mars. And what are we looking at.
Well, people think we might be able to send people to Mars if we do
not have to bring them back. They would have to be people willing
to dedicate the rest of their lives to Mars exploration. Maybe
some people are that dedicated, but it is hardly what we mean by
having people survive in space if it maroons them millions of miles
to Earth. And recently we were told they might have a more
difficult time staying alive than we thought they would have. It
seems that on the trip to Mars the astronauts would be subjected to
high levels of ionizing radiation. It is calculated to not be a
lethal dose, but not much short of one either. Until we solve the
shielding problem we are hardly strong enough and durable enough to
call ourselves a space-faring species.
It is easy to visit other stars in a Star Trek movie, but do we
really have what it takes where the rubber meets the void? The
film GRAVITY, just recently released, gives some idea how
inhospitable a place space can be. The main character has to
engineer her own rescue plan. And as hard as that is in the film,
the real thing is almost certainly orders of magnitude more
difficult. The main character of GRAVITY declares she hates space,
which is ironic considering how many things work out
unrealistically easy for her. We are really tough compared to the
physical demands of modern life on Earth. But put us in orbit
around our own planet and we have a very limited ability to adapt
to the unexpected.
If we are not durable enough to leave the orbit of our home planet,
we are hardly going to be an interplanetary species, much less an
interstellar one. It has been estimated that it would take the
Space Shuttle 165,000 years to reach the nearest extra-solar star
at shuttle speeds. The distances and dangers of space point to
what is needed is a species that is durable and long-lived. It
almost seems that Sequoias are more adapted to space-faring than
humans are.
Of course, there are alternatives to becoming a space-faring
species. We are exploring Mars right now. We are doing it by
sending remote devices that do our exploring for us by proxy. And
our probes are evolving and adapting to space much faster than we
are. But I hate to give up the dream of humankind spreading across
the galaxy. It is a long, hard, and expensive road to becoming a
species that does not need the Earth for the species to survive.
That might take a millennium, though I would hope it would be a lot
less. But Planet Earth will support us only so long without some
catastrophe ending its ability to provide that support. After that
we are on our own.
There are two ways to take this glum assessment. Actually there is
a continuum between them. We can say that becoming space-capable
is an impossible task and space will be forever beyond our grasp.
Or we can put the problems our of our minds and go full-tilt into
trying to move beyond this planet. My one meager vote is to pick a
position more toward full-tilt. I would say that we should expect
that space is a whole lot harder to utilize than we are thinking it
is right now, but we should do what we can to move into this
environment. I think we need the challenge and the frontier of
space. We just have to be ready to expect it to be a much harder
nut to crack than anyone can envision right now. Still ultimately
the question of whether humanity has a future in deep space will
not be left up to space. It will be left up to humanity. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Cataloging Books Redux (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
In the 06/08/12 issue of the MT VOID, I listed all the problems in
cataloguing one's books and keeping track of all the various
formats. At the time I listed three "dead-tree" formats (hardback,
trade paperback, mass-market paperback) and at least half a dozen
e-formats (.txt, .doc, .rtf, .pdf, .epub, and .mobi) on at least
five types of media (3.5" diskette, CD-ROM, Kindle, hard drive, and
external drive) Audiobooks were on four types of media (cassette,
CD, MP3 on CD-ROM, and MP3 on disk).
There is also the question of *what* to catalog. It used to be
easy: books were catalogued, individual stories in them were not.
But ebooks have to a great extent decoupled the short
story/novelette/novella from the need to be in a larger volume.
So, for example, the Hugo packet has novels (and graphic novels,
and related works), but also shorter fiction pieces, magazine
issues, and so on. For that matter, some novellas were published
as books in their own right, while others were included in
magazines or anthologies. Do I catalog only some novellas?
[And there is the question of whether a novel included in an
anthology gets its own catalog entry--for example, THE DEMOLISHED
MAN is in Damon Knight's A SCIENCE FICTION ARGOSY.]
In the intervening time, it has gotten worse. I wrote in the
09/21/12 issue about an ad for a cruise that contained a science
fiction story. (There was also a Land's End catalog a few years
ago that had a Ray Bradbury story in it.) But we also recently
bought two "Playaways"s at a library book sale. These are MP3
audiobooks that come on their own dedicated player (about the size
of a cigarette pack). It turns out that Amazon has a .azw format
as well as a .mobi format. And I forgot an older item: my
"Eripmav" T-shirt (featured Damon Knight's short story of that name
printed in full on the shirt). How does one catalog a T-shirt?
(It's not even "dead-tree" since the material is not from a tree,
but the cotton plant.) Does the size matter? Is the large size
like a trade paperback and the small like a mass-market paperback,
or what? [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE WOLF OF WALL STREET (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Sex, drugs, the most beautiful women money can buy,
expensive cars, and yachts make up the world of stock scammer
Jordan Belfort. There are echoes of GOODFELLAS in Martin
Scorsese's portrait of Belfort based on Belfort's own memoir. At
three hours in length the film shows enough sex and drug parties
that they become repetitive and for some will be unwelcome. But
the film almost seems to admire the man called "the world's
greatest salesman" and other titles less charitable. The film
sports more humor than any Scorsese film since AFTER HOURS. The
most serious problem is that the nature of Belfort's crimes afford
very little visual depiction. We have to take the story's word
that what Belfort did was very, very bad and forget that it looks
like fun. Scorsese shows us no victim of Belfort's crimes but
Belfort himself and he gets little more than a slap on the wrist
from the law. Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
Martin Scorsese brings to the screen a film of the career of Jordan
Belfort.
When Jordan Belfort (played by Scorsese-favorite Leonardo DiCaprio)
comes to work as a Wall Street broker he has a lot to learn, but is
quickly taken under the wing of a successful dealer, the
delightfully off-the-wall Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey) who
gives Belfort advice on hooking customers and on the importance of
well-timed masturbation. Just as Belfort is getting comfortable
working for Hanna the bottom falls out from under him and Hanna.
But Belfort soon discovers how much more profitable he can make it
to deal in "penny" stocks. Armed with this knowledge he builds an
organization and an empire on charming customers, employing less
than polished salespeople, and telling copious lies. (Which makes
this film a good pairing with MARGIN CALL.)
Some of Martin Scorsese's films have the feel of remakes of other
films in a different environment. THE KING OF COMEDY felt a lot
like a reworking of the plot of his own TAXI DRIVER. THE DEPARTED
was openly a reworking of the film INFERNAL AFFAIRS. In a lot of
ways THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is structured like his GOODFELLAS.
Again it is a study of a criminal. We follow a heady rise of the
criminal, which goes by fairly rapidly. The character rides a
rollercoaster of success to the top. Then we will look in detail
at the events of one day in which things start to get untied.
After that our main character has a relatively quick fall and ends
up out of prison, but in a much diminished life style. This same
structure fit GOODFELLAS and THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.
When Scorsese does traditional crime he has the advantage that the
crime is visually dramatic. The crimes are visually interesting.
He had more of a challenge with THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, where the
actual crimes are someone breaking an abstract law or even just
talking on a phone. So for this film his visuals concentrate on
the ill-gotten rewards of the crime. Those rewards involve some
scenes of drug-taking and a whole lot of scenes of highly
attractive naked or near-naked women as well as fast cars and
yachts. By an order of magnitude this film has more sex and nudity
than any previous Scorsese film in memory. In many ways it also
probably has more vulgarity. There is more than a little dry wit.
Matthew McConaughey as Hanna turns in his third Academy-Award-
nomination-worthy performance in a single year.
The real Belfort was a little more darkly complected than DiCaprio
and the latter really seems a little young in the role. He looks
like a high school kid pretending to be adult, much as the role he
played in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.
There are other familiar faces like Jon Favreau. Rob Reiner plays
Belfort's father. It is good to see still acting longtime British
TV staple Joanna Lumley as Aunt Emma. Also, Jean Dujardin plays a
Swiss banker. His face should be familiar from his Oscar-winning
performance in THE ARTIST and also as OSS 117.
In some ways this is a dangerous film. This is a crime film that
de-emphasizes that there were real human victims to the crimes.
And Belfort's moral decay is his greatest punishment. Terence
Winter (THE SOPRANOS, BOARDWALK EMPIRE) writes the screenplay
adapting from Belfort's memoir. At three hours in length the film
as a whole does not drag, but some of the individual sequences
could certainly have been trimmed. Scorsese give us huge excess in
its various party scenes, but probably not as much as Belfort
enjoyed in real life. I rate THE WOLF OF WALL STREET a low +3 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993846/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_wolf_of_wall_street_2013/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: BEFORE THE DAWN: RECOVERING THE LOST HISTORY OF OUR
ANCESTORS by Nicholas Wade (book review by Dale L. Skran, Jr.)
This excellent book summarizes our knowledge of human prehistory
circa 2006. It is already obsolete in its treatment of the
Neanderthal genome, which we now know intermixed with our own.
This minor quibble aside, BEFORE THE DAWN provides a gripping and
well informed read as it traces the path from the earliest human
evolution to our possible genetic futures. Guided by the
"telescope" of modern DNA analysis, many questions long thought
unanswerable are brought to light.
Although relatively easy to read, BEFORE THE DAWN contains enough
wonder for ten books, and defies easy encapsulation. Perhaps the
most stunning revelation is that evolution has moved much faster
than we ever realized, with the true start of the characteristics
we find the most human (language, art, music, religion) dating back
a mere 50,000 years to a small group--perhaps only 5,000
individuals--located in Africa, most probably in modern day
Ethiopia. Homo sapiens may have "appeared" human in terms of
height and skull shape for 150,000-100,000 years, but only a very
recent mutation enabled the mental furniture that we take for
granted.
One sad fact about books on human pre-history is that any book
written prior to 2000 is substantially incorrect. Books from the
1930s or the 1950s read more like humor pieces than scientific
works when compared to modern knowledge based on DNA studies. As
the jacket blurb from E. O. Wilson says, "By far the best book I
have ever read on humanity's deep history." I endorse Wilson's
message. Anyone who wants to call themselves educated in the 21st
century needs to be familiar with the material in BEFORE THE DAWN.
Much of BEFORE THE DAWN is not politically correct. A current
widespread delusion is that primitive humans lived lives of
peaceful, bucolic sloth, idly passing the time with sex and music
until this Eden was ruined by modern technology. In fact, early
humans experienced more death from violence than modern society
does on the average. This is not because of mammoth pitched
battles of the sort we might stage, but instead was the result of a
continuous level of deadly violence between small tribes, including
widespread cannibalism. Perhaps the most salient point is that the
original 5,000 humans spread over the world, wiping out all similar
competing primate species, whether by competition for resources or
direct violence.
Another commonplace is that evolution has been stopped by modern
technology. The evidence points in the opposite direction,
suggesting that it is possible that modern conditions have
accelerated evolution by reducing genetic drift and creating a
larger pool of mutations to select from. Modern DNA analysis
allows us to follow the spread of recent mutations such as lactose
tolerance over scales much less than 50,000 years. Perhaps most
intriguing is that idea that humanity has "domesticated" itself
genetically, resulting in more stable societies that make
agriculture possible. This notion forms the basis for Richard
K. Morgan's SF novel THIRTEEN.
BEFORE THE DAWN is highly recommended for SF fans everywhere, as
well as those interested in human prehistory, and anyone with a
mind open to new knowledge. Persons with very strong left-wing
views may find DAWN disturbing and politically incorrect. Persons
with very strong right-wing religious views may find DAWN
disturbing and religiously incorrect. WARNING: Children who read
this book may grow up to become scientists! [-dls]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Historic Dates (letter of comment by Peter Rubinstein)
In response to Mark's comments on historic dates in the 12/27/13
issue of the MT VOID, Pete Rubinstein writes:
[Mark wrote, "It occurs to me that is almost always consigning
the memory of that day to oblivion. If it does not involve a death
or going to war then even the person claiming the day is historic
will forget the exact date within three months."]
7/20/1969 - Several people have claimed its historic nature, but it
did not involve a death or going to war. [-pir]
Mark responds:
I did say "almost always." But in addition I really do not
remember anybody actually saying of 7/20/1969 that it was a
historic day. Would there have been any point to saying it? Some
days everyone knows are historic. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Artwork (letter of comment by John Purcell)
In response to Evelyn's comments about layout in the 12/27/13 issue
of the MT VOID, John Purcell writes:
Oh, so you two need some artwork for MT VOID? Well, then; I may be
able to help you guys out in that department.
[]
[][]
[]U[]
[]S[]
[]A[]
[][][]
() ()
() ()
There. That should make me eligible in the Fan Artist Hugo
category. [-jp]
==================================================================
TOPIC: CHARLY (letter of comment by John Purcell)
In response to Mark's comments on CHARLY in the 12/27/13 issue of
the MT VOID, John Purcell writes:
Once again a varied newsletter/zine from the two of you, and I
thank you for it. The only thing I really feel like commenting on
is the listing of TCM movies for January. I have long felt that
CHARLY was Cliff Robertson's best acting performance, well-
deserving of his Oscar. His is a beautifully nuanced character,
one which the viewer easily empathizes with. The first time I saw
this movie the ending had me in tears. Definitely a movie that
stays with you. [-jp]
Mark replies:
I like it only a little less than you, and I admit that is because
the novel by Daniel Keyes is probably my favorite novel. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: MAN OF STEEL (letter of comment by Andre Kuzniarek)
In response to Mark's review of MAN OF STEEL in the 12/27/13 issue
of the MT VOID, Andre Kuzniarek writes:
Enjoyed your review of Man of Steel, which was pretty much spot on,
IMO, except on this point:
Superman does something I do not remember him ever doing
in a film. Here he can fly with a vertical posture. We
usually see him fly horizontally with his arms forward
like he is diving into water. When he flies vertically it
makes it obvious that his flying is not just him jumping
with the energy coming from his lower body. His flight
ability just seems instead to be magical.
I'm pretty sure we saw something similar in the first Donner movie
(from 1978), where the character seems to just sort of float rather
than jump-and-fly (like a speeding bullet). I think this was
mostly in the presence of Lois Lane, and it also had that sense of
flight being magical rather than based on a force, and always
annoyed me. I've now gotten used to the interpretation of super-
flight as a more flexible and magical ability, and it allows for a
more god-like presence on screen and in comic art, which artists
seemed to like to render. Snyder seems to be very much in sync
with the aesthetics of comic art. [-ak]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I just watched THE BELLS OF ST. MARY'S. I know it is considered a
wonderful movie, but really? The priest (played by Bing Crosby)
starts by giving all the children a holiday. Never mind that this
disrupts teaching them--what about whether there is anyone to take
care of them at home during the day? Surely some of them have both
parents working, or maybe their mother has gone somewhere for the
day. Even if they do not need to watch them, will someone be there
to make them lunch?
Then we have the doctor who tells Crosby (and others) all the
details of one of his other patients--what is wrong, how he is
treating him, etc. And after this Crosby apparently convinces the
doctor to lie to the other patient about his condition so that he
will make a large donation to the church!
(But then the doctor also tells Crosby about someone else's
condition not only *before* he tells the actual patient, but then
tells Crosby he is *not* going to tell the patient, and Crosby
should not either.)
Crosby also tries to convince a nun (played by Ingrid Bergman) to
pass one of the students who has failed all her courses because
(according to Crosby) it is more important to give the students
confidence than to teach them. This is precisely the attitude that
has gotten our education system into the mess it is in.
I guess all this is supposed to be heart-warming, but I find it all
rather ... appalling.
[It is appalling, but audiences frequently forego logic if the film
makes them feel good. In CASABLANCA what exactly what are these
"Letters of Transit" that the Nazi SS is not allowed even to
question and then after all the fuss they seem to be ignored at the
airport? -mrl]
DEATH ON A PALE HORSE by Donald Thomas (ISBN 978-1-60598-394-3)
would be a lot better if there weren't egregious errors in it.
First we have Thomas quoting Sherlock Holmes as having said, "Dear
me, sir! I see you have just been in Afghanistan. You were lucky
to come back from Maiwand alive, despite your injury." Any
observant reader will remember that what Holmes said according to A
STUDY IN SCARLET was "How are you? You have been in Afghanistan, I
perceive."
Now, I suppose you could claim that Watson (who supposedly wrote
both the accounts) did not remember exactly what Holmes said,
though I find that extremely unlikely. In any case, Holmes's first
words are iconic, so why Thomas changes them is a complete mystery.
But even more inexplicable is Watson writing, "Yet while we were
putting our detective partnership on a secure footing, in such
cases as the decipherment of the Musgrave Ritual or the retrieval
of the Admiralty plans for the Bruce-Partington submarine, stolen
from Woolwich Arsenal, the world outside our rooms was moving on."
Sherlockian scholar William Baring-Gould and others date the case
of the Bruce-Partington plans as November, 1895.
Holmes's involvement in the case in this book begins on a March 27
which was a Tuesday, and other evidence narrows it down to 1894.
So the Bruce-Partington case has not even happened yet.
As for the Musgrave Ritual, it is a case that is *clearly* before
Watson and Holmes met, since Watson writes:
"These," said [Holmes], "are all that I have left to
remind me of the adventure of the Musgrave Ritual."
I had heard him mention the case more than once, though
I had never been able to gather the details. "I should be so
glad," said I, "if you would give me an account of it."
The case is dated by Baring-Gould as being from 1879, well before
Holmes and Watson met, which is pretty well agreed was in 1881.
Now it is true at the end Thomas makes a big thing of noting that
in the world of *his* book, Watson did not marry Mary Morstan or
buy the Paddington medical practice, possibly for the sole purpose
of being able to claim that any errors are not really errors at
all, because all this an alternate universe. However, it is
stretching credulity to think that there was a Musgrave Ritual case
in the universe of Thomas's book, but that it took place years
later, and that the Bruce-Partington case took place earlier.
In any case, as I noted, this case begins on March 27, yet towards
the end Holmes says that the new moon is on "29 March, just a
couple of weeks away." I did not keep precise count, but the
events of the story took place over a period of a few days, maybe a
couple of weeks, but certainly not a full year. However, March 29,
1894, was not a new moon. (March 7 and April 5, 1894, were.) The
closest years in which March 29 was a new moon were 1881 and 1903,
and March 27 was not a Tuesday in either of those.
Okay, all this may seem like nit-picking. But after all, isn't
that what Holmes would do? [-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Necessity is the plea of every infringement of
human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants;
it is the creed of slaves.
--William Pitt