THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
08/22/14 -- Vol. 33, No. 8, Whole Number 1820
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:
Phantoms of the Opera: A Survey of Adaptations (Part 4)
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
THE HUNDRED-FOOT JOURNEY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Hugo Award Winners and General Hugo Comments (comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper
Counting Countries (letter of comment by Jim Susky)
Life After People (letter of comment by Jim Susky)
Tsundoku, Phantoms of the Opera, and A WORLD LIT ONLY
BY FIRE? (letter of comment by Tim Bateman)
Woody Allen Documentary, His Scandal, Statutory Rape,
Child Porn, and Professor Moynihan (letter of comment
by Jim Susky)
This Week's Reading (EL SENOR BORGES, THE DROWNED WORLD,
THE WOMAN WHO DIED A LOT, and THE HEROINES)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Phantoms of the Opera: A Survey of Adaptations (Part 4)
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
1998 Julian Sands
I consider myself a fan of horror films and I know that Dario
Argento is a cult horror director, but I have to admit that he is a
taste in horror that I have somehow failed to acquire. His classic
is considered SUSPIRIA, and while it has a few good scenes, overall
it does little for me. His other films do less. He in a big way
goes in for sadistic stalker films. There had already been one
bizarre adaptation of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA that played up the
slasher aspect. It was the 1989 version starring Robert Englund,
best known as Freddy Kruger. The Gaston Leroux novel probably was
in public domain in 1998, so legally Argento could make a film of
same story the then (and as of this writing) popular stage play was
based on. The fact he could did not mean he should have,
obviously. And it becomes more obvious when one sees the film. He
was clearly not into adapting the novel, and though he uses much of
the plot of the novel, his heart and his creativity is clearly more
in the aspects that diverge from the original. Frequently the
divergences are homages (spelled t-h-e-f-t-s) from better films.
The film starts with a sequence borrowed probably from BATMAN
RETURNS. In Paris an unwanted baby is abandoned and cast adrift in
an underground sewer. He is rescued and his floating basket is
pulled to safety by hospitable rats who adopt and raise the boy.
In 1877 the baby has grown to manhood under the Paris Opera House.
Played now by Julian Sands, he is something more than a human man
because he has mental powers to talk telepathically to others and
even to possess a victim's arm here and there. Yet he still thinks
of himself as a large rat. The phantom is not deformed and not so
much repulsive as unkempt with stringy blond hair down to his
breast. Sand possibly did not want to wear horror make-up.
The rat-man Phantom hears aspiring opera singer Christine (played
by Argento's daughter Asia Argento) and begins to dominate her
telepathically. Christine's main obstacle to stardom is Carlotta
(Nadia Rinaldi) who is ugly, stupid, rude, bloated, selfish, gross,
and untalented, but who is nonetheless the prima donna of the Paris
Opera House. One wonders how they chose her. From there the story
half-heartedly follows the story of the book with side trips
involving child molesters, gratuitous nudity, hallucinogenic
dreams, a visit to a fabulous bordello, a treasure hunt, and an
overzealous rat catcher who collects rat tails jars and who is
building a motorized, riding rat vacuum based on a riding snowplow.
(This is 1877 remember.) It all sounds like more fun than it
actually is.
The screenplay is by Gerard Brach and Dario Argento. It borrows
not just from BATMAN RETURNS but also one sequence is taken, quite
illogically, from X THE UNKNOWN. While the scene effectively
creates tension and a curiosity as to what is going on, the scene
is a cheat and never makes sense in the context of the film.
Classic sequences from the novel are forced into the storyline as a
matter of form. We have the unmasking scene with Christine
sneaking up on the Phantom, though here there is no mask to remove.
We have a chandelier scene. But this is much more the story of a
mad killer, avenger of rats, who likes to bite body parts off his
victims like rats do. The character of the never-named Phantom
never makes sense either. Raised by rats he somehow learned not
just to talk but to speak in poetry, he seems to know about the
ocean's rolling, and know some of the terminology of physics.
An Italian opera house no doubt stands in for the Paris Opera House
in this production. Argento, filming in Budapest, probably had no
trouble finding one he could rent inexpensively. This opera house
does not have the huge catacombs of the novel, but it does seem to
be built over caverns that become a frequent setting. There are
occasionally effective visuals, though looking down Carlotta's
throat is not one of them. The musical score by Ennio Morricone,
though non-memorable, is a definite plus. And Argento knows,
perhaps because he is Italian, a few very beguiling pieces of opera
to leaven the film.
This is one of the poorest adaptations of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA,
though it is much preferable to the 1989 version. Argento could
have diverged from the classic story if he had good ideas, but a
riding rat vacuum is clearly not one of them.
2004 Gerard Butler
Most people I know of who like the story of THE PHANTOM OF THE
OPERA were introduced to it by Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical
version. I was not. I read the novel as a young teen because of
its connection to horror film. It is a rare popular horror story
that is not based on science fiction or the supernatural but on
events that could happen. In fact, in the novel LE FANTOME DE
L'OPERA Gaston Leroux purportedly wove together events that really
did occur at the Paris Opera House. It is claimed that there was a
vagrant dubbed "the opera ghost" living in the huge underground of
the Paris Opera House, down where there was a near-lake that was
used as part of the structure to support the stage. There
supposedly was an incident where a chandelier improperly fastened
came lose and fell on the audience. And the great diva of the
opera house really was named La Carlotta.
Leroux wove from these incidents LE FANTOME DE L'OPERA, the story
of Erik, a man who had a great genius, but whose face was
nightmarishly disfigured from birth. (The 1943 version ignored the
text and suggested the Phantom was scarred by acid, and most
versions have taken to borrowing the idea that the disfigurement
occurred later in a dramatic accident.) In the original text, after
a distinguished but macabre career in Europe (where he was shown in
a cage as a carnival freak) and Asia Minor (where he designed royal
palaces with a multitude of secret passages) the mysterious Erik
helped engineer the Paris Opera House. Then he secretly retreated
from the ugliness of the world to live in the Opera House's lower
levels so he could delight in the beauty of the music that filtered
down from above. He is drawn to a chorus girl by the purity of her
voice, which he thinks with his tutelage he can perfect. That is
the backstory and that is where the narrative of novel begins.
Leroux, incidentally, never tells us Erik is physically attracted
to Christine, though of course the dramatic versions play up that
possible interpretation just like they play up the possible the
sexual frustration of Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll. Sex sells tickets
and may make the characters' motives simpler and more
comprehensible to the audience. Erik seems instead to want to
possess her only to perfect her voice.
Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage play, essentially an operetta, is
actually the most accurate to the novel of any of the familiar
dramatic versions. It is more so than even the Lon Chaney version
which made Erik a mad escapee from Devil's Island. Leroux's Erik
is not mad and not an escapee. He is, however, wholly unscrupulous
and his knowledge of the baroque building of the Opera House makes
him almost a super-villain. Lloyd Webber's telling of the story is
good, but the success of the musical is probably more attributable
to the splendor of the production and the approachability of the
music. Lloyd Webber is no genius when it comes to writing a
musical. He is just popular. His themes are pleasant and neither
inventive nor demanding. He may be to musicals what McDonalds is
to hamburgers. I never thought he was particularly consistent in
where he reuses themes so they cannot be considered leitmotifs.
Yet his music for a scene always comes out at least appropriate and
usually effective. Here he adapted his stage script with director
Joel Schumacher.
While the play did not go into Erik's background, the film does and
gets it wrong. Apparently they wanted Erik (unnamed in the film
and played by Gerard Butler) to be a romantic attraction so they
have toned down his deformity. They have done what they could to
make him handsome when the upper right of his face is covered. His
face looks more like a man with scars from a fire than like
Leroux's Erik. Lloyd Webber also takes about twenty years off his
age. To do this they had to claim that after he was displayed in a
carnival, a la the Elephant Man, he immediately fled to the cellars
of the opera house. Without his experience of travel, his genius
seems inexplicable. The script has the character Joseph Buquet
give an eyewitness account of what the Phantom looks like and what
he describes is the Lon Chaney phantom, not the Gerard Butler
phantom. Butler's singing voice is not perfect, but it probably
fits his character and the experiences the character has been
through.
Further, for some reason, the events have been moved from the Paris
Opera House to a fictional opera house, the "Theatre Opera
Populaire." This makes little sense since the catacombs beneath,
the incident of the chandelier falling, and the presence of La
Carlotta all fit the real Paris Opera House. And Paris of the
1870s probably would not have two such luxurious opera houses.
These changes and moving the chandelier incident were probably done
to give the film more of a punch ending. Also the chandelier
incident was filmed in a way to explain why in the staging of the
play the chandelier seems to glide diagonally rather than simply
fall.
Also playing in the film are Emmy Rossom (who played the dead
daughter in MYSTIC RIVER) as Christine Daae in a performance that
hits all the notes, but does not do anything special. Patrick
Wilson plays a particularly bland Raoul who may be remembered only
because he dresses like Lord Byron and has shoulder-length hair.
Frequently he looks like something off the cover of a bodice-
ripper paperback. Miranda Richardson and Simon Callow are
underused while Minnie Driver does a surprisingly good turn as a
vain and thoroughly unpleasant La Carlotta.
With production design by Anthony Pratt, art direction by John
Fenner, and set decoration by Celia Bobak the film has almost too
much to see. The garish sets have almost too much visual detail to
take in and frequently are expressionistic. Perhaps taking an idea
from THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, the graveyard scene is commanded
by two stone colossi. Taking another idea from Jean Cocteau, wall
candelabra seem to be held in place by live arms in a scene that is
almost a dream sequence. Minutes later we see candelabra emerge
from under water already lit.
As he did with EVITA, Lloyd Webber wrote a new song for film
version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. But at least this time it is
under the end credits so it is not too jarring for an audience who
knows the music of the stage play by heart. THE PHANTOM OF THE
OPERA is a film with some glaring faults, but it still is a
magnificent production visually.
Comparing the Versions
Now that I have had my say about each of the versions individually,
it would be a good idea to ladder them from my favorite to my least
favorite. It should be fairly obvious from what I said above, but
just to make it a matter of record.
The 1987 Michael Crawford (Theatrical) version: Amazingly well-
staged and well-written. While being surprisingly accurate to the
book it is also the most compelling rendition. Best point: Erik
really is the tragic genius that Leroux wrote about. Worst point:
Erik's makeup is not at all accurate to the book and not really
believable.
The 2004 Gerard Butler version: A bit of a revision of the play and
lacks the immediacy of a stage play. the story has been somewhat
"younged down" and some nonsense added. The production design is a
little over-florid. It is not ideal, but it still is arguably the
best dramatic adaptation of Gaston Leroux's novel. Best point: It
is a lavish production that should please fans of the play. Worst
point: The duel in the graveyard scene seems to be taken from the
cover of a "bodice-ripper" romance novel.
The 1925 Lon Chaney version: This remains the classic version and
the most impressive makeup job of any version. I put it just a tad
beneath the first remake because of script problems not giving
enough plot and having too much comic relief. Best point: Some of
the visuals are stunning and even haunting. This is a simply
beautiful rendition. Worst point: There is not very much of the
novel in this adaptation. The pacing of silent film is just not
time-efficient enough to tell much of the story.
The 1943 Claude Rains version: A more engaging story than even the
Chaney version. We never really sympathize with Chaney's Phantom
and with Rains we do. This version probably had more influence
than Chaney's version. The story is just a little over-sweet.
Best point: For the first time you really sympathized with the
Phantom and to some extent found him dashing, even with Claude
Rains in the part. Worst point: What happened to the original
story?
The 1987 Animated version: An animated comic book version, but it
is an adaptation of the original novel; it is not based on any film
version. Best point: generally the most faithful version to the
novel. Worst point: dull acting that tells the story but is not at
all involving.
The 1982 Maximilian Schell version: Unexpectedly watchable
television version based on the 1943 version, but still Schell
makes an impressive phantom. Best point: Dramatic climax with
Schell riding the chandelier into the audience. Worst point: The
opera is not very convincing. Schell's wife would never have sung
on the stage.
The 1990 Charles Dance version: Not based on any other version or
on the book. It does not always make sense. This version could
have told the story in the novel but wasted it on an entirely
different story. Lancaster forgot how to act years ago and in some
scenes is really bad. Best point: This Erik, while not Leroux's,
is somewhat interesting on occasion. Sometimes whiny, sometime
almost Byronic. Worst point: Totally absurd treatment of opera.
There is no respect for opera as an art form. And operatic
excellence, in part, is what the story should be all about. The
book's Erik is willing to murder for the perfection of the art
form.
The 1962 Herbert Lom version: Hammer's version does not work, is
not Leroux, and at times is overripe. It is hard to generate any
sympathy for the Phantom and the musical chords intending to
generate it only make the effort seem the more pitiful. The
villain is never punished more through oversight than plan, I
think. Best point: The story does generate some suspense in spite
of itself. Worst point: The malignant hunchback who does all the
dirty work.
The 1998 Julian Sands version: Dario Argento's take on the Phantom
of the Opera is bizarre without being rewarding. Argento rejects
the Phantom's deformity that is so central to Gaston Leroux's
character and re-envisions the phantom as a sort of handsome Tarzan
of the Rats. This film diverges from the original story whenever
possible going into silly subplots. The Phantom himself is not
deformed in this version and here he is the Phantom only because he
is loyal to the rats who adopted and raised him. Best point: The
operatic setting and the music give it some nice texture. Worst
point: it tells an almost completely different story from the
novel.
The 1989 Richard Englund version: Oh. geez, where should I start?
It mixes the Faust legend, and time travel and mostly is just an
excuse to make an unkillable-killer film. It clearly had two
different directors with different styles. Best point: It's short.
Worst point: It's not nearly short enough.
(It would not be fair to include the 1937 Jin Shan version of the
film. Without a subtitled version it is impossible for me to
understand most of the film. It clearly takes very large liberties
with the Leroux novel, but I am really not in a position to fairly
judge the merits of a film in a language I do not speak or
understand.)
There will almost certainly be more versions in the future. One
never knows just where and when a phantom will appear. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Hugo Award Winners and General Hugo Comments (comments by
Evelyn C. Leeper)
And here are the Hugo winners for works from from 2013; the numbers
in parentheses are the number of nominating ballots and final
ballots in each category. Because 3,587 total final ballots were
received, a category needed 897 final ballots to be awarded.
Best Novel (1595/3197):
Ancillary Justice, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
Best Novella (847/2699):
"Equoid", Charles Stross (Tor.com, 09-2013)
Best Novelette (728/2785):
"The Lady Astronaut of Mars", Mary Robinette Kowal
(maryrobinettekowal.com/Tor.com, 09-2013)
Best Short Story (865/2684):
"The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere", John Chu
(Tor.com, 02-2013)
Best Related Work (752/2148):
"We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and
Slaves Narrative", Kameron Hurley (A Dribble of Ink)
Best Graphic Story (552/2344):
"Time", Randall Munroe (XKCD)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form (995/2891):
Gravity, written by Alfonso Cuaron & Jonas Cuaron, directed by
Alfonso Cuaron (Esperanto Filmoj; Heyday Films; Warner
Bros.)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (760/2667):
Game of Thrones: "The Rains of Castamere", written by
David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by David Nutter
(HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead,
Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and
Generator Productions)
Best Editor, Short Form (656/1621):
Ellen Datlow
Best Editor, Long Form (632/1545):
Ginjer Buchanan
Best Professional Artist (624/2007):
Julie Dillon
Best Semiprozine (411/1598):
Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams,
Rich Horton, and Stefan Rudnicki
Best Fanzine (478/1372):
A Dribble of Ink, edited by Aidan Moher
Best Fancast (396/1177):
SF Signal Podcast, Patrick Hester
Best Fan Writer (521/1438):
Kameron Hurley
Best Fan Artist (316/1522):
Sarah Webb
The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (767/1770):
Sofia Samatar
My fears that the "Wheel of Time" voters would 1) overwhelm the
balloting, and 2) raise the total ballot count while skipping some
categories such that those categories did not meet the 25% rule,
were apparently unfounded. Even the least popular categories, Best
Fancast and Best Fanzine, had 33% and 38% respectively. Sarah Webb
won Best Fan Artist on the first round, but there were no
categories as sparsely voted (i.e., only one item marked) as in the
Retro Hugos.
And "The Wheel of Time" placed only fourth, indicating that while
people may have bought memberships to get an electronic copy, they
were not voting in a bloc in large numbers.
The "Sad Puppy" slate may have made the ballot but it fared very
poorly in the voting. All but one candidate from the slate
finished at the bottom of the balloting, with one finishing below
even "No Award".
What makes "xkcd: Time" a graphic story and not a dramatic
presentation?
My fears that they would have the same technical problems as the
Retro Hugos were also unfounded. There was a problem with delay--
and unfortunately, they caught up at the end by have the stream
jump forward over the reading of all the Best Novel finalists to
announcing the winner.
In order to avoid any risk of Ustream bots blocking the feed
because of copyright issues, the Dramatic Presentation Short Form
clips had only the audio sent over the stream (and that probably
only because it was picked up by the microphones), and the Dramatic
Presentation Long Form did not have clips at all.
Regarding thank-you speeches, Mark suggests there should be a rule
against reading a list of people with more than eight names on it.
My suggestion is that while finalists and presenters do not have to
wear formal attire, something better than grubby jeans and shirts
with the shirttails out is probably called for.
And the presenters need to read the names of the works as well as
the writers, editors, or whoever. (The presenter for Best Related
Book did not seem to think the titles were important.) [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: THE HUNDRED-FOOT JOURNEY (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A family of Indian refugees in France establishes an
Indian restaurant right across the street from a renowned French
restaurant. This starts a conflict between the two owners, played
by Helen Mirren and Om Puri. The story is at times effective and
affecting. But the plot is too straightforward and has no
surprises. Lasse Hallstrom directs a screenplay by Steven Wright.
Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
There is a small genre of movies that attempt to seduce the viewer
with their sensuality. The goal is to get the viewer drooling
while watching the screen. These films set off some of our most
primitive instincts, appealing physically not below the belt, but
not far above it either. These are films that seduce with
beautiful gourmet food. They are films that intend to leave you
hungry, but not for food from the Golden Arches. Films like
BABBETTE'S FEAST, LIKE WATER FOR CHOCOLATE, BIG NIGHT, TAMPOPO, and
EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN. There is even a sub-genre devoted only to
chocolate. THE HUNDRED-FOOT JOURNEY is Lasse Hallstrom's film of
the clash of two food cultures illustrated with "food porn."
The Kadam family has a long tradition of fine Indian cooking in
their Mumbai restaurant, but it does not save them from becoming
political refugees when their party is on the losing side of an
election. [I was not clear on what was happening with the riot.
The timing and location was about right for it being the Bombay
Riots, but that does not fit the description.] Wandering from
country to country they are passing through France when the
character only known as "Papa" (Om Puri) sees for sale the building
of a defunct restaurant. In spite of being warned that the French
do not seem to like Indian food, he wants to open a restaurant at
the edge of town with the kind of cooking he did in Mumbai. And
thus Maison Mumbai is born.
One snag is that Maison Mumbai is just across the road from a
Michelin-one-star restaurant owned and ruled over by the formidable
Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren). Mallory has devoted her life to
earning a second Michelin star and offering the absolute perfect
dining experience--one in which the food is perfect, the serving is
perfect, and there is not Indian music and spice smells wafting in
from across the road. She determines to do all that she can to
scuttle the efforts of the Indian restaurant across the street.
Papa's biggest asset is his son Hassan (Manish Dayal), who has
instincts in cooking so perfect they could make him a nationally
known treasure. And Hassan is particularly interested in
Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon), Mallory's sou-chef who is becoming a
formidable gourmet chef herself.
What eventually happens is probably just what you expect to happen.
This is not a complex story and it does not have a lot of twist.
The screenplay based on a novel by Richard C. Morais, adapted by
Steven Wright (who wrote and directed the very fine films EASTERN
PROMISES and LOCKE). THE HUNDRED-FOOT JOURNEY is in part about
transforming standard recipes with the addition of tiny subtle
changes. Good food should have something to pleasurably surprise
the palate of the person eating it. But ironically the film does
not surprise the viewer much at all. It does exactly what the
viewer expects it to do. A few unexpected plot twists and
surprises would have been welcome for this consumer. Instead the
film always is just exactly what the audience is expecting, like
cinematic comfort food. The plot of this film follows a standard
recipe with a garnish of food porn photography.
American and British film fans will probably know Helen Mirren as a
terrific actress. But Om Puri, who plays Papa, should be seen more
in US films. In spite of what is not conventionally considered
good looks--he has a large nose cratered like a moonscape. But he
has a deep sonorous voice that commands attention. His films
include GANDHI, HEY RAM, CITY OF JOY, and THE GHOST AND THE
DARKNESS. Linus Sandgren's cinematography somehow was ambitious
but not always effective. Some scenes seemed washed out. One
scene show a sunset that seems to turn an entire valley orange. It
grabs attention but does not seem a particularly beautiful effect.
On the other hand the food photography takes no chances in
presenting seductive food images. The producers of this film
include Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg.
The film is strong if unsurprising and does exactly what the
filmmakers and the audience wanted it to do. I rate it a low +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. One curiosity point: Hassan inherited
a case of spices that he uses on special occasions. I think of
Indian cuisine as requiring spices to be fresh which these
certainly were not. Hassan seems to use spices that are not well
sealed and which are several years old. Does this make sense?
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980648/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hundred_foot_journey/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Counting Countries (letter of comment by Jim Susky)
In response to Evelyn's update on Leeper excursions in the 03/21/14
issue of the MT VOID, Jim Susky writes:
Interesting to consider Alaska as a nominal country because of
geographical distance.
Unlike the 1970s when you and Evelyn visited The Last Frontier,
Alaska is now far from homogenous. The Anchorage School District
reports that itsstudents natively and collectively speak more than
one-hundred languages (city and school populations are,
respectively, 300k and 50k).
'Old Timers' sometimes use the term Outside, as in: "I travelled
Outside last week" and the bumper sticker saying: "We don't give a
damn how theydo it "Outside".
I tell folks from Outside that Alaskans divide the World thus:
Alaska and Outside. [-js]
Evelyn adds:
Note that the counting of Alaska as a nominal country in its own
right is the policy of the "Travelers Century Club", not of me.
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Life After People (letter of comment by Jim Susky)
In response to Evelyn's comments on "Life After People" in the
03/28/14 issue of the MT VOID, Jim Susky writes:
At the bottom of MT VOID (03/28/14) notice was given to "... the
series "Life After People" looks at what would (happen) to the
fauna (and flora) of North America if people just disappeared
tomorrow."
I've often thought that the divide between Humanity and "Nature"
was essentially arbitrary leavened by more than a little guilt-by-
association-with-homo-sapiens (or more personally--guilty-because-
I-metabolize-and-respirate). Comments at Amazon show an ideological
divide between those who love (or at least tolerate) their fellows
and those who regret Man's distantly-ignited and lately-realized
emergence.
So it occurs to me that this may presage a new (sub)genre to go
with the Uptopia and the Dystopia--the "Atopia"--no humans and no
society at all!
This might have to include a prohibition on all sentient beings--
perhaps a consultation with the guilty would be in order.
Seems that without moral agents the genre would be quite dry--even
boring. [-js]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Tsundoku, Phantoms of the Opera, and A WORLD LIT ONLY BY
FIRE? (letter of comment by Tim Bateman)
In response to Evelyn's note of "tsundoku" in the 08/15/14 issue of
the MT VOID, Tim Bateman writes:
[Re] "Tsundoku": Japanese word for the books we have bought but not
yet read which are piling up on our shelves.
I wonder whether this is a telescoping, as Lewis Carroll would have
it, of "tsunami" and "sudoku"? [-tb]
In response to Mark's comments on the Phantoms of the Opera in
08/01/14, 08/08/14, and 08/15/14 issues of the MT VOID, Tim writes:
This series has been fascinating, I must say, and spurred me to pop
into play.com to see if I could procure a copy of the LeRoux. Does
anyone have a view on the best edition(s) currently available?
[-tb]
In response to Greg Frederick's review of A WORLD LIT ONLY BY FIRE?
in the 08/15/14 issue of the MT VOID, Tim writes:
If Greg Frederick is summarising this accurately, this is a more
outdated view of the Dark or Middle Ages than one would expect from
a book published in 1992.
Or had the rehabilitation not begun by then? [-tb]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Woody Allen Documentary, His Scandal, Statutory Rape, Child
Porn, and Professor Moynihan (letter of comment by Jim Susky)
In response to Mark's comments on boycotts in the 06/06/14 issue of
the MT VOID, Jim Susky writes:
A heads up for you--Netflix Streaming has a two-part Woody Allen
documentary that you may like. They did not shy away from the Soon
Yi scandal but stopped short of the accusations to which you
alluded in your Boycott-or-Not commentary.
I was extremely impressed with LOVE AND DEATH on first-release as a
young teen. My money is also bundled with the box-office figures
for MANHATTAN (my cannabis-enhanced reaction was that it was
brilliant).
I consider CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS to be Allen's Magnum Opus.
Alaska in the early 90s was more isolated than it is now--I was
dimly aware of Soon Yi, Allen's breakup with Mia, and subsequent
related court machinations. We have had cable TV since the mid-
80s, so I could haveindulged that part of public-voyeurism but
selfishly stayed way. I remain serene about the seamy particulars
of life if not innocent of the generalities. This is because, with
rare exception, "low-life-news" does not interest me. Allen's
"attentions" with the young Soon Yi are a fact (I suppose) but are
mitigated by the fact of their subsequent marriage.
I had just turned 18 when I first became aware of "statutory" rape
while in school in Indiana. "17 will get you 20" was the pithy
condensation of that law. It struck me as inherently unjust that a
18-year-less-one-day boy could physically love his younger
girlfriend on Friday at 2359 and be "raping" her (as a "man") two
minutes later at 0001 on Saturday during the self-same act.
Put me on that jury and I'll hang it until they let us out.
Central to the issue in my eyes is consent. I understand that
power relationship is often unequal but the notion that the younger
has no power is blind to reality. A prosecutor would have to
demonstrate that consent was not part of the deal.
(The 15-to-17-year-old Traci Lords had plenty of power--power to
fake her ID, power to deceive, power to take the money, power to
walk away--she even had the power to kick the drugs that she
indulged in. "Child Porn", due only to the fact that a DA's
judgement is limited to counting years, is merely Porn.)
(and that DA is a de-facto criminal if not de-jure)
I'll add one more anecdote before I sign off:
In the 90s Harvard revised its policy regaring sexual relations on
campus. Among the revisions was an injunction against Professor-
Student relations. Patrick Moynihan, a famous Harvard Professor
commented (something to the effect of): "Hhmmm, perhaps I should
aplogize to my wife!"
[-js]
Evelyn notes:
Regarding the seventeen-year-old, 39 states take into account the
age differential in one form or another. For details, see
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/summary.shtml. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
(This is August, so it is time for my annual Borges column.)
EL SENOR BORGES by Epifania Uveda de Robledo as told to Alejandro
Vaccaro (ISBN 978-950-9009-09-7) proves that I am a true Borges
junkie: it consists of the recollections of Borges's housekeeper.
In Spanish. And reading Vaccaro's introduction, I am struck by how
Borges could elaborate complex puzzles and paradoxes with very
simple language. I rarely need to consult a dictionary when
reading him. Vaccaro, on the other hand, will give me a nine-word
clause with four words requiring me to look them up (and the only
other substantive word was the word "invisible").
Of course, one reason for needing the dictionary is that Vaccaro
uses words that are uniquely Spanish. For example, he refers to
"tres lustros"--three "lustros"--but what is a "lustro"? It turns
out that a "lustro" is a period of five years. (I needed the
Academia Real Spanish dictionary for this.) Later the word
"quincena" appears ("la segunda quicena"). One of my dictionaries
translates this as "fortnight", but a more accurate translation is
"fifteen days", or in this context, "the second half of the month".
There are parallels in other languages, especially for such things
as units of measure; for example, in Hindi we have the lakh
(100,000) and the crore (10,000,000) instead of the thousand and
the million.
Borges, on the other hand, always looks for the simplest words,
both in Spanish and in the English translations. As Borman Thomas
di Giovanni writes, "We agree that words having Anglo-Saxon roots
are preferable to words of Latin origin--or, to put it another way,
that the first English word suggested by the Spanish should usually
be avoided (for instance, for 'solitario,' not 'solitary' but
'lonely'; for 'rigido,' not "rigid" but "stiff"; or, taking an
illustration Borges likes to use, not 'obscure habitation" but
'dark room')." ["At Work with Borges" in THE CARDINAL POINTS OF
BORGES]
Borges himself once said, "I do not believe that the entire
dictionary is fit for literary treatment. We can take (for
example) three words: 'azulado', 'azulino' and 'azuloso', [all
meaning 'bluish']. I believe that 'azulado' can be used in writing
because it is in our oral usage. 'Azulino' and 'azuloso'. on the
other hand, are words that are in the dictionary, but not in our
mouths. Thus it is better not to use 'azulino' or 'azuloso',
stumbling blocks to the reader and small surprises that the writer
gives.") [pages 155-156, BORGES ANTE EL ESPEJO] In "The Aleph" he
writes, "[Danieri] had revised them following his pet principle of
verbal ostentation: where at first 'blue' had been good enough, he
now wallowed in 'azures', 'ceruleans', and 'ultramarines'. The
word 'milky' was too easy for him; in the course of an impassioned
description of a shed where wool was washed, he chose such words as
'lacteal', 'lactescent'' and even made one up--'lactinacious'."
Now it's true that English has many words for "bluish"--azure,
cerulean, aquamarine, periwinkle, navy, and so on. But they are
not as similar as 'azulado', 'azulino' and 'azuloso'. Those do
seem redundant, as if Spanish had decided it needed more words and
so made minor modifications to the ones it already had.
However, ultimately this book is for the true Borges junkie, since
most of what we learn from it is on the level of the fact that he
used to sleep in a nightshirt until he married Elsa Astete Millan
in 1967. She insisted he switch to pajamas, and even after they
divorced he continued to sleep in pajamas instead of a nightshirt.
And while he had been a sharp dresser before his marriage
(according to Epifania), after the marriage Else bought him pre-
tied ties and used suits! Now to mention that he had a falling-out
with a nephew over a post-dated check the nephew wrote on a joint
account--not exactly the most exciting revelations.
[And Eduardo Rey, who designed the cover and apparently was the one
who decided that white letters on an orange background was a good
combination for the back cover and French flaps should be forced to
read all his documents that way for a week!]
I decided that THE DROWNED WORLD by J. G. Ballard (ISBN 978-0-871-
40362-9) might be a good book to read to prepare for the coming
global climate change. However, I'm not sure that Ballard
description of a sunken London turned to jungle matches the current
predictions; for one thing, it assumes that Europe and Britain will
heat up but if, as has been suggested, the warming Gulf Stream
stalls, they could actually get colder. (Consider that Edinburgh
and Moscow are the same latitude, as are London and Irkutsk, and
Seville and Seoul.)
Ballard has also assured his acceptance into "Thog's Masterclass"
with the following two entries:
"Beautiful and serene from his balcony a few minutes earlier,
Kerans realised that the lagoon was nothing more than a garbage-
filled swamp." [Chapter 1]
"Kerans gripped the balcony rail, watching the disturbed restless
water of the lagoon trying to re-settle itself, the giant
cryptograms and scale trees along the shore tossed and flurried by
the still surging air." [Chapter 7]
I recently read the sixth book in "Tuesday Next" series, THE WOMAN
WHO DIED A LOT, by Jasper Fforde (ISBN 978-0-147-50976-5). This
seems to add a couple of new major premises to the series. One,
there are "Day Players" who can be substituted for various
characters and even they do not know they are not the real thing.
(Think David Brin's KILN PEOPLE.) Two, there is an All-Powerful
Deity and He has decided to start smiting cities for no discernable
reason. Oh, and there is DRM--not Digital Rights Management, but
Dark Reading Matter, but at least that is in keeping with the
already existing premises. It is okay, but I was bothered by the
drifting away from the literary basis of the series.
However, it is still better than THE HEROINES by Eileen Favorite
(narrated by Charlotte Parry) (ISBN 978-1-436-10247-6; book 978-1-
416-54811-9). This I listened to on a "Playaway", which is an MP3
player pre-loaded with a single audiobook. It is smaller than a
pack of cigarettes (and isn't it odd that even if you do not smoke,
you know what I mean when I say that?), but this means that the
controls are minimal and take some getting used to. (Pressing Fast
Forward once skips to the next chapter, while holding it down
advances within the current chapter, which I find completely
backward.)
Anyway, the premise of THE HEROINES is that the protagonist's
mother runs a bed-and-breakfast for heroines who want a vacation
from their books. This could have been the "chick lit" book it was
marketed as, but instead it turns into a sort of "snake pit" novel
with the protagonist being committed to a mental institution
because she sees fictional characters, etc. It may be more
realistic, but it was not what I was looking for.
(I will admit that I did not finish this book. I read a couple of
reviews and decided that it was not worth the time to listen to it.
Were I able to skim-read it, I might have kept with it, but
listening to it, even speeded up, required more commitment than I
was willing to give.)
[-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Is life worth living? This is a question for
an embryo not for a man.
--Samuel Butler