THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
09/26/14 -- Vol. 33, No. 13, Whole Number 1825
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:
Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups, Films,
Lectures, etc. (NJ)
My Picks for Turner Classic Movies for October (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
Memory (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
FIELD OF LOST SHOES (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
BELIEVE ME (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
DRIVE HARD (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
LonCon 3 (2014 Worldcon) (Part 4) (convention report
by Dale L. Skran)
Neil deGrasse Tyson (letter of comment by Neil Ostrove)
The First Law of Convention Rooms (letter of comment by
Gregory Benford)
Ayn Rand (letter of comment by Kip Williams)
Hugo Awards for Dramatic Presentations (letter of comment
by Tim Bateman)
This Week's Reading (IN THE OCEAN OF NIGHT, ARCHDUKE FRANZ
FERDINAND LIVES!: A WORLD WITHOUT WORLD WAR I, and
MY REAL CHILDREN) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
==================================================================
TOPIC: Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups, Films,
Lectures, etc. (NJ)
October 2: MONA LISA (film), Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 6:30PM
October 9: PI (film) and "The Gimatria of Pi" by Lavie Tidhar
(http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/gimatria.htm) (short
story), Middletown (NJ) Public Library, 5:30PM
October 23: THE BEST AMERICAN SCIENCE AND NATURE WRITING 2012,
edited by Dan Ariely (selected articles), Old Bridge (NJ)
Public Library, 7PM
November 6: TBD (film), Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 6:30PM
November 13: TIME AFTER TIME (film) and TIME AFTER TIME by
Karl Alexander (book), Middletown (NJ) Public Library, 5:30PM
November 20: ROADSIDE PICNIC by Arkady & Boris Strugatsky,
Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 7PM
December 4: THE APARTMENT (film), Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library,
6:30PM
December 11: MIMIC (film) and "Mimic" by Donald Wollheim (story),
Middletown (NJ) Public Library, 5:30PM
December 18: TBD, Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 7PM
Speculative Fiction Lectures (subject to change):
October 4: Mary SanGiovanni, Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 12N
Northern New Jersey events are listed at:
http://www.sfsnnj.com/news.html
==================================================================
TOPIC: My Picks for Turner Classic Movies for October (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)
One of the things I appreciate about Turner Classic Movies is that
they show science fiction, horror, and fantasy films without being
condescending or patronizing. As popular as were the horror hosts
of years ago, even they did not take the films seriously. They
reflected their television stations' attitudes that horror and
fantasy films are less worthy than films that were not part of the
genre. They would not think of having a comical host of a weekly
Frank Sinatra or Humphrey Bogart movie. But they sneer at obvious
escapism and fantasy as if it is of less value. Horror hosts
generally were more interested in being comedians than in actually
presenting the films they showed. If anything, the way they
handled fantasy films was a lot like the way they handled kids'
cartoon shows. But TCM treats science fiction, horror, and fantasy
films for what they are, an important genre that constitutes a
respectable part of cinema history. Robert Osborne, their host,
treats the films with perhaps sometimes more respect than they
deserve. Who knows what he really thinks, but he and TCM treat the
genre with respect. That policy is particularly appreciated in the
month of October with their Halloween films.
But the news is not all good. One would think that showing so many
fantasy/horror films in October would make this a terrific month
for fantasy film watching. Sadly, they have long since run through
their obscure horror films for the month. The month is much better
for getting neophyte fantasy fans up to speed than it is for the
long-time fans. The films being shown on a Halloween theme are
probably films that most of the fans have seen, frequently multiple
times. They can always be enjoyed again, of course. About the
most interesting horror item they have to show this year is their
own reconstruction of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927). The film is
lost, but there are enough stills to recreate the story with stills
and the soundtrack. This is the vampire mystery starring Lon
Chaney, Sr., which was directed by Tod Browning. The remake, MARK
OF THE VAMPIRE (1935), is still around and readily available.
Turner will show both versions this month back-to-back.
[LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT: Friday, October 31, 6:00 AM]
[MARK OF THE VAMPIRE: Friday, October 31, 7:00 AM]
Of some special interest for fans of Universal's Dracula films is
Columbia Films's THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1944). Randall Faye
and Griffin Jay wrote it as what was generally believed to be a
sequel to DRACULA (1931). Universal did not buy the script so the
script had a little superficial doctoring to rename Dracula to
Armand Tesla and rename Renfield to Andreas. A little more touch-
up turns Renfield into a werewolf. (Universal was doing well with
the Lawrence Talbot stories so perhaps the writers thought it would
work here.) But watching the film and ignoring the renaming one
can certainly see it as a film in the Universal series. Seeing it
that way is a little more fun. Columbia does not quite capture the
Universal horror film texture but one really can see in it the film
it was meant to be. It is at least as good as any of the remaining
Universal Dracula films.
[THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE: Tuesday, October 28, 11:45 AM]
Back in 1990 my friends were excited that the film THE HUNT FOR RED
OCTOBER was coming out. Me, I was less impressed. RED OCTOBER is
about people riding big, comfortable machines outguessing each
other. The film I was looking forward to that year was MOUNTAINS
OF THE MOON the true story of two men setting across uncharted
Africa, facing hostile tribes, wild animals, swamps, deadly
diseases and really vicious insects, and even more vicious
tribesmen. On such an expedition you are lucky if most of you will
return, but it will probably not be intact. MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON
is about the Burton-Speke expedition to central Africa. No, it
isn't science fiction. It all takes place on Earth and is, in
fact, a true story. MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON is the account of what
happened on and around the Burton-Speke Expedition. Richard
Francis Burton was an adventurer and scholar. He could speak 29
languages and was a master of disguise. He was the first non-
Moslem to (in disguise) visit Mecca. Burton was the first to
translate A THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS into a Western language--
English. He also translated a lot of sexually explicit literature
that scandalized Victorian society. Burton was an expert soldier
and swordsman and wrote a history of swords. And he was an
explorer. Look him up. His most famous expedition he made with
John Hanning Speke to find the sources of the Nile River. Multiple
countries depended on the Nile for life and the sources needed to
be found to understand the river's behavior. So a small company of
men led by Burton and Speke set off to find where the river came
from. The friendship and rivalry of the two men and their African
adventures made headlines worldwide. The film account of the story
of the expedition is MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON. And for more African
adventure Turner is also showing THE AFRICAN QUEEN (1951) directed
by John Huston and starring Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn.
[MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON: Friday, October 17, 12:15 AM]
[THE AFRICAN QUEEN: Friday, October 3, 8:00 PM]
My choice for best film of the month? About the only standout I
see is NETWORK (1976) [Tuesday, October 7, 9:45 PM] or perhaps THE
AFRICAN QUEEN. [-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Memory (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
We were watching a movie with clones; I do not want to say which
one, because the clone aspect is supposed to be a surprise, and in
fact is a surprise to one of the clones who has lived in isolation.
However, there is a reference to a clone army, and someone wondered
whether those clones did not realize they were clones.
But why should they? We know that everyone (except identical
twins) looks different, but if the clones don't know that, they
would just think it was normal. (Japanese people don't think it
strange that everyone there has black hair, for example.)
The movie also covers itself by having the main character talk
about a "memory wipe" that he has had "for security reasons." One
might ask why they bothered let him know that. If a clone is
created with a blank slate for a mind, then they do not know that
people *have* memories, or what those memories cover. So either
give the clone no "false" memory (as was done), or wipe their
memory (if they have one) and do not tell them you have done so.
In either case, the clone will not remember anything before a
certain date, and will not have any reason to think that is odd.
[-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: FIELD OF LOST SHOES (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: FIELD OF LOST SHOES recounts the story of the 1864 Civil
War battle of New Market. In Virginia this battle is remembered
primarily because student-cadets from the nearby VMI were pressed
into service to fight the battle with some laying down their lives.
Sean McNamara directs a script by Thomas Farrell and Dave Kennedy.
Some of the style is reminiscent of Ronald Maxwell's films
GETTYSBURG and GODS AND GENERALS. Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or
8/10
The Battle of New Market, Sunday, May 15, 1864, is not generally
considered to be one of the most important engagements of the
American Civil War. Ulysses S Grant's plan was to come between
Robert E. Lee's army and the Shenandoah Valley, the valley being
the agricultural source of much of what Lee's army needed to eat.
The battle might have shortened the war had Grants plan succeeded,
but the plan was foiled by troops under General John
C. Breckinridge. Lee was still able to collect the harvest in the
valley. What is best remembered is that the battle took place near
VMI, the Virginia Military Institute, and that student cadets at
VMI as young as 14 had their studies interrupted as they were
called to fight in a real battle. Some of the cadets had not just
their studies but also their lives stopped. They are still revered
on the campus with a monument and six graves across the street from
the parade grounds at VMI. There were 247 cadets who fought, more
than 50 were casualties, and 10 were killed. The cadets who gave
their lives and all 247 who fought are remembered each year in an
annual memorial ceremony at VMI.
John Wise (played as a boy by Sean Ryan Fox and as a cadet by Luke
Benward) is growing up in Virginia the son of a Governor who
believes in the abolition cause while young John is more loyal to
the State of Virginia. Early in the film the father makes his
point effectively. We flash forward when John is one of a small
group of friends training at VMI. After a little rough treatment
to an incoming freshman, they adopt him into their group. From
there the film shows a little bit of what life was like for the VMI
cadets including some romantic entanglements. But before it grows
tiresome the story turns to the Federal troops under the command of
General Franz Sigel invading the Shenandoah Valley. And as a
military necessity the entire class of VMI was called to fight
together with the southern troops led by General Breckinridge--a
former Vice President of the United States.
In writing a Civil War battle film it is nearly impossible to avoid
the issue of slavery. That was a great deal of what the South was
fighting for. In GETTYSBURG (1993) writer/director Ronald Maxwell
had some detached conversation on both sides about slavery, but the
conversation was kept on an academic level and did not do much to
viscerally involve the viewer. In GODS AND GENERALS (2003) again
written and directed by Maxwell Stonewall Jackson has a good
faithful slave who travels with Jackson and together they talk
about the time when the slaves will be freed. Neither film grabbed
the viewer and rubbed his nose in the inhumanity of slavery. In
fact, no notable film I know really did that to the viewer until 12
YEARS A SLAVE (2013), which was why we needed that film. FIELD OF
LOST SHOES cannot show the worst excesses of slavery, but what it
does show is realistic and bad enough to make its point. This
film's writers could not devote the entire story to that issue as
12 YEARS A SLAVE did. Still, they could confront the conflicting
principles head-on unlike Maxwell's approach. FIELD OF LOST SHOES
in the first minutes of the film tells us in no uncertain terms
what kind of holy horror slavery was. The film then shows the
cadets from VMI as being gallant in their way but at the same time
only one had really thought of the serious issues of the war. We
see both sides without equivocation and the viewer can decide how
to react.
Much of this film appears to have been shot in and around the VMI
campus where the story takes place. It may look just a bit too
spic and span and civil war soldiers seem unrealistically to be in
well-laundered uniforms. Familiar faces in the cast include Keith
David, David Arquette, and Tom Skerritt as General Grant.
Frankly, it is a real pleasure to see a new film in which the
heroes wear Civil War uniforms and not superhero spandex. I would
rate FIELD OF LOST SHOES a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.
Film Credits:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2477218/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/field_of_lost_shoes/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: BELIEVE ME (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: What starts as a light college comedy builds to a much
more serious film with complex moral issues. A college senior who
seems to be majoring in partying and extreme Christianity needs
money to pay a tuition bill before he can graduate. With three
friends he invents a phony charity supposedly to send them on a
religious mission to Africa. The four take their bogus appeals on
a cross-country tour of prayer meetings and calls for donations.
Some of the comedy is light and funny, but the moral impact of the
fraud begins to catch up with the boys. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or
6/10
Sam (played by Alex Russell) is a senior in college whose spare
time is spent in parties and in church. He discovers that his
scholarship has run out and he needs $9000 to graduate. He and
three friends (Sinqua Wallace, Max Adler, and Miles Fisher) make up
a false story that he will be going to do missionary work in
Lesotho, an enclave of South Africa. They run some religious shows
where there is insincere preaching and collections for his supposed
"mission," now dubbed "Project Get Wells Soon". Sam discovers he
has a talent for convincing audiences that he is sincere and
dedicated. On the road with a musician, Gabriel (Zachary
Knighton), and the attractive tour manager Callie (Johanna
E. Braddy). As they go, the four study what it takes to really fit
in with the religious crowd.
Most of the actors have not been playing in places where I have
been looking. Most familiar is Christopher McDonald who played an
overripe TV host in Darren Aronofsky's REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. Here
his manager of the traveling show is nicely ambiguous. He seems
easier to like than to trust, which adds a nice edge to the film.
A very good choice is Johanna Braddy as Callie. Ms. Braddy has a
great deal of screen presence and is a definite asset to the film.
Sam, the main character, is played by Alex Russell who has a touch
of cynicism in his face that fits the character well.
The film was produced by Riot Studios who seem to be sticking to
religious films aimed at the Southeast high school and college
market. The film packs a lot of Christian message not so much in
the film's main theme, which would be tiresome, but in the
collateral dialog and in showing the performances of the travelling
show. Only one line really rankles, however. The character Tyler,
who is the moral compass of the four friends, reminds the others
that they will be "stealing from Christians" As if that was worse
than simple stealing. The film is written by Will Bakke and
Michael B. Allen and directed by Bakke.
It would be easy to come away feeling BELIEVE ME was a religious
bait-and-switch with an especially Christian message. At least it
does not say that belief in Jesus fixes everything. And it does
pact some ethical issues of some complexity. I rate it a +1 on the
-4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3107070/combined
What others are saying:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/believe_me/
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: DRIVE HARD (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A former car racer, now a driving instructor, finds
himself an involuntary getaway driver when a phony student robs a
bank. You have probably seen it all before, but the witty repartee
between the mysterious criminal and his hapless victim does keep
things on an entertaining level. Cult director Brian Trenchard-
Smith, directs and co-authors a film for car-chase fans with not a
lot of plot to get in the way. Rating: high 0 (-4 to +4) or 5/10
In Queensland and the Gold Coast of Australia, American-born
driving teacher, Peter Roberts (played by Thomas Jane), has dreams
of getting back on the car racing circuit for some more high-speed
driving. He gets no family encouragement but he still dreams,
however. Right now he is making his living teaching. But he gets
his chance to drive fast again when one of his students--maybe a
little old for being a student--asks him to make a five-minute stop
at a bank. Simon Keller (John Cusack) uses the five minutes to rob
the bank, and suddenly Roberts finds he is a getaway driver and the
subject of a police manhunt. He finds he has very little support
when he contacts his wife and daughter, but Keller is happy to give
Roberts a little life advice while the two run from the police and
assorted gun-happy citizens.
The plot is neither creative nor complex. Mostly it is an excuse
for a series of medium-speed and medium-octane car chases and even
laid-back driving. The back-story of Keller and a bunch of gang-
owned banks really gets short shrift. Throughout Keller just talks
to Roberts. And he turns out to be fairly straight-up and really
concerned to see Roberts get out of this car chase alive and then
go home and fix up his dysfunctional relationship with his wife.
The relationship is one in which Roberts cannot even admit to
himself that he is dissatisfied. In some ways Keller is a poor-
man's answer to the Tom Cruise character in COLLATERAL, only with a
more sympathetic heart.
The title and the poster promise hard, tire-spinning action. The
poster probably was designed before the filming actually started.
Instead, the action scenes all seem to be somehow blunted and soft.
The dialog and action is contrived not to lose the viewers' regard
for either of the two main characters. They may leave someone dead
after they have been attacked, but what happens is the other guy
accidentally killing himself. Brian Trenchard-Smith has a good
reputation on Australia's action grind-house circuit, but he is
toning the action down and avoiding sharp edges here. The story
seems too tame and nowhere near as exciting as the poster makes it
look. Even the look of the film is a little cheap.
The film is actually Canadian-produced, but it is shot in
Queensland. The dialog exchange is amusing but otherwise, without
films like this, cable TV would have nothing to show at 2 AM. I
rate it a high 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. DRIVE HARD will be
in some theaters September 26, 2014.
Film Credits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2968804/combined
[-mrl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: LonCon 3 (2014 Worldcon) (Part 4) (convention report by Dale
L. Skran)
Sunday, August 17, 2014
10:00 [10 am] "The Spies we (Still) Love"
I missed the very beginning of this panel, which was held in a
double room. Some of the moderators at LonCon 3 had the odd habit
of merely noting audience questions or inputs, thus creating the
impression that they were trying to avoid particular topics,
something that was on display here. This panel attempted a decade-
by-decade review of filmed and written spy fiction of significance.
The result was an odd mix of comments, with an insular British
feel. A number of the panelists were great enthusiasts of SPOOK
(MI5 in the United States). I've seen at least ten episodes, and
although far from the worst TV spy show, it felt like an overly
contrived show with each plot vetted by a staff of politically
correct censors. Situations related to the real world were
generally avoided, and a long string of unlikely villains paraded,
including rogue Mossad agents creating fake terrorist incidents and
so on. As was the case in other panels, the participants seemed
unaware of American TV in general. When the important American
SF/Spy show ALIAS was mentioned by an audience member, the
moderator merely nodded and moved on. Whether this was due to his
dislike of the show or that he simply knew nothing about it is hard
to say. Oddly, the silly and forgettable CHUCK received a great
deal of attention from the panel. Overall I thought that this was
a weak group of panelists with little of interest to convey.
11:00 [11 am] "The Globalization of Space: What's Up?"
I arrived late and missed the opening slides on the CubeSat
revolution. This science track talk by Jonathan McDowell was dense
with statistics and charts. There is a lot that could be said
about this talk, but it is hard to summarize. One point that jumps
out is that by raw numbers commercial and research satellites lead
but by tonnage human spaceflight is dominant. There has also been
a clear decline in overall tonnage after Apollo/ISS construction
completion but an increase in raw numbers of satellites with the
advent of CubeSats.
12:00 [12 noon] "Should We Trash the Planet on the Way to the
Stars?"
This science track panel, which included Greg Benford, not
unsurprisingly concluded that, barring end of the world scenarios,
that answer was NO! This was followed by an interesting discussion
of the possibilities of commercial space opening the high frontier,
and Mr. Benford firing a broadside at the Johnson Space Flight
center "space drive" research (he thinks it's is all experimental
error). The panel was held in one of the smallest rooms, and was
possibly not a good example of con committee planning. I got a
seat only by arriving very early.
14:30 [2:30 pm] "Taking the Initiative: Why we have to start
planning for an Interstellar Future Now"
The speaker, a Mr. Keith Cooper, had lost his slides for some
reason, and delivered his talk without them. I also came in a bit
late to this talk. Cooper, who presumably represented the I4IS
(Initiative for Interstellar Studies), gave a Rick Tumlinson type
rah-rah talk.
15:00 [3:00 pm] "I4IS: 100 Years to Interstellar Travel with the
International Space University"
This talk by Chris Welch of the ISU focused on their plans for a
summer course in the design of worldships, and was basically a
review of ISU interstellar work followed by a course outline.
Welch is a VP of the BIS. I found the talk very interesting, but
it might be a bit dry for some tastes.
15:30 [3:30 pm] "Living Starships--How life and Machines can
Explore the Cosmos in Partnership"
Rachael Armstrong's talk left an impression on me. Every once in a
while you see a speech that seems to be one of [1] a work of
genius, [2] complete BS and self-promotion, or [3] the ravings of a
Dr. Frankenstein (but possibly still a work of genius). The talk
focused on body modification and evolving the Earth into a starship
as a prototype for a generation ship. Ms. Armstrong, who appears
to have been a medical doctor before her current adventures in
architecture and sustainable design presented a kaleidoscope of
intriguing and disturbing images at a rapid pace. There was a
distinctly Dr. Moreau feeling to the talk, which although it bowed
at the icons of political correctness, seemed like it was going to
end up on an island with Dr. Armstrong about to do a head
transplant on an African "volunteer."
16:00 [4:00 pm] "The Pros and Cons of Interstellar Travel in
Science Fiction"
This "science" track panel featured a one-man show by Alastair
Reynolds, who reviewed the treatment of interstellar travel in SF.
It was an excellent overview of the history of classic SF related
to interstellar travel, well illustrated by old magazine and book
covers. Themes included "the generation ship that lost its way,"
the "generation ship that was overtaken," and "the ship that could
not stop." This was a great example of the kind of talk you would
like to see at a good Worldcon. It was easy to follow,
stimulating, and provided lots of reading suggestions.
16:30 [4:30 pm] "Our Interstellar Future"
Stephen Baxter and Alastair Reynolds were the main draws of this
science panel organized by I4IS. It was interesting to note that
virtually all the panelists thought that the first interstellar
robotic probe would be launched during the 21st century, and that
it would use lasers/solar sails to accelerate to a fly-by mission
profile, with the Centauri system the most likely target as it is
the closest. There also seemed to be a widespread view that there
is a strong chance that new telescopes like the James Webb will
detect evidence of life in distant solar systems, and perhaps even
pollution spectral lines indicating "modern" civilization. It was
also generally agreed that human interstellar travel was a ways
off, although the hundred-year starship project is targeted toward
creating the basis for a generation ship in a hundred years. There
is also some substantial uncertainty concerning whether humans
would go to the stars "as humans" (or as uploads, etc.) and as to
whether a warp drive might be possible.
18:00 [6:00 pm] "From Embryo Screening to Embryo Engineering"
This science track panel featured a solid set of mostly female
panelists discussing modern reproductive technologies. The panel's
output can be distilled down to a few main conclusions [1]
artificial wombs are difficult and will not arrive soon, but there
is strong motivation to create them for premature infants so work
will continue, [2] human reproductive cloning is hard and not on
the near-term horizon, although cloning of animals is important in
both research and husbandry, [3] pre-implantation diagnosis will be
of increasing importance but does not make production of "designer"
babies possible, and [4] genetics is complicated--don't hold your
breath on anyone finding the gene for intelligence anytime soon. A
fifth implied conclusion is that "kids with three parents" using
mitchondrial DNA transplants to fix specific genetic defects will
be the first real "germ-line engineering" to be adopted, at least
in England. An English body of boffins has ruled that the
mitochondrial DNA contributor cannot be considered a parent since
their influence on the genotype is so small.
Overall, this was a well-informed and interesting panel. Towards
the end, I asked the panel what they thought the impact of CRISPR
("clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats") might
be. None of them had heard of CRISPR. Fortunately, the head of
the Brown University transgenetic lab was in the audience, and she
had started doing CRISR very recently. CRISPR is a technique for
gene editing that greatly increases the accuracy of the gene
insertion/removal, and greatly speeds up the pace of gene
engineering research. My take-away is that the field is moving
faster--and unless you are on the cutting edge, you may not know
what is going on. One of the panelists was four years removed from
being in the lab, which appears to be plenty of time to fall
behind! Gene therapy and genetic engineering have been a long time
in coming. As always, the short-term impact is less than expected,
but in the long term amazing stuff happens.
20:00 [8 pm] "The 2014 Hugo Awards Ceremony"
The ceremony started a bit late, and the approach taken was of
having two persons who I did not know introduce pairs of more
famous folks to actually give the awards. This worked fairly well,
but is not the same as having Bob Silverberg or Neil Gaiman as the
MC. ANCILLARY JUSTICE by Ann Leckie won Best Novel. This was
completely unsurprising based on everything I'd read and what I'd
heard on panels at LonCon 3. ANCILLARY JUSTICE is a remarkable
first novel, and I look forward to more from Leckie. The short
fiction awards were notable in that all of them appeared on-line
(tor.com) and not in SF magazines. This seems to represent a
turning of the tide as the traditional SF print magazines become
less and less relevant.
I was okay with GRAVITY winning the Hugo for best dramatic
presentation--long form. I would have been happy with any of the
other nominees winning as well. I have seen them all, and the
worst of them is good, although not all in the same way. I was
delighted to see "The Rains of Castamere" ("Game of Thrones") win
the Hugo for best dramatic presentation--short form. This award
was notable since I believe for possibly the first time, and
certainly one of the few times, the actual Hollywood writers of
"Rains" appeared on stage to receive the award(*). It is, of
course, disappointing that the large number of "Doctor Who"
episodes nominated prevented the recognition of many worthy SF
shows, but seeing the Whoites lose again provided some small
measure of satisfaction that SF fans have not gone completely
bonkers. The "Doctor Who" clips shown were simply embarrassing and
reminded me of why I did not like "Doctor Who".
The final area of awards worthy of special mention was the complete
"sweep" by Kameron Hurley, who received the Hugo for Best Fan
Writer and Best Related Work (WE HAVE ALWAYS FOUGHT: CHALLENGING
THE WOMEN, CATTLE, AND SLAVES NARRATIVE), and potentially brought
about via her popularity a Hugo for Best Fanzine for "A Dribble of
Ink," which published WE HAVE ALWAYS FOUGHT. Hurley was apparently
too busy to appear at LonCon 3 to receive these awards, but instead
supplied speeches for surrogates to read. Her speech for Best
Related Work was along the lines of other Hugo acceptance speeches,
but that for Best Fan writer can be most politely described as an
angry screed. I went on-line and quickly was able to find and read
WE HAVE ALWAYS FOUGHT [FYI--I did not vote this year, and generally
don't vote in the Best Fan Writer/Best Fanzine category]. WE HAVE
ALWAYS FOUGHT is an essay expounding "angry feminism" that is
perhaps more clever/literate than most such efforts. It is hard to
argue with the main thrust of the essay (women are often
overlooked) but easy to quibble with historical details that are
referred to (although I leave this to others). It is also
interesting to note that WE HAVE ALWAYS FOUGHT is as much concerned
with Hurley's difficulty in expunging misogyny from her own writing
as it is with how women are treated in SF in general.
In any case, my reaction is that Hurley is beating the drums for a
cause that has won, and indeed is now dominant in SF fandom and
publishing. Let's take a brief look at the 2014 Hugo awards.
Among the literary awards, 2 out of 4 were won by women (Leckie and
Mary Robinette Kowal), including the premier award for Best Novel,
and if we include Best Related Work, 3 out of 5. One appears to
have gone to a gay Asian man, so the "straight white man" total is
1 of 5 literary awards. Both editing awards were won by women
(Ellen Datlow and Ginger Buchanan). In the area of dramatic
presentation, GRAVITY is notable in being a successful
SF/action/adventure film with a female lead (Sandra Bullock) and
"Game of Thrones" is widely admired for its strong female
characters (and yes, dunned for an abundance of gratuitous T&A).
Topping it off, Best Fan Artist (Sarah Webb) and the John
W. Campbell Award for Best New writer (Sofia Samatar) both went to
women. [-dls]
(*) Actually, the director and writer of GALAXY QUEST were at
Chicon 2000. [-ecl]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Neil deGrasse Tyson (letter of comment by Neil Ostrove)
In response to Mark's comments on Neil deGrasse Tyson in the
09/19/14 issue of the MT VOID, Neil Ostrove writes:
My wife and I attended a talk by NdT a few years ago at [The] Ohio
State University. This was after the Pluto kerfuffle but well
before Cosmos, i.e., before he achieved Science Rock Star status.
I had seen him on TV a few times and found him enjoyable but not
particularly compelling. In person he blew us away. He was
extremely dynamic with amazing enthusiasm and ability to engage an
audience. All without animation shooting from his fingertips. I
think his current career is probably due to his developing those
qualities and learning to communicate them on television, and the
animation may be Kaizen (continuous improvement) on his part to
avoid standing still. [-no]
==================================================================
TOPIC: The First Law of Convention Rooms (letter of comment by
Gregory Benford)
In response to Evelyn's comments on room sizes at conventions in
the 09/19/14 issue of the MT VOID, Gregory Benford writes:
On "'The First Law of Convention Rooms': No matter how many times
convention planners are reminded, and no matter how many
conventions they have attended, they will never remember that
science panels are way more popular than they expect":
Mine were jammed, especially the Interstellar one Sunday. I find
my fans go to them, and discussion is usually better too.
You'd have liked LonCon, too! [-gb]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Ayn Rand (letter of comment by Kip Williams)
In elaboration of his comments on Ayn Rand in the 06/20/14 issue of
the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes:
It is the writing of ANTHEM that I described as toxic brain sludge:
stilted, unnatural, affected diction, like listening to a bad
accent, or trying to read page after page of someone's attempt to
write in a dialect they don't understand. Reading it hurts my
brain. I saw some pages of a comic that adapted it, and they had
the same effect.
As I said, ATLAS SHRUGGED is entertaining in an alternate-reality
way, where one accepts the author's premises and moves on.
Naturally, the idea that one is probably a superman, and only being
held back by the horror of having to consider others (and their
contribution) is appealing to some adolescents, but the
repulsiveness of other ideas entertained by the writer
(particularly that rape is the highest form of love) caused me to
step back and question the precepts of the books, with the result
that, apart from one or two valid observations (like Toohey's "Give
it up, give it up, give it up" speech in THE FOUNTAINHEAD), I
rejected all of it.
They are enjoyable escape fiction, and not much more. I've tried to
penetrate Rand's nonfiction, and it's as hard as understanding
recordings of her talking--for different reasons, of course.
The fact they are still in print is perhaps due to the desire of
some people to believe in their superiority at any cost, but I
haven't interviewed each of those purchasers, or even verified that
they read it at all.
Sorry I don't have time for more. [-kw]
==================================================================
TOPIC: Hugo Awards for Dramatic Presentations (letter of comment by
Tim Bateman)
In response to Dale's comments on the Hugo Awards for Dramatic
Presentations in the 09/19/14 issue of the MT VOID, Tim Bateman
writes:
[Dale writes,] "It seems clear that the only possible way
justice can ever be done is to create a new Hugo--'Best Dramatic
Presentation, Series' with a limitation to the episode length that
it must be more than thirty minutes and less than sixty minutes.
This is just a way of removing from consideration a series of long
form movies and also excluding very short presentations of
different kinds. It is certainly possible that 'Doctor Who' will
win in both the episode and the series categories, but at least a
much larger number of SF/fantasy TV/Webcast series will receive
recognition."
I am completely and utterly with you on this one, Dale, except for
the provision 'less than sixty minutes,' which is just a way of
removing from consideration any UK series with ninety-minute
episodes. At the moment this affects only detective series (FOYLE'S
WAR, GENTLY), but potentially this might affect stf TV at some
point--perhaps appropriately--in the future. [-tmb]
==================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
IN THE OCEAN OF NIGHT by Gregory Benford (ISBN 978-0-446-61159-6)
was this month's science fiction choice. Coincidentally, the book,
though written in 1977, is mostly set in 2014. (Well, it turns out
that in the second edition, that was moved to 2034, but then it's
less interesting to read in 2014.) The novel is not supposed to be
a study of Earth in 2014, of course--it is primarily a first
contact novel. But when one reads about how there are no more
private cars because of fuel shortages/conservation, it is
impossible to avoid comparing that with the actual current
situation. And when a character in *2019* says he cannot get used
to giving a dollar bill for a newspaper and getting no change,
well, one has to smile at Benford's optimism.
ARCHDUKE FRANZ FERDINAND LIVES!: A WORLD WITHOUT WORLD WAR I by
Richard Ned Lebow (ISBN 978-1-137-27853-1) is a very frustrating
book. On the one hand, Lebow is thorough in looking at all aspects
of the world: politics, art, literature, social conditions,
economics, science, ... everything. Since most authors of
alternate history do not do this, this was quite welcome. But this
is more a non-fiction book than a novel.
However, Lebow does miss some things, even though they are the
obvious next step. For example, his "best world ... avoids two
World Wars, the Holocaust, The Russian Civil War, the Soviet Union
and communism, and the deaths of almost 100 million people. [But
there] is a price: tolerance of all kinds is delayed, as are the
scientific and engineering breakthroughs that lead to antibiotics
..." What he doesn't say is that since antibiotics have saved more
than 100 million lives in the 20th century, his avoidance of the
deaths of 100 million people is more than canceled out. Later he
postulates in one of his counterfactual worlds that although their
was no influenza epidemic in 1918, there would be one in the 1940s
that would kill 100 million people. Again, this also cancels out
the numbers in our world, but more, it points out that many of the
decisions he is making about his counterfactual worlds are purely
arbitrary. There is nothing in that world that would seem to make
an epidemic inevitable. Lebow admits this, saying merely that
everything he theorizes is possible, and at least reasonably
likely.
More worrisome, he also gets some facts wrong. Contrary to what
Lebow says, Adolf Hitler was *not* born Adolf Schickelgruber. His
father was born Alois Schickelgruber, but had his name changed to
Hitler twelve years before Adolf was born. Lebow also has Isaac
Asimov writing science fiction in Odessa and coming up with his
laws of robotics there. Since it is now thought that these were
heavily influenced, if not actually created, by John W. Campbell,
Jr., Asimov's creation of them on his own is not likely. (He also
has Asimov writing a series about the decline of a galactic empire,
but intertwined with the story of "the survival of a much maligned
but creative ethnic group.")
I also have to note that the index is spotty. There are a lot of
pages for "anti-Semitism", but none for "Jews". Though Lebow talks
about antibiotics several times, you cannot look these references
up in the index. He does not address how World War I resulted in
greater independence for Canada and other Commonwealth countries,
who (according to a Canadian friend of mine) told Britain after the
war, "Next time *we* get to decide if and where we're going to send
troops into battle, okay?"
I really wanted to like this book, but without the characters and
plot line of a traditional alternate history that uses the
historical events as a background and motivating force, this merely
gives you three possible backgrounds. (Lebow does try to track the
lives of a few famous people from our world, as noted above, but
again, this is basically background.) Since the number of
backgrounds is effectively infinite, just picking three does not
result in a satisfying book.
MY REAL CHILDREN by Jo Walton (ISBN 978-0-7653-3265-3) is an
alternate history, but a bit unusual. The main character,
Patricia, is given the choice early on to marry her fiancee or not.
The novel then splits into two strands of alternating chapters, one
in which shoe does and one in which she doesn't, one in which there
are a series of limited nuclear exchanges and one in which there
aren't, one in which Patricia finds one sort of happiness and one
in which she finds another. While there are enough changes on the
big scale to make this alternate history, there is not enough
connection between Patricia's actions and the historical variations
to make this an alternate history in the usual sense. (For
example, one gets the impression that in one of the strands
Patricia's involvement in an earlier gay rights movement has an
effect on Alan Turing that may result in his not committing suicide
in 1954. This in turn may have affected the world's geo-political
situation, but we never find out if this is the case.)
MY REAL CHILDREN is certainly worth reading, but it is at times a
bit cliched or obvious, and is more a traditional mainstream novel.
The fact that we have two alternate timelines makes it science
fiction, but each individual strand has very little science fiction
content (the nuclear exchanges are very much in the background).
[-ecl]
==================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
I've always been interested in people,
but I've never liked them.
--W. Somerset Maugham