@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 03/22/91 -- Vol. 9, No. 38
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are on Wednesdays at noon.
LZ meetings are in LZ 2R-158. MT meetings are in the cafeteria.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
04/03 LZ: Book Swap
04/24 LZ: NIGHT OF DELUSION by Keith Laumer (The Nature of Reality)
05/15 LZ: THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS by C.S. Lewis (Getting to Hell)
06/05 LZ: UBIK by Phillip K. Dick (Death and Hell)
06/26 LZ: ALTERNATE WORLDS by Robert Adams ("What If Things Were Different?")
_D_A_T_E _E_X_T_E_R_N_A_L _M_E_E_T_I_N_G_S/_C_O_N_V_E_N_T_I_O_N_S/_E_T_C.
04/13 SFABC: Science Fiction Association of Bergen County: TBA
(phone 201-933-2724 for details) (Saturday)
04/20 NJSFS: New Jersey Science Fiction Society: TBA
(phone 201-432-5965 for details) (Saturday)
HO Chair: John Jetzt HO 1E-525 834-1563 hocpa!jetzt
LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell LZ 1B-306 576-6106 mtuxo!jrrt
MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 957-5619 mtgzy!leeper
HO Librarian: Tim Schroeder HO 3B-301 949-4488 hotsc!tps
LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen LZ 3L-312 576-3346 mtunq!lfl
MT Librarian: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 957-2070 mtgzy!ecl
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 957-2070 mtgzy!ecl
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. Just a few small pieces here to make you aware of. None of them
are really connected, but, hey, you think it's easy writing a funny
article a week? I think I once heard that everyone is born with a
certain number of urges to be funny. Maybe one a week starts
rolling around in your head. Now your imagination is shotting
ideas into your head all the time. At least it does if it is what
you call a "fertile" imagination. If one of these ideas comes
together with a funny urge, you get a conception for a joke. At
any rate, something my mother tried to explain to me once worked
that way.
THE MT VOID Page 2
Anyway, if you really try to be funny once a week either your sense
of humor dries up or you get to the point where you think that a
bottle of ketchup is riotously funny. Neither state is a very good
idea. So I am not going to try to compose a big article; I will
just put a few passing thoughts on paper which, if it flows right,
will be stream-of-consciousness and, if not, will just lay here in
a puddle.
Uh, let's see. Oh, the news was recently talking about Germany
trying to round up and prosecute the members of the Stassi. These
guys used to be the East German secret police. The Stassi now have
to face their angry victims. I don't know. Does this sound
familiar? Is it my imagination or do people who get the reins of
power in Germany always end up running for their lives in another
few years? Germany must be some weird place. Now here in the
U. S. of A. we either hate our ex-Presidents or decide they are too
dumb to hate (or both), but most have been sufficiently discreet to
cover up what they _r_e_a_l_l_y did or to get pardoned for it. Most of
them seem to die shortly after leaving office, but I have my
doubts. I think the ones with no shame stick around and the rest
stage their death and then go into the Witness and Presidents
Relocation Program. Somewhere out there is probably Ted and Lou's
Chili Dog Stand where if Ted and Lou think you aren't listening
they call each other Harry and Lyndon.
I see the new Nordic Track as shows a guy getting up from a couch
and exercising and his dog approves. Let me just tell you that if
you are going to lay down a big hunk of money to buy exercise
equipment to impress your dog, forget it. Your dog will be more
impressed if you just go outside and mark your territory by peeing
on a tree. In some ways, I guess, dogs have us beat when it comes
to logic.
Oh, that reminds me. One of you out there had to ruin it for all
of us. One of you couldn't keep his mouth shut. Now I am not
going you ask you which of you it was. The guilty party knows who
he is and will have to face his conscience. One of you had to go
and ask my brother if it was true that his dog was afraid of his
[the dog's] water dish. You should know that if you read it here,
of course it is true. But what you read here is confidential and
not to be repeated. Now my brother subscribes to the MT VOID and I
have to be really careful about what I say about Seamus, the Wonder
Schnauzer.
2. NASA announced today that the shuttle would be launched on
schedule. NASA considered canceling the flight after learning of
several small cracks, including two from Dan Quayle.
3. Well, I suppose it's only ironic justice that in the same issue
in which I flame a publisher for saying the Gettysburg Address was
in 1883, I say that the Battle of Little Big Horn was in 1890. It
wasn't; it was in 1876. Mea culpa. [-ecl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 957-5619
...mtgzy!leeper
"The Gandalara Cycle"
by Randall Garrett and Vicki Ann Heydron
(comprising the three books, _T_h_e _G_a_n_d_a_l_a_r_a _C_y_c_l_e _I,
_T_h_e _G_a_n_d_a_l_a_r_a _C_y_c_l_e _I_I, and _T_h_e _R_i_v_e_r _W_a_l_l)
A book review by Frank R. Leisti
Copyright 1991 Frank R. Leisti
This saga, written by a husband-and-wife team, leads the reader
down an enchanting path of wonder and mystery. These three books, which
actually consists of seven novels, encompass both the known and the
unknown. The author and authoress have spun their web in carefully
staged steps to bring about understanding of the final event. The
entire story is carefully planned and unfolded as we discover the main
characters. Each major character is well developed throughout the story
and the reader feels the impact of each interaction with the players.
The story starts innocently enough, Ricardo Carillo, an old
professor awakens in what he believes is hell. A hot, sandy and salty
area with mountains in the far distance and a dead body beside him.
After a quick search of the unknown body, Ricardo moves out on a
direction towards home -- yet not a home that he recognizes. So starts
the Steel of Raithskar story, where we find that Ricardo last remembered
being on a cruise ship in the Mediterranean, talking to a lovely young
lady and seeing a meteor come striking from the sky to hit the ship.
From this humble beginning, we are introduced to the characters
slowly, allowing the reader time to fit into Ricardo's situation, to
understand as much as he does and to discover the mysteries of his
appearance and presence in this world. The world that he has come into
is quite unique in itself, with huge salty deserts, high mountains,
where trees and grasses grow well and water accumulates only to run down
to the depths of this world and end in salty marshes. We discover that
Ricardo is now in the body of a young Gandalaran. From this beginning,
Ricardo in a logical manner checks the various assumptions and facts
that he has. To his amazement, he finds himself as a recipient of a
mind-link with a sha'um. A sha'um is a type of tiger cat -- similar to
the saber-tooth tiger, however, the mind link allows Ricardo to talk
mentally to this sha'um -- the one named Keeshah. Ricardo also finds
out that he no longer is old or Ricardo, but a young swordsman named
Markasset.
With each step homeward, Ricardo discovers more about his time as
Markasset. Yet once home, he runs into trouble -- both from a
girlfriend of Markasset, a rival -- in the form of the Security chief, a
long-term gambling debt owed to a distasteful villain, and his father
implicated in the disappearance of the Ra'ira, a blue stone of untold
wealth and power. As a chief suspect, Ricardo has to vanish from the
city and he goes on the quest to find out what happened to this stone.
The quest for truth, justice, life, liberty and love fill the other five
Gandalara Cycle March 20, 1991 Page 2
novels, _T_h_e _G_l_a_s_s _o_f _D_y_s_k_o_r_n_i_s, _T_h_e _B_r_o_n_z_e _o_f _E_d_d_a_r_t_a, _T_h_e _W_e_l_l _o_f
_D_a_r_k_n_e_s_s, _T_h_e _S_e_a_r_c_h _f_o_r _K_a, and _R_e_t_u_r_n _t_o _E_d_d_a_r_t_a.
With a rich mixture of characters and groups of people, the reader
feels for the Raithskarians as they fall under the assault of the vlek,
the lower Eddartians as they have enslavement under the Lords --
powerful mind controllers, and the search in the All-Mind for the
answers to what has happened. The All-Mind is a growing existence in
some dimension, that certain Gandalarians are able to visit, read,
experience and record upon. It contains the experiences of all the past
people of Gandalara, from the times of prosperity when water was
plentiful, to the time of the first King of Gandalara, to the time of
the split and reduction of power of the Kings. The other Gandalarians
are not surprised by Ricardo's presence in their world, as they believe
him to be a visitor, from the All-Mind -- as has been recorded
occasionally. Yet, Ricardo, in his search of the All-Mind can find no
trace of the human civilization of which he was a part.
The final chapter, The River Wall, brings to a successful close the
nagging questions about the area -- when another Visitor has come and
has attempted to do something to prevent the sudden expansion of the
All-Mind with its stop in growth. The answer to this and other
questions remain for other readers to discover and enjoy as I have done.
This is now the third time that I have read this story, each time
gaining further insight into the various side issues and character
portrayals that enrich this story. I would love the chance to journey
to the land of the Gandalarians, however, it is only possible in my
dreams.
I would rate this a strong +2 on the Leeper scale. Well-done,
enjoyable, each part holds well on its own, and the story winds together
well for a majestic tapestry of adventure.
Lunacon '91
An abbreviated con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Evelyn C. Leeper
This is an abbreviated con report, since we attended Lunacon only
on Saturday.
Registration for Lunacon was about 1500; I gather from the program
book this has been fairly constant over the past few years. This made
it 50% larger than Boskone, yet some of the function space was much
smaller. The dealers room, for example, was spread between two
(connected) rooms and was still smaller than the space Boskone had. To
compensate for this, Lunacon also had a "Dealers Row," a row of rooms on
the same floor as the function space which were used as overflow dealer
space.
Hotel
The hotel this year was the Stamford Sheraton. It seem that
Lunacon moves every few years or so. This "New York" convention hasn't
been in New York City for quite a while, and now has left the state as
well. The space was adequate; the lounge (bar) was converted into the
Con Suite, which meant there was plenty of room.
Dealers' Rooms
As I said, the space was small. And as usual, I found more non-
book stuff than _I was interested in, especially since Lunacon tries to
cover all aspects of fandom. Having just done some buying at Boskone, I
had problems finding a whole lot here I was interested in.
Art Show
The art show, on the other hand, was larger than Boskone's--or so
it seemed to me. There was a wide assortment of three-dimensional
pieces. I suppose for artists from New York, it's easier to transport
artwork to Stamford than further north. The prices were in keeping with
most conventions these days, though since I wasn't going to be able to
pick anything up Sunday, I couldn't buy anything and so didn't pay that
much attention to the prices.
Film Program
The first program hearkens back to those good old days of
yesteryear when films were chosen because they were good, not because
they were blockbusters and/or unavailable on videotape. Lunacon seems
to have decided to sow good films even if they _a_r_e available on
videotape, on the quite reasonable assumptions that not all fans have
VCRs and not all video stores carry such films as _F_i_v_e _M_i_l_l_i_o_n _M_i_l_e_s _t_o
_E_a_r_t_h. So they showed _T_h_i_n_g_s _t_o _C_o_m_e; _T_h_e _G_h_o_u_l (with Boris Karloff);
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 2
_T_h_e _M_a_n _W_h_o _L_i_v_e_d _A_g_a_i_n; _M_a_r_o_o_n_e_d; _B_l_a_c_k _S_u_n_d_a_y (the 1960 film with
Barbara Steele, _n_o_t the one about the terrorist at the Super Bowl); _T_h_e
_C_r_a_w_l_i_n_g _E_y_e; and _T_h_e _C_r_e_e_p_i_n_g _U_n_k_n_o_w_n, _E_n_e_m_y _f_r_o_m _S_p_a_c_e, and _F_i_v_e
_M_i_l_l_i_o_n _M_i_l_e_s _t_o _E_a_r_t_h (which they listed under their British titles of
_T_h_e _Q_u_a_t_e_r_m_a_s_s _E_x_p_e_r_i_m_e_n_t, _Q_u_a_t_e_r_m_a_s_s _I_I, and _Q_u_a_t_e_r_m_a_s_s _a_n_d _t_h_e _P_i_t,
leading us to believe at first they were showing the British television
serials instead). They also showed quite a bit of Japanese anime and
some short subjects. Now since we _o_w_n copies of everything they showed,
we didn't go out of our way to see them, but had we the time to spare we
probably would have dropped in for the nostalgia.
Programming
Though there were lots of program items, there were not very many
that I was interested in. In part this is because Lunacon had a heavy
Artists Track and a heavy Costumers Track, and in part because many of
the rest of the panels were "humorous" panels. In my experience, such
panels rarely turn out to be funny, and I tend to avoid them. Still, I
did find some items to go to.
Science Fiction & the Theatre
Saturday, 11 AM
Marvin Kaye (mod), N. Taylor Blanchard, Jeri Freedman, C. S. Friedman,
S. Lewitt, David Nighbert, Madeline E. Robins
The panelists started by giving their qualifications for being on
this panel. Nighbert had written a dramatic adaptation of _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n
(not the recent Broadway flop), Friedman is a costume designer,
Blanchard is an ex-stage designer with a Master of Arts of New York
University, Robins is an ex-choreographer who used to work with a
Shakespearean troupe, Lewitt has a Master of Fine Arts from the Yale
School of Drama and is an ex-director, Freedman is a playwright who
wrote a science fiction play, _U_n_c_l_e _D_u_n_c_a_n'_s _D_e_l_u_s_i_o_n, and Kaye uses the
theatre in much of his fiction as well as running the Open Book Theater
Company. Kaye is also a member of Equity and has edited an anthology
entitled _1_3 _P_l_a_y_s _o_f _G_h_o_s_t_s & _t_h_e _S_u_p_e_r_n_a_t_u_r_a_l for the various Doubleday
book clubs. His theatrical background is demonstrated by his reluctance
to name "that Scottish play" in general conversation. (Commenting on
why so many of them had left the theatre, Kaye said that people in the
theatre "make Trekkies look good," to which Friedman responded that
people in the theatre "make Trekkies look _m_a_t_u_r_e!" If one were being
nasty, one might say that at least Trekkies don't encourage odd
superstitions.)
After a brief excoriation of the "Yale Mafia" of the theatre world,
the panelists got down to the first obvious step: listing all science
fiction plays produced. The panelists came up with:
- George Bernard Shaw's _B_a_c_k _t_o _M_e_t_h_u_s_e_l_a_h
- [somebody]'s _C_a_r_r_i_e (based on the Stephen King novel)
- Paul Shyre's _T_h_e _C_h_i_l_d _B_u_y_e_r (based on the John Hersey novel)
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 3
- Samuel Beckett's _E_n_d _G_a_m_e
- [somebody]'s _T_h_e _H_o_b_b_i_t (based on the J. R. R. Tolkien novel)
- Tom Stoppard's _J_u_m_p_e_r_s
- Howard Ashman and Alan Menken's _L_i_t_t_l_e _S_h_o_p _o_f _H_o_r_r_o_r_s
- Arch Oboler's _N_i_g_h_t _o_f _t_h_e _A_u_k
- J. Weisman's _1_9_8_4 (based on the George Orwell novel)
- Alan Jay Lerner and Burton Lane's _O_n _a _C_l_e_a_r _D_a_y _Y_o_u _C_a_n _S_e_e
_F_o_r_e_v_e_r
- Friedrich Durrenmatt's _T_h_e _P_h_y_s_i_c_i_s_t
- Karel Capek's _R._U._R.
- Maxwell Anderson's _T_h_e _S_t_a_r _W_a_g_o_n
- Barry Keating and Stuart Ross's _S_t_a_r_m_i_t_e_s
- Gail McDermott and Christopher Gore's _V_i_a _G_a_l_a_c_t_i_c_a
- Gore Vidal's _V_i_s_i_t _t_o _a _S_m_a_l_l _P_l_a_n_e_t
- Ray Bradbury's _T_h_e _W_o_n_d_e_r_f_u_l _I_c_e _C_r_e_a_m _S_u_i_t
- Ray Bradbury's _T_h_e _W_o_r_l_d _o_f _R_a_y _B_r_a_d_b_u_r_y (three one-act plays: "The
Pedestrian," "The Veldt," and "To the Chicago Abyss")
- much of Eugene Ionesco's work
Mark and I were able to add:
- David Rogers's _C_h_a_r_l_i_e _a_n_d _A_l_g_e_r_n_o_n (a 1980 Broadway flop musical
based on the Daniel Keyes novel)
- _D_r. _J_e_k_y_l_l _a_n_d _M_r. _H_y_d_e (undoubtedly many versions)
- _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n (the recent Broadway flop, and lots of other versions)
- Joseph Brooks's _M_e_t_r_o_p_o_l_i_s (the recent London flop musical)
In the horror field, the various versions of Bram Stoker's _D_r_a_c_u_l_a
were mentioned. Opera, of course, has many fantasy productions, but
there were science fiction operas: Karl-Birger Blomdahl's _A_n_i_a_r_a, Todd
Machover's _V_a_l_i_s (based on the Philip K. Dick novel), David Henry Hwang
and Philip Glass's _1_0_0_0 _A_i_r_p_l_a_n_e_s _o_n _t_h_e _R_o_o_f, and [somebody]'s _R_e_p_o_r_t
_f_r_o_m _P_l_a_n_e_t _3 (based the Doris Lessing novel). One panelists noted that
many opera aficionados feel that opera is well-suited for the wide scope
of ideas in science fiction. If that's the case, maybe we'll start
seeing more. [The panelists didn't always give composers' or authors'
names, and the few "somebody"s above are where I could find no listing
in the Samuel French catalog or the play indices at my library.]
One drawback that producers see to putting science fiction on the
stage is that movies can do special effects better (and these days
science fiction, to producers' minds, is equivalent to special effects).
Lewitt also pointed out that science fiction depends a lot on
background--descriptions of a society or a culture--that are hard to
communicate on a stage. Kaye felt that his and Parke Godwin's "soft"
science fiction works would adapt better, because there is more emphasis
on character, which is what the theatre is known for. (It wouldn't have
to be their soft science fiction--any science fiction based less in
technology and more in character interaction would do as well.)
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 4
And all the complaints about Hollywood and science fiction seem
repeated for Broadway and science fiction. Producers ask, "What is
making money? Let's remake it." They want lots of special effects--
_F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n needed twenty-five special winches, where previously only
five had been constructed total, and those had been rented out because
they were so expensive.
Nighbert told another _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n story, this time about his own
production. There was a scene in which the monster throws Elizabeth
down onto a bed and rips her head off. Well, one night the actor did
this (pulling the fake head out of a whole in the bed of course) and
swung it around so that the audience could see it. Unfortunately he
lost his grip on it and it flew through a window pane separating two
parts of the stage, rolled down a stairway towards the audience and
stopped on the bottom step, neck down, staring at the audience. (Of
course the director asked, "Can you do that every night?") This led to
a discussion of the "Voneck decapitation" (pardon my spelling if it's
wrong) in which the "victim's" head is pushed through a hole in the bed
or whatever and the fake head pulled up. Either Nighbert or Kaye said
that you can get a really good sound effect for the head being ripped
off by crushing a plastic cup at the right instant. According to Kaye,
the "Voneck decapitation" was used in George Dibney Pitts's _S_w_e_e_n_e_y
_T_o_d_d, a much darker version than the Sondheim musical. Someone said
that the Romans had very realistic decapitations. However, they
accomplished this by actually decapitating people (slaves, usually), and
the panelists agreed that the unions probably wouldn't go for this these
days.
This led to more discussion of special effects. Producers (and
directors, presumably) want to get their money's worth, so if there is
an expensive effect they want it on stage and visible for a long time.
So if the costuming and makeup for an alien is expensive, they want the
alien on stage a lot, even though that may allow the audience to see all
the flaws in the design. George Lucas, the panel agreed, had a better
approach with his cantina scene--you got brief glimpses of aliens and
that was the perfect length of time. Of course, rumor has it that he
did it this way because his make-up man was sick and couldn't spend the
time and effort that was originally planned. So consider it
serendipitous. The same thing was true for _J_a_w_s; it was shot from the
shark's point of view for much of the film because they couldn't get the
shark to look right (according to Nighbert).
After all this complaining about theatrical producers, the
panelists did say that just as there is a distinction between film and
Hollywood, there is also a distinction between theatre and Broadway.
They all seemed to feel that the best work these days was being done in
regional theatre, which I assume includes such places as the Paper Mill
Playhouse and the George Street Theatre in New Jersey. Even Off-
Broadway was too "Broadway" for them. (Now, Off-Off-Broadway might be
another story. The terms, by the way, have nothing to do with the
locations of the theatre. I believe they are based on theatre size,
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 5
though there may be other considerations as well.) Broadway (and Off-
Broadway) rely on the tourist trade for much of their sales. And the
tourists want spectacle ("I want to see _C_a_t_s, Homer." "Yes, Betty Lou,
not one of these funny plays with no scenery and five people talking to
each other.") But regional theatre audiences are more interested in
theatre as theatre.
As for why authors prefer writing prose to drama--and many of the
panelists had made this cross-over--Lewitt said that prose communicates
directly to the reader, while drama has to do through the actors, the
set designer, the director, and so on. Of course, once stated this
seems obvious, but when I first heard the question I saw myself _r_e_a_d_i_n_g
a play rather than seeing one--no doubt because that is how most of us
start on drama: we read Shakespeare in school. Even though I know that
seeing a play is different than reading it, and that seeing it is more
than likely what the author intended (though some plays _a_r_e written to
be read), old habits die hard. And I still read more plays than I see.
One upcoming production that was recommended was _R_e_t_u_r_n _t_o _t_h_e
_F_o_r_b_i_d_d_e_n _P_l_a_n_e_t.
(The room this was in had one small table, not nearly enough for
the whole panel to gather around, let alone sit behind. So they sat in
a row on the stage holding their name cards instead.)
_D_r_a_m_a_t_i_c _P_r_e_s_e_n_t_a_t_i_o_n: "_A _C_o_l_d _J_o_u_r_n_e_y _i_n_t_o _t_h_e _D_a_r_k"
Saturday, noon
Marvin Kaye and G. Vlachos
Kaye introduced this play by Parke Godwin by saying it was in his
book _1_3 _P_l_a_y_s _o_f _G_h_o_s_t_s & _t_h_e _S_u_p_e_r_n_a_t_u_r_a_l, which also contained Kaye's
own play, "A Cold Blue Light." Kaye explained his inclusion of his own
play by talking about a composer named Gottschalk who played his own
works at recitals, saying, "If Gottschalk doesn't play Gottschalk, who
will do so?"
The play itself is a dialogue between the ghosts of Jesus and
Judas. (Can Jesus have a ghost? This seems to be a bit more
complicated theologically than it first appears.) The "action" takes
place in a current-day church, though the worshippers can neither see
nor hear the characters. Kaye staged it in the fashion of his Open Book
Theatre Company, with he and Vlachos reading from the script and using
no props (Kaye played Judas; Vlachos, Jesus). This was one of the more
interesting events I attended and I would recommend it for future
conventions. The play itself took about thirty-five minutes, and
because the Open Book Theatre Company _n_e_v_e_r uses props, it would not be
a financial or logistical strain on a convention to have one of these
(or even two, especially at a Worldcon). I'm sure Kaye could recommend
good choices for plays, and good people to read them.
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 6
Disabilities in Science Fiction & Fandom
Saturday, noon
Geary Gravel (mod), A. J. Austin, F. Alexander Brejcha,
Steven Gould, Ed Meskys, Sam Moskowitz
Since the play finished early and I wanted to see Jim Freund before
his 1 PM panel (since I had another 1 PM panel to attend), I went to the
room where Freund's panel was scheduled to be held and heard the end of
the panel on disabilities in science fiction. Sam Moskowitz was talking
(via voice-box) about how technology (i.e., the voice-box) made it
possible for him to start attending conventions again. Before he could
only speak to people under very quiet circumstances, but now he was able
to communicate again. And Ed Meskys said that word processors made
typing much easier for him. With typewriters he was always worried
about making mistakes so he had to type slowly, but with a word
processor, it's much easier to detect and correct mistakes.
But why, oh why, did the convention schedule the panel on
disabilities in a room down a long narrow hallway with doors that _m_a_y
have been wheelchair-accessible, but certainly didn't look it? There
were several rooms, closer in, with double doors that would have made
wheelchair access a breeze.
And I did meet Jim Freund, New York radio personality and host of
"Hour of the Wolf," a science fiction radio show on WBAI. (And I got
James Morrow to autograph a copy of his "Author's Choice" collection
from Pulphouse.)
Discussion: Electronic Fandom
Saturday, 1 PM
Mark R. Leeper (mod), Connie Hirsch, Eric Jablow, Saul Jaffe, Evelyn C. Leeper
This was originally scheduled to be held at the base of the
escalators, but the hotel set up their snack bar there. So Phil DeParto
said to move it to the general seating area in the lobby, but we opted
to move it into the Con Suite instead (free soda and snacks--I love a
Con Suite that has Raisinets!). Most of the discussion was of various
personalities on the Net, and whether they were in person at all like
what they were on the Net. Since I have no desire to be attacked by
hordes of people complaining about being gossiped about (or complaining
about _n_o_t being gossiped about), I didn't take any notes. We did talk
about the eternal topic--is SF-LOVERS DIGEST a fanzine, or a semi-
prozine, or a whatever? We said it was definitely a whatever, but the
other two still generate debate. More will undoubtedly be said about
this in the future.
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 7
Reviews & Criticism in Science Fiction
Saturday, 2 PM
Gregory Feeley (mod), Katherine Cramer, Don D'Ammassa,
Evelyn C. Leeper, J. J. Pierce, ? Rangl-Hazel
Barry Malzberg was supposed to moderate this panel, but didn't show
up. (Maybe he was offended by the fact the committee misspelled his
name in the program book? Just kidding, though misspellings were all
too common.)
We all introduced ourselves and gave our credentials for being on
this panel. I said I wrote book reviews for fanzines and also for
Usenet, which is great--it's like a vanity press that you don't have to
pay for.
Don D'Ammassa distinguished between reviews and criticism the same
way I did at Boskone: "A review is for someone who hasn't read the book;
criticism is for someone who has." Feeley quoted Spider Robinson (not
the panel's favorite reviewer by any means) as saying, "Critics tell you
what you should like; reviewers tell you what you will like." All of
this, of course, is very binary; there is actually a spectrum that runs
from market reviewers to academic criticism. Some would have phrased
that "from market reviewers on the low end to academic criticism at the
top," but I will not. In fact, academic criticism was not kindly
treated by the panelists most familiar with it. Cramer (I believe) said
that _T_h_e _J_o_u_r_n_a_l _o_f _t_h_e _F_a_n_t_a_s_t_i_c _i_n _t_h_e _A_r_t_s had been forced to send
out a letter asking the authors of papers to read other works by the
author of whom they were discussing a particular work. I mentioned that
this was true even at the convention level--the panel on Stapledon at
Conspiracy had read only Stapledon's major works--and at the fanzine
level--a recent _O_t_h_e_r_R_e_a_l_m_s article on Stapledon was by someone who had
read only the four main novels. (This is an improvement on having read
only one, I suppose.)
Cramer said that she had a degree in math and was a closet consumer
researcher, and this had led her to the conclusion that much of what is
printed in the _N_e_w _Y_o_r_k _R_e_v_i_e_w _o_f _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n points the wrong way:
it says how the book in question is _s_i_m_i_l_a_r _t_o other works, rather than
how it is _d_i_f_f_e_r_e_n_t _f_r_o_m other works. While the former is of interest
to historians of the field, the reader at whom the magazine is
supposedly targeted is more interested in finding out why this book is
different from all other books.
There was also a lot of discussion of books in series. Feeley said
that he found that Tor usually had books in one series or another for
all but one of their releases each month, so he waited until _a_l_l one
month's books were in series (plural, that is) and then wrote about this
phenomenon--none too favorably, one assumes. Someone talked about
getting a book labeled "The First Book of the First Trilogy of
[something-or-other]" and just heaving it against the wall in disgust.
I returned home after the convention, took out the latest issue of
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 8
_L_o_c_u_s, and counted; of eighty new releases (either first publication or
first United States publication), forty-three were in series and
thirty-seven were original, stand-alone novels. Of the latter, the vast
majority were horror novels.
Cramer talked about an editor whom she said she would not name who
went around telling everyone that he published books he didn't like that
he knew would sell so that he could publish books he did like that he
knew wouldn't sell. No, this wasn't Donald Wollheim, who said rather
than it was John Norman's "Gor" books that pulled the DAW train, because
Wollheim didn't say the other books wouldn't sell, just that he was able
to take more chances on new authors because he wasn't running so close
to the edge. I said that some books don't sell because you can't find
them. "For example," I said, "I just can't find Bantam Spectra Special
Editions for sale anywhere near me; I have to go into New York to the
Science Fiction Shop to find them." At this, Cramer started laughing,
and at first I thought she was commenting on my taste (or lack thereof),
but it turned out that this was the editor she meant. At any rate, the
problem is that now everyone in the business, including the distributors
and stores, knows that the editor has said these books won't sell, so
they don't order them. So of course they don't sell. And so on. I
suspect this is why the publisher removed the distinctive logo they used
to have and replaced it with a much more subdued one; he hoped to be
able to place the books without their having the stigma attached so
obviously.
Somehow we got on to the difference between genre and category.
Genre is a "contract" between the author and the reader; category is a
"contract" between publisher and distributor. (I wish someone had come
up with examples to make this clearer.) Part of what was discussed was
the use of "signals" on the cover to tell the distributor (or the
reader) what category (or genre) the book falls into. A novel with a
cover of woman in a low-cut dress being ripped by a handsome muscular
highwayman promises a different content that one with a woman in a long
white dress running away from an old house with a full moon in the sky.
Similarly, a book with a picture of elves drinking in a bar on the cover
should not contain spaceflights to distant planets inside. Someone in
the audience asked if this meant that authors should never write outside
their usual fields. I said that isn't what we meant. Lloyd Biggle was
the example I gave; he writes mysteries as well as science fiction. But
his mysteries don't have science fiction covers and his science fiction
doesn't have mystery covers.
Of course, none of this explains why my local Waldenbooks files
James Michener's non-fiction work _I_b_e_r_i_a with all his fiction--except
that's where they know their customers will look for it.
D'Ammassa talked about how hard it is to write 250-word reviews; as
soon as you've given the title and a brief plot summary, most of you
wordage is used up. Cramer asked why he gave a plot summary, but they
seemed (to me) to be talking about different things when they said "plot
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 9
summary." I think D'Ammassa meant something like, "This is a novel
about a trip to Mars by three teenagers, and the alien life-forms they
meet there," while Cramer was probably thinking of something more
elaborate. In any case, everyone seemed to agree that a plot summary--
of whatever length--was not a substitute for a review. Neither was a
heavy use of quotes--quotes could be used to good purpose, but were
occasionally used as filler when someone wanted to produce a 2000-word
review but had only 200 words to say. I admitted that I had on occasion
relied on quotes more than I should have, especially as a way to
demonstrate an author's style, but tried to avoid it whenever possible.
Hollywood Alchemy: Turning Horror Books in Horrible Movies
Saturday, 7 PM
Rick Hautala (mod), Evelyn C. Leeper, Mark R. Leeper, Richard Meyers
We had hurried back from dinner for the 6:30 PM panel on televised
science fiction in the United Kingdom, only to discover it was canceled.
(Well, it did say it on one of the sheets we got when we registered but
here were so many different sheets we must have missed reading it.)
However, this panel had been added and it sounded worth attending. So
as we were sitting waiting for it to start Phil DeParto comes in and
points to both of us and says, "You're on the panel."
We pretty much ignored the topic and talked about horror films in
general. Mark told the story of the interview with Clive Barker where
the interviewer had said there wasn't much plot in _H_e_l_l_r_a_i_s_e_r _I_I and
Barker said that was true, and that himself was really a "plot person,"
but that he didn't think this was a criticism that the director would
mind. Mark's response was that he was also a plot person, and he also
likes the sprocket holes well-punched, but both should go without
saying--it never used to be questioned whether a film had a plot.
Hautala and Meyers both said that the problem with many horror
films today is that they believe the statement that you don't go to see
Van Helsing, you go to see Dracula, without realizing that without the
conflict between the two, you have a pretty dull film. (Mark points out
that Hammer's _B_r_i_d_e_s _o_f _D_r_a_c_u_l_a had Van Helsing, but not Dracula, and
still was successful. Picky, picky!) When someone in the audience said
something about a conflict between good and bad, they said no, it was
between good and evil, which led to a discussion trying to distinguish
between the two. Is one chosen and the other innate? And which is
which? In life we consider someone evil because they choose consciously
to do bad things, but in films we see as evil those who were made that
way by fate, usually by being possessed by some demon or something.
Lately, of course, the villain is likely to be the hero of the film.
People complain about all the little kids dressing up as Freddy, but a
generation ago they were all Dracula and no one minded that. More along
the lines of the villain as hero is _T_h_e _S_i_l_e_n_c_e _o_f _t_h_e _L_a_m_b_s, where you
have the "good psycho" and the "bad psycho," or at least that's how some
people see it.
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 10
In talking about the graphicness in films today, I said that one
reason _T_h_e _S_i_l_e_n_c_e _o_f _t_h_e _L_a_m_b_s worked so well was that it left things
to the viewer's imagination. Meyers and Hautala (who have experience in
Hollywood) said that the reason the films are generally so explicit is
that the producers and directors have no imagination and figure the
watchers don't either. I said that it used to be that people got their
start as directors by doing second unit direction, or acting, but now
they start by doing special effects, so naturally the films end up more
graphic when they get to direct--that's what they know.
Someone asked about the new _T_w_i_l_i_g_h_t _Z_o_n_e and one of the panelists
said that "cocaine destroyed the show." He described a scene where one
of the people in charge of a show was ranting at the crew and the crew
couldn't even figure out what he was ranting about.
Road Runner vs. Wiley Coyote: Decoding the Myth
Sunday, 11 AM
Robert Sacks (mod), C. Curry, Esther Friesner, Nick Pollotta,
David Stephens, Gordon Van Gelder
This panel was inspired by something Mark had said at dinner with
Phil DeParto, Sacks, and others a few months ago, but the scheduling was
such that he couldn't actually be on it. This is unfortunate, as the
room was supposedly packed. (Then again, maybe it's not unfortunate.
Who knows?) Sacks defined what he saw as the relationships of the
characters; then the other panelists got a chance to dispute him. (If
there's anything Sacks generates, it's dispute.) Friesner was quite
vocal about the relationships. One person said that it was a religious
allegory (with the Coyote as Jesus), one said it was everyday-man
struggling to reach the unattainable goal, one said it was big business
(coyote and Acme) versus the little guy, and so on. As Saul Jaffe said
in describing the panel, "There was much silliness."
Freisner also read part of "Chuck Amuck" where Chuck Jones talks
about the characters and Sacks, never shy, said, "He's authoritative but
wrong." (This could lead to a whole argument about whether the author's
intentions count for anything, or whether the author has any special
knowledge.) (The preceding is based on information provided by Saul
Jaffe.)
Miscellaneous
The Green Room was centrally located and had coffee--which I
appreciated, having gotten up early to drive to Connecticut and having
to go on after the last panel for another three hours to my parents'
house in Massachusetts (where we helped my father celebrate his 78th
birthday). While sitting there we got to talk to quite a few people:
David Kyle, Laurie Mann, Darrell Schweitzer (who had several good
suggestions about traveling in Italy), and others. We also had a chance
to see the restaurant guide. S. Lewitt was reading it and said, "Oh,
look, here's a restaurant serving Siam cuisine!" to which her friend
Lunacon 91 March 11, 1991 Page 11
replied, "Yes, you like Thai food." "Oh, is that Thai?" (I gather the
Yale School of Drama doesn't stress geography or even Eastern drama very
much.) We of course immediately decided on the Thai/Siam restaurant for
dinner. When we arrived at 5:30 it was empty. "Do you have
reservations?" "No." So they seated us, we ordered, we ate, we paid,
and we left. In all that time we were the only patrons--obviously most
of the clientele eats later, but why ask if we had reservations? Did
_t_h_e_y have any record of reservations that early? Stamford is also quite
confusing to drive around, with one-way and dead-ending streets just
where they are the least convenient.
GUILTY BY SUSPICION
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Perhaps this is the wrong film on
the right subject. Irwin Winkler could not go too far
wrong having DeNiro play a top director whose career is
ruined by blacklisting, but the film does not go too far
right either, not having sufficient rage to be engaging.
Rating: +1 (-4 to +4).
An artist painting a picture has the option of reproducing exactly
what the eye sees or of distorting reality to reach a deeper truth. The
artist who just reproduces reality may be little more than a human
camera; the artists whom we consider to be great have known how to
distort reality to show a greater truth. It is possible to make a film
about a subject that is realistic and at the same time does a disservice
by being so realistic. Irwin Winkler's _G_u_i_l_t_y _b_y _S_u_s_p_i_c_i_o_n, based on
his own script, is a very realistic and at the same time subdued
portrait of a blacklisted film director. But what is called for is a
howl of rage against the government subversion of the Bill of Rights.
Martin Ritt's _T_h_e _F_r_o_n_t, which starred Woody Allen, does have that
release at its climax. _G_u_i_l_t_y _b_y _S_u_s_p_i_c_i_o_n whimpers its way up to a
modified version of an exchange that actually took place during the
Army-McCarthy Hearings, but it is not nearly as effective as Allen
telling the government to go fuck itself.
_G_u_i_l_t_y _b_y _S_u_s_p_i_c_i_o_n mixes real Hollywood figures such as Darryl
Zanuck with purely fictional ones and ones who are thinly disguised
versions of real actors like cowboy star Jerry Cooper. The story begins
as one of Zanuck's best directors, David Merrill (played by Robert
DeNiro) returns to Hollywood in 1951 after having been in Paris for a
while. However, Hollywood is not the town he remembers. The House Un-
American Activities Committee and the FBI are conducting a witch-hunt to
find Communist sympathizers in the film industry. Careers are being
destroyed and marriages broken up by the paranoia and the government
pressure. David sees the family of a friend destroyed and soon he too
is called upon to explain his attendance at a few meetings of what is
now accused of being a Communist front organization. He is willing to
cooperate until he is required to start by giving names of involved
associates. For refusing to draw others into the net, he finds himself
blacklisted. The project he is working on is canceled and the studio
nearly bankrupts him by insisting he return a $50,000 advance. What
follows is a long and not entirely interesting siege of unemployment
seasoned with FBI harassment. The film builds to his eventual hearing
with HUAC.
Winkler spent a fair amount of the budget recreating the early
1950s, much more than Martin Ritt did, or needed to do, for _T_h_e _F_r_o_n_t.
I thought while watching the film that some of the women's hair styles
were anachronistic, but I could easily be wrong. The period feel was
somehow just missing, as was the dramatic edge of the film. DeNiro's
character is weak and indecisive and spending so much time showing him
not finding work just does not grab the audience the way it could. I
give the film a flat +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.