@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/04/91 -- Vol. 10, No. 14
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
10/09 LZ: THE QUIET POOLS by Michael Kube-McDowell (Hugo nominee)
10/30 LZ: MINDBRIDGE by Joe Haldeman
11/13 MT: THE RED MAGICIAN by Lisa Goldstein (Jewish SF)
11/20 LZ: EON by Greg Bear
12/11 LZ: MIRKHEIM by Poul Anderson
12/18 MT: "The Star" by Arthur C. Clarke (Christian SF)
_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.
10/12 Autographing: Margaret Bonanno, Michael Friedman, Janet Kagan
(B. Dalton, Willowbrook Mall, Wayne, 1-5 PM) (Sat)
10/12 SFABC: Science Fiction Association of Bergen County:
(phone 201-933-2724 for details) (Saturday)
10/29 Readings: Michael Flynn and two other authors TBA
(Barnes & Noble, Route 17, Paramus, 7:30 PM) (Tue)
11/09 Autographing: Ellen Datlow, Janet Kagan, Ellen Kushner,
Melissa Scott, Jack Womack (B. Dalton, Willowbrook
Mall, Wayne, 1-5 PM) (Sat)
10/19 NJSFS: New Jersey Science Fiction Society: TBA
(phone 201-432-5965 for details) (Saturday)
HO Chair: John Jetzt HO 1E-525 834-1563 hocpb!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: Rebecca Schoenfeld HO 2K-430 949-6122 homxb!btfsd
LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen LZ 3L-312 576-3346 mtunq!lfl
MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 957-5619 mtgzy!leeper
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 957-2070 mtgzy!ecl
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. The next book discussion is in Lincroft on Wednesday, October
9, and will be on Michael Kube-McDowell's _T_h_e _Q_u_i_e_t _P_o_o_l_s. The
book is set about a hundred and fifty years in the future (though
the chronological clues are to some extent contradictory), and
deals with humanity's plan to send off huge starships--starships
THE MT VOID Page 2
with 10,000 people on each one. Now everyone is happy with this,
of course, and the examination of the motivations behind the plan
and the opposition to it form the backbone of this novel. Inter-
woven with this is a study of some major changes in human
relationships which have taken place since our time as well, and
though the combination may sound unlikely, it does work. This was
my choice for the Hugo this year. [-ecl]
2. When I was growing up I was fascinated with golems and dybbuks-
-two fantasy fixtures of Jewish folklore. A golem is a clay statue
brought to life to act as a servant, if it can be controlled. Mary
Shelley's _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n was inspired by golem stories. A dybbuk is
a possessing spirit, the soul of a dead person that obstinately
holds on to and controls the living. Both golems and dybbuks have
appeared in film. We are showing at the next Leeperhouse fest the
best-known films on each of these themes. On Thursday, October 10,
at 7 PM we will show THE GOLEM and THE DYBBUK.
THE GOLEM (1920) dir. by Paul Wegener and Carl Boese
THE DYBBUK (1939) dir. by Michal Waszynski
THE GOLEM is a classic and respected fantasy film from the German
Expressionist movement--the movement that resulted from THE CABINET
OF DR. CALIGARI and was a strong influence on horror films of the
1930s in the United States. Paul Wegener plays the clay giant
created as a defender but who gets out of control. At one point
this film was reasonable easy to find and often was shown in film
series. As time passes, however, it is becoming harder to find, as
are many other European silent films.
And since World War II, THE DYBBUK has been impossible to find.
Two years ago it was restored and shown around the country in a
limited distribution. I saw it in New York and was very impressed.
My review appears elsewhere in this issue.
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 957-5619
...mtgzy!leeper
It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to
think with the masses or majority, merely because the
majority is the majority. Truth does not change because
it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
-- Guido Bruno
THE DYBBUK
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Paydirt! A Yiddish film made
in Poland in 1938 turns out to be a little-known gem.
The film lacks a lot of what we might consider high
production values, but besides being an unintentional
artifact of the culture of Eastern European Jewry
wiped out in the Holocaust, it also turns out to be a
haunting horror film that deserves to be seen by all
fans of 1920s and 1930s horror films. At least one
sequence, a grotesque dance, ranks this film up with
some of the best of German Expressionism. Rating:
+3.
Watching the 1938 Polish-made Yiddish film _T_h_e _D_y_b_b_u_k, one is
only too aware that the film is flawed. Much of the acting is
exaggerated as it would be in a silent film. Some of the
photography seems poor, as well as some of the editing. At least
once the film cuts from a quiet scene to a loud scene and the sudden
sound causes the audience to jump. It is true, however, that in
retrospect most of the faults seem hard to remember. The strongest
memories of the film are beautiful images, some haunting and
horrifying. And while taken individually many of the scenes were
less effective for me than they may have been for _T_h_e _D_y_b_b_u_k's
intended audience, this is a great mystical horror film, perhaps one
of the better horror films of the 1930s.
[Spoilers follow, though as with a Shakespeare play, one does
not see _T_h_e _D_y_b_b_u_k for plot surprises.]
Sender and Nisn have been very close friends since their
student days. Now they see each other only on holidays. To cement
the bond of their friendship they vow that if their respective first
children--each expected soon--are of opposite sexes then they will
arrange a marriage of the two children. Sure enough, Sender has a
daughter Leyele, though he loses his wife in childbirth. Nisn has a
son, Khonnon, though an accident claims Nisn's life before he can
even see his new son or conclude his arrangement to marry Khonnon to
Leyele.
Years later Khonnon, now a Talmudic scholar, meets Leyele and
they fall in love. Neither knows about the vow they would be
married and Sender does not know whose son Khonnon is. The intense
Khonnon is already considering giving up his study of the Talmud to
study Kabalah, the great book of mystical knowledge and magic.
Sender three times tries to arrange a marriage with a rich but
rather sheepish young man. Twice the plans fail and Khonnon
Dybbuk September 17, 1989 Page 2
believes his magic has averted the arrangement. The third time,
however, an agreement is reached. Khonnon calls upon dark forces to
help him but is consumed by his own spell and found dead. The day
of Leyele's marriage--in fact, during the marriage ceremony itself-
-Khonnon's spirit returns from the grave as a _d_y_b_b_u_k, a possessing
demon, and takes over the body of the woman he was denied. Leyele
is taken to a great and pious Rabbi, now nearing the end of his life
and torn with self-doubts, who alone may have the knowledge to
remove the demon.
If some of this smacks of William Peter Blatty, it should be
remembered that this is a 1938 film based on a pre-World-War-I play.
_T_h_e _D_y_b_b_u_k by S. Anski (a pen name for Shloyme Zanvl Rappoport),
along with _T_h_e _G_o_l_e_m by H. Leivick (a pen name for Leivick Halper),
are perhaps the two best remembered (and most commonly translated)
plays of the great Yiddish Theater. While Yiddish folklore has many
_d_y_b_b_u_k and _g_o_l_e_m stories, and the play _T_h_e _G_o_l_e_m was based on an
actual legend ("The Golem of Prague"), _T_h_e _D_y_b_b_u_k was an original
story involving a legendary type of demon. The film retells the
story of the play, but remains very different. Other than plot
there is not much of the play carried over into the film.
All too commonly constraints of budget and even what appears
now to be inappropriate style rob some scenes of their effect. Much
of the acting is exaggerated in ways that might have been more
appropriate to silent film or to the stage. In fact, in some ways
this feels like an entire film done in a style much like the early,
good scenes of the 1930 _D_r_a_c_u_l_a. Director Michal Waszynski could
well be excused on the grounds that he was making the film for a
very different audience. However, just occasionally, a scene will
be really supremely well done. The best sequence of the film is
when Leyele, just before her marriage, is called upon to dance with
the poor of the town, as is traditional. Leyele is reluctant and
the dance turns into a grotesquery culminating with Leyele dancing
with a figure of death. The film is a showcase for Yiddish songs,
cantorial singing, and dancing, both traditional and modern. Much
seems out of place, but this one dance creates one of the most eerie
and effective horror scenes of its decade.
_T_h_e _D_y_b_b_u_k stands as more than a good horror film. It is also
an artifact of pre-Holocaust Yiddish film and of Eastern European
Jewish village life. Curiously, for a Yiddish film some of the
stereotypes that appear could be interpreted as being anti-Semitic.
We see a miser with exaggerated Jewish features counting and
recounting his coins. We see what is intended to be a great Rabbi
looking pompous, fat, sloppy, and apparently lazy. Why a Yiddish
film would have such images is open to question. Still, it is a
pity that this film is not better known. It deserves to be thought
of as a major film of its decade. I rate it +3 on the -4 to +4
scale. Congratulations to the National Center for Jewish Film for
restoring this film.
RAMBLING ROSE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Lightweight memoir of a boy
growing up in the mid-1930's Georgia and of the
commotion caused by hiring a former "loose woman" to
do housework. Well filmed and to nobody's surprise
Robert Duvall turns in a terrific performance as the
father of the household. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4).
[minor spoilers in the review]
"She caused one hell of a damnable commotion," says a middle-
aged Buddy (played by John Heard) recalling the young woman who came
to live with his family when he was 13. The story of that commotion
is told in a golden-toned flashback that makes up all but about five
minutes of the film. The "she" he is referring to is Rose (played
by Laura Dern). In a small Georgia town in the mid 1930s, a younger
Buddy (played by Lucas Haas) has a crush on Rose. His daddy (played
by Robert Duvall) has hired Rose to save her from a life of
prostitution. But Daddy has no idea how much Rose is going to
disrupt his well-ordered existence.
That well-ordered existence includes three precocious children,
Buddy being the oldest, and a wife who is working on her Master's
degree from Columbia. In talking, Mother tends to go off on
philosophical tangents and Daddy calls that "going off into the
fourth dimension." Mother takes a maternal interest in this new
hired girl. Mother is played, incidentally, by Dern's real-life
mother, Diane Ladd. The ruckus is caused by the fact that Rose just
exudes and radiates sexuality. Both Daddy and Buddy are attracted
to her. At this point one is really expecting the cliche of
Southern gentility being a thin veneer over decadence. This film
flirts with that cliche, but generally seems to say that underneath
that gentility is just more gentility. Or perhaps it is just
Mother's good example. Mother seems to have a sensitivity to the
feelings of all living things with the possible exception of her own
children. Daddy and Buddy are fascinated by Rose's sensuality and
in one memorable scene watch from a distance as Rose walks around
town attracting men. Later this quality of attraction will cause
what may be more trouble than it is worth.
Robert Duvall is in all probability the best American actor
alive. This might have been a pleasant enough film without his
contribution, but it would have not been nearly as good. His
gestures and his very posture are unfailingly perfect. Lines that
could have been just straight flat dialogue become witty or very
telling when Duvall delivers them. Laura Dern is not a great
actress but she has the right look for Rose. She has a feral
Rambling Rose September 28, 1991 Page 2
sensuality that makes her attractive without being pretty balance
that is just about right for Rose. The late Kevin Conway plays a
Northern doctor with his accustomed slightly sinister edge. The one
bad piece of casting is John Heard as the 1971 Buddy. He must look
49, speak with a Southern accent, and look like Lucas Haas. I
usually like John Heard but he fails on all three counts.
_R_a_m_b_l_i_n_g _R_o_s_e is not a great film. Though at times it reminds
one of other childhood reminiscences of the South such as _T_o _K_i_l_l _a
_M_o_c_k_i_n_g_b_i_r_d and _T_h_e _H_e_a_r_t _I_s _a _L_o_n_e_l_y _H_u_n_t_e_r, it has little of the
power and does not really have a whole lot to say, But it is an
enjoyable film and is well above the general run of films of the
last few months. I would give it a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Chicon V 1991
Con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Evelyn C. Leeper
(Part 3 of 4)
Panel: SSSSeeeellllffff----PPPPuuuubbbblllliiiisssshhhhiiiinnnngggg,,,, EEEElllleeeeccccttttrrrroooonnnniiiicccc PPPPuuuubbbblllliiiisssshhhhiiiinnnngggg aaaannnndddd AAAAllllllll TTTThhhhaaaatttt SSSSccccaaaarrrryyyy SSSSttttuuuuffffffff
Saturday, 4 PM
C. Jones (mod), Mike Bentley, Brad Foster, Ann Marie O'Connell,
Andrew Porter, Brad Ross, Mike Ward
In the "Science Fiction and the Prophet" panel, someone observed
the tendency of assuming everyone in a particular culture was the same-
-and how this assumption was wrong. Well, this panel proved that
assuming all self-publishers are alike is a mistake also. Foster
produced art books. Porter produced a semi-prozine. Ward was working
on a project to provide public-domain books to libraries on compact
disk. Each had different constraints, different budgets, and so on.
Now that public libraries will rent users a Macintosh with a
compact disk drive, the question of equipment is at once easier and more
complex. On the one hand, you don't have to invest in a lot of
equipment before you get started. On the other, you do need to decide
whether to rent or buy, a decision once reserved for houses. In making
this decision you might bear in mind what one panelist said: it's
cheaper to buy the computer and the drive and transmit the publication
electronically than to print up _o_r to ship the paper. If you need
camera-ready copy, that's easy as well. Even if you produce compact
disks, you can save substantially. Of course, the recipient has the
choice (dilemma?) of reading from the compact disk on the screen or of
printing and binding the output. Still, the compact disk medium has
extended possibilities. Consider a compact disk that had text and
music. (Ursula K. Le Guin's _A_l_w_a_y_s _C_o_m_i_n_g _H_o_m_e tried this, but had to
do it by boxing a book and a cassette together.)
Networking has its disadvantages and pitfalls to the unwary, of
course. For example, Porter says people keep asking him to upload
_S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n _C_h_r_o_n_i_c_l_e, because then they could "get it for free"--
clearly not what Porter has in mind. I merely observed that the next
time he wrote that he had to raise the subscription price because the
postage rates were going up, he should remember that if he could
transmit _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n _C_h_r_o_n_i_c_l_e electronically and get people to pay
for it, he could charge less and make the same net profit (no pun
intended)--in fact, he could charge less and make _m_o_r_e profit.
But this "Heroic Age of Information Retrieval" (as Ward termed it,
since he sees us as brave trail-blazers inventing from scratch the tools
that this new age will need) has some limitations which may not be
apparent to anyone still marveling over the recent reconstruction of the
unpublished Dead Sea scrolls from the published concordance. For one
thing, you could always publish just about anything, even with just a
Chicon V September 1, 1991 Page 2
typewriter and a copier; it's distribution that's the bottleneck. There
is some improvement in this area; electronic bulletin boards let you
reach a larger, more focused group than ever before. But the major
limitation is skill, or as Ross summed it up, "If you can't figure out
how to do it with paper and pencil, you can't do it with a Mac either."
Masquerade
Saturday, 8:30 PM
The enormous line snaking through the Hyatt shortly before the
initially scheduled starting time convinced us to watch the Masquerade
over the closed circuit television in our room--or rather, in a friend's
room, as our television reception was not very good. Going up, we
discovered that the Con staff already had elevator monitors
(a.k.a. "elevator Nazis") in place to make sure that everyone got to use
the elevator in their proper turn. (This usually includes making
everyone exit on the first floor, so that people can't get into a down
elevator on the second floor and then stay in to go up, basically
cutting in front of everyone else.) When I mentioned the monitors to
Mark, his comment was, "We control the vertical--up! We control the
vertical--down!" (_O_u_t_e_r _L_i_m_i_t_s fans will get the joke.) Because of
this, I decided to walk from our room on the tenth floor up to our
friend's room on the nineteenth (stopping briefly at the Readercon party
on the 16th on the way) rather than try to fight any crowds.
The Masquerade was initially scheduled to start at 8:30 PM, but
this was changed at some point to 9 PM (though I don't recall seeing
much advertising of that fact). The Children's Masquerade (the first
part of the Masquerade as a whole) actually started at 9:20 PM, followed
by a ten-minute intermission at 9:30 PM, followed by the presentation of
the certificates for the Children's Masquerade. Mike Resnick as Master
of Ceremonies did his best to fill all the blank time, but having the
actual Masquerade start so late did not bode well.
Because we were in our room, we didn't get Masquerade programs, so
I don't know how many entries there were. We had seen thirty-six by
11:20 PM, when we gave up and headed out for the parties; the first
run-through didn't finish until after midnight (Constellation, anyone?).
One thing that made it take so long was that everyone felt obliged to do
a skit or have some sort of dramatic reading. The entry "Cats," in
fact, was closer to a music video than a costume. Mark described this
sort of thing last year as "costuming for the visually impaired." I
yearn for a Masquerade in which there is no sound system other than the
Master of Ceremonies' microphone and dramatic readings consist of the
costume name, costume origin, and participants' names.
The costumes were better than last year's (not all that difficult,
I admit) and formed a mixed bag. Some were very good, others very bad
(large people can look good, but a costume that leaves them half-naked
is usually not the best approach--and as someone pointed out, "Nudity is
Chicon V September 1, 1991 Page 3
not a costume"), and some just strange. There was a very well crafted
costume which was Egyptian from the neck up, Japanese from the neck
down, and titled "Medea." Mark looked at it and spoke the thought
uppermost in all our minds: "What the fuck is this?"
After the first run-through, there was the usual intermission for
the judges to farble. There was a professional comic for about forty
minutes, but then Resnick, who had been told he might have three or four
minutes to fill, found himself filling more like forty, while the judges
farbled some more. Eventually, the agony was over. However, I can't
report the results, because a full list of winners was never published
in the newsletter, but "Octopus' Garden" won three awards, including
People's Choice and Best of Show. The Judges' Choice was "The Lover of
Mirrors."
At the ConFrancisco party someone said, "The Masquerade staff
stormed into Program Ops [this morning] and demanded they cancel two
sections of ballroom programming so they could do a run-through," to
which my immediate response was, "I've seen no evidence of that so far
this evening." And indeed, the technical problems were legion: bad
sound, bad lighting, bad color transmission, bad timing, ....
We also went to the @ party, where we spent a couple of hours
talking to people. I spent most of my time in the back room talking to
Cliff Stoll. This was his first convention and I was curious what he
thought of it. He thought it was "interesting" (a word that covers a
multitude of sins). In particular, he found it quite a change from
technical conferences in that when someone asked a question at a talk or
panel, it could be a speech rather than a question, and it didn't always
have anything to do with the topic at hand. I got the impression he was
not going to become a regular con-goer. _T_h_e _C_u_c_k_o_o'_s _E_g_g has been
optioned for a movie, but Stoll and the script writer are arguing about
how accurate it should be. For a change, the script writer is pushing
for more accuracy and Stoll wants to see it changed to liven it up.
Don't worry, Cliff, that will come in time.
Kimi Tipton did a great job with the party. Thanks, Kimi! (Except
she never did publish the list of attendees, or their comments.)
Panel: BBBBooooooookkkkssss----MMMMoooovvvviiiieeeessss----BBBBooooooookkkkssss
Sunday, 10 AM
George R. R. Martin (mod), B. Froman, Thorarinn Gunnarsson,
Mark Leeper, Craig Miller, Richard Meyers, Melinda Snodgrass
Official Description: (none)
In addition to the scheduled moderator not being present, this
panel was on a table split in the center by a large podium and there was
only one microphone. Even with a volunteer to pass the microphone
around this obstruction, there were serious logistical problems.
Chicon V September 1, 1991 Page 4
The proposition put forth at the beginning of this panel was that
most movies adapted from books are not very good. This proposition led
people to speak more in defense of adaptations than usual. For example,
someone pointed out that _A _C_l_o_c_k_w_o_r_k _O_r_a_n_g_e was a good movie, even
though it was very different from the book. On the other hand, Martin
said that while "_B_l_a_d_e_r_u_n_n_e_r turned Philip K. Dick over a few times,
... _T_o_t_a_l _R_e_c_a_l_l made it a blur."
Leeper got his turn at the microphone and, knowing once he
relinquished it to the far end of the table he would never see it again,
gave a list of films (with comments) that he said were at least as good
as the sources that inspired them: _T_h_e _D_a_y _t_h_e _E_a_r_t_h _S_t_o_o_d _S_t_i_l_l,
_C_a_r_r_i_e, _T_h_e _P_r_i_m_e _o_f _M_i_s_s _J_e_a_n _B_r_o_d_i_e, _H_i_g_h _N_o_o_n, _T_h_e _M_a_n _W_h_o _S_h_o_t
_L_i_b_e_r_t_y _V_a_l_a_n_c_e, and _T_h_e _M_a_l_t_e_s_e _F_a_l_c_o_n (though Meyers disagrees on the
last). Other people named a few more: _J_a_w_s, _P_s_y_c_h_o, _D_a_n_g_e_r_o_u_s _L_i_a_i_s_o_n_s.
Of course, there were many more examples of good books gone bad,
but it was pointed out that panels such as these often went wrong by
slamming the method by which books are made into movies. This may be of
some interest, but the real question is whether the _r_e_s_u_l_t (the movie)
is good or bad. Gunnarsson also noted that on panels such as these,
people praise the writers and criticize the directors because it's the
writers who are attending the convention.
Looking at the flip side, I asked why Hollywood so often produces a
novelization of a movie that was based on a book to begin with. The
primary reason, it seems, is that there have usually been enough changes
to the original story that they want to have a book that is close to the
movie. Why? Because people want a "paper videocassette," as one
panelist put it. Sometimes this can lead to quite unusual results: when
_T_h_e _I_s_l_a_n_d _o_f _D_r. _M_o_r_e_a_u came out, one company re-issued the original
novel at the same time it issued the novelization. But this need to
have the book match the film is certainly one of the motivating forces
behind such novelizations as _B_l_a_d_e_r_u_n_n_e_r, which was almost totally
unlike _D_o _A_n_d_r_o_i_d_s _D_r_e_a_m _o_f _E_l_e_c_t_r_i_c _S_h_e_e_p?
Then there are the times that the novelization is actually co-
written with the movie: Orson Scott Card's _T_h_e _A_b_y_s_s, Isaac Asimov's
_F_a_n_t_a_s_t_i_c _V_o_y_a_g_e, Fritz Leiber's _T_a_r_z_a_n _a_n_d _t_h_e _V_a_l_l_e_y _o_f _G_o_l_d, Ellery
Queen's _A _S_t_u_d_y _i_n _T_e_r_r_o_r. (Someone accidentally pronounced _A_b_y_s_s as _A
_B_r_i_s, leading another panelist to say, "Yes, that was the shorter
version.")
Sometimes the marketing department makes strange demands. Before
the film _D_i_c_k _T_r_a_c_y came out, the makers didn't want anyone to know the
identity of the killer. So the first printing of the novelization had
no ending. Only after the film was released and the second printing
came out was the killer revealed in the book.
Writing a novelization may sound easy--after all, you have all the
dialogue, so you just need to fill in a bit here and there, maybe add
Chicon V September 1, 1991 Page 5
some descriptions, right? Well, that's what Simon Hawke thought, but
Snodgrass and Martin told the story of how he discovered his error.
Hawke was called to do the novelization for _F_r_i_d_a_y _t_h_e _1_3_t_h: _P_a_r_t _6. He
had never done one before, but the money was good, so he figured he'd
have an easy time of it. How long did he have? One week. This did
sound a bit tight, but he plunged bravely ahead: "Sure, send the
script." So he got the script and started looking for the dialogue he
would be writing around. And he found:
(Close-up, hockey mask)
(Cut to medium shot of Suzie, running)
(Cut to close-up of axe, gleaming)
(Cut to close-up shot of Suzie, screaming)
(Cut to medium shot of Jason, running)
and so on ... well, you get the idea. Anyway, Hawke realized he was in
trouble, so he called back and asked whether he could add some
characterization or something. "Characterization? Sure, I guess so."
So Hawke did in fact manage to produce a novelization, but Martin wanted
the audience to know that 1) any characterization in it was from Hawke
and not from the movie, and 2) it's not as easy as it looks.
By the way, currently there are two versions of _T_h_e _P_u_p_p_e_t _M_a_s_t_e_r_s
going forward, one moderately faithful to the book and the other wildly
divergent, because the people in charge can't decide which they like
better.
After this, I was going to go to another panel, but instead got
involved in a conversation with Connie Willis, Martha Soukup, and
another fan. I told Willis that after I read "Cibola" I happened to go
into New York City at sunset and saw for the first time what she
described (though I'm sure I had "seen" it before, if you catch my
drift). She said that that was part of science fiction: making people
see the same things differently. She also talked about her work a bit--
she enjoys the humor she writes, but that isn't what she works the
hardest at. She also said that it's amazing what will offend some
people: she had physicists who were offended by "At the Rialto" and a
dinosaur story she wrote was rejected because it might offend
paleontologists. (At least I think that was she, though in the back of
my mind a voice is telling me I might be confusing this with something
Robert Silverberg said in one of his panels.)
I mentioned to Soukup that I tried to find her story to read for
the Hugo ballot, but given that _A_m_a_z_i_n_g was subscription only (at least
at that time) there were no copies to be found. She handed me a
photocopy and said that a lot of people had said the same thing. I
suppose that it got nominated means that among its readership it made a
stronger than average impression, since its starting readership was
smaller than for most other stories.
Chicon V September 1, 1991 Page 6
Panel: SSSSmmmmaaaallllllll PPPPrrrreeeessssssss IIIIssssssssuuuueeeessss
Sunday, 12 noon
Greg Ketter (mod), Chris Edwards, Robert Garcia, Andrew Kyle,
Andrew Porter, J. Simner, Mark Ziesing
Official Description: (none)
The first thing said was that the term "small press" is relative:
in England Mark Ziesing would be a major publisher. An attempt to
define "small press" met with little success, and even trying to list
some characteristics of a small press were unsuccessful. For example,
one person claimed that small press books were more expensive. Perhaps
sometimes this is true, but Mark Zeising's books at US$25 are just about
the same as hardbacks from large presses, and Pulphouse's "Author's
Choice" series of trade paperback collections at US$4.95 matches
standard mass-market prices and is _c_h_e_a_p_e_r than other trade paperbacks.
And certainly styles differ: the panel felt there was a world of
difference between the laid-back style of Zeising and the frenetic
approach of Darrell Schweitzer (whose standard greeting is "Can I sell
you one of my books?"). One panelist ventured a guess that Schweitzer
makes more than 50% of his sales through personal contact.
Discussions of the role of the small press were more productive.
Zeising like to publish books for authors he likes and books he believes
in. Since he needs to pick and choose and work closely with an author,
he sees no need to be a masochist and work with people he doesn't like.
Greg Ketter was mentioned as working to bring Lafferty back into print
(is this United Mythologies?). Some small presses do specialize in one
or two authors: Arkham House with H. P. Lovecraft, Underwood-Miller with
Jack Vance. This approach helps build up sales, and other publishers
have used limited editions of big-name authors to do likewise.
Desktop publishing has been a big help to small presses, but
distribution is still a problem. (Much of this panel runs together in
my mind with the panel on "Self-Publishing, Electronic Publishing and
All That Scary Stuff," so forgive me if I have mixed some of the ideas.
As you can imagine, many of the concerns were similar.) Dick Witter's
F&SF Book Company helped a lot in getting small press items out to the
specialty stores, and now small presses are using the comic book
distribution network as well. Collection problems abound though, and
every panelist had some horror story about a distributor that left him
or her in the lurch.
In spite of their vested interest in the small press world, the
panelists said that beginning authors should set their sights high.
(Even those involved in the small press magazine market said this.)
"Start at the top," they said, "and don't be afraid of the marketplace."
Ted Chiang did. He sold his first story, "Tower of Babylon" to _O_m_n_i and
it went on to win a Nebula and get nominated for a Hugo, whereas if he
had sent it to _F_r_e_d'_s _M_i_n_i_z_i_n_e it would never have been seen by most
people.
Chicon V September 1, 1991 Page 7
Some small press magazines "graduate" into the larger press. Fred
Clarke's _C_i_n_e_f_a_n_t_a_s_t_i_q_u_e five years ago had newsstand sales of 20,000;
now it sells 40,000 on the newsstands. (And when Mark and I started
reading it, back with issue #1, it had considerably less!) But he was
able to do this by having a considerable cash buffer before he went to a
distributor, because it takes several months for the cash to start
flowing back. In addition, the average return rate for newsstands is
70% (I suspect for something like _C_i_n_e_f_a_n_t_a_s_t_i_q_u_e it's lower). The only
reason that newsstand distribution pays off is that it generates
subscriptions. In fact, only five magazines make a profit on their
newsstand distribution: _T_V _G_u_i_d_e, _P_l_a_y_b_o_y, _P_e_n_t_h_o_u_s_e, _T_h_e _W_e_e_k_l_y _W_o_r_l_d
_N_e_w_s, and something else. (Initially the panelist just gave the number.
I asked which ones and got the response I indicated, but I have this
feeling that "five" may not be accurate either. Let's just say few
manage to turn a profit on the newsstand.)
Just as Brad Ross had said earlier that technical tools won't help
you if you don't have the know-how, Kyle observed that "just because
you're wearing a white smock and carrying a knife doesn't make you a
surgeon." Just because you're producing _s_o_m_e_t_h_i_n_g does not make you a
small press publisher.
Panel: WWWWhhhhaaaatttt''''ssss tttthhhheeee DDDDiiiiffffffffeeeerrrreeeennnncccceeee BBBBeeeettttwwwweeeeeeeennnn MMMMaaaaggggiiiiccccaaaallll RRRReeeeaaaalllliiiissssmmmm aaaannnndddd FFFFaaaannnnttttaaaassssyyyy????
Sunday, 2 PM
Eric Van (mod), Michael Kandel, Mary Rosenblum, Mary Zambreno
Official Description: (none)
Any good panel discussing the difference between two terms would
start by defining their terms. In this case, it was (as someone once
described something) "like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall." (Well,
actually, I doubt that he or she spoke the part, but one can't be too
careful these days.) The panelists never tried to define fantasy,
assuming that the audience had at least some idea of what it was, and
also assuming (correctly, I think) that since many people consider
magical realism a subset of fantasy the real question was "What is
magical realism?"
Van quoted Darrell Schweitzer as having said, "Magical realism was
invented by academicians who don't want to use the 'F' word." Van also
quoted David Hartwell as claiming that the academic definition was that
magical realism was fiction that was Latin American, that was political
in nature, and that had Christian symbolism. I immediately had a
problem with this--defining a type of fiction as having to come from a
particular area seems like a bad start. And indeed many of the authors
cited as magical realists were not Latin American: John Crowley, Italo
Calvino, Mark Helprin, Jose Saramago (who is Portuguese, not Latin
American), included Thomas Pynchon, Philip K. Dick, and William
S. Burroughs. I mentioned Isaac Bashevis Singer, pointing out that he
wasn't Latin American and didn't use Christian symbolism, but certainly
_f_e_l_t like a magical realist. And there were individual works from other
Chicon V September 1, 1991 Page 8
non-Latin-American authors: Michael Kandel's _I_n _B_e_t_w_e_e_n _D_r_a_g_o_n_s, Pat
Murphy's _F_a_l_l_i_n_g _W_o_m_a_n (well, it does have a Latin American setting),
James Morrow's _O_n_l_y _B_e_g_o_t_t_e_n _D_a_u_g_h_t_e_r, W. P. Kinsella's _S_h_o_e_l_e_s_s _J_o_e,
Jorge Amado's _D_o_n_a _F_l_o_r _a_n_d _H_e_r _T_w_o _H_u_s_b_a_n_d_s (Amado is Latin American),
John Fowles's _T_h_e _M_a_g_u_s, and Orson Scott Card's "Prentice Alvin" books.
Films cited were _E_r_a_s_e_r_h_e_a_d and _T_w_i_n _P_e_a_k_s.
One suggestion was that magical realists put more stress on the
human condition than fantasists do, but this sounds a lot like the old
"If it's good it can't be science fiction" argument dressed up in
fantasy clothes. Another proposal was that magical realism showed some
magic thing coming into the world and it was good rather than evil. A
modification of this was that there was something magic that people just
accepted; the "magic-ness" wasn't the focus of the novel. (In Kafka's
_M_e_t_a_m_o_r_p_h_o_s_i_s, people don't spend a lot of time marveling about how
Samsoe changed into a cockroach--they just accept it and go from there.
For that matter, is all this dividing up really worthwhile? Where, for
example, does one put Kafka?) But the latter point seems to be
connected with the use of Christian symbolism, since Christianity is
concerned with faith and belief. Another aspect was magical realism's
"sense of place," also notably present in the current crop of "urban
fantasy" novels.
A more practical approach--and possibly every bit as valid--is that
magical realism is anything marketed with a white binding, the top third
of the front cover white with black lettering, and a picture of a jungle
on it. While this reduces magical realism to a marketing category
rather than a genre, it is at least a workable definition.
Someone observed that some people need fantasy to make something
interesting, and some don't--fantasy is _n_o_t an acquired taste. (I'm not
sure how this fit into the discussion, but it's interesting
nonetheless.)
Zambreno may have suggested the best answer: magical realists know
that _a_l_l novels are fantasy; fantasy writers don't.
(To be continued)