@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 04/03/92 -- Vol. 10, No. 40
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are on Wednesdays at noon.
LZ meetings are in LZ 2R-158.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
04/22 LZ: WONDERFUL LIFE by Stephen Jay Gould (Science non-fiction as a
source of ideas)
05/13 LZ: ONLY BEGOTTEN DAUGHTER by James Morrow (Books we heard are
very good)
_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.
04/11 SFABC: Science Fiction Association of Bergen County: Nicholas
Jainschigg (artist) (phone 201-933-2724 for details)
(Saturday)
04/18 NJSFS: New Jersey Science Fiction Society: Robert John Betancourt
(phone 201-432-5965 for details) (Saturday)
HO Chair: John Jetzt HO 1E-525 908-834-1563 hocpb!jetzt
LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell HO 1D-505A 908-834-1267 mtuxo!jrrt
MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzy!leeper
HO Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 908-949-7076 homxc!11366ns
LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen LZ 3L-312 908-576-3346 mtfme!lfl
MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzy!leeper
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 908-957-2070 mtgzy!ecl
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. Like most Americans I watch the Oscar awards every year hoping
to see Cher wear something Gawd-awful ugly but see-through. If her
brand of liberation is to wear clothing that would have given
Frederick's of Hollywood second thoughts, I for one will defend her
right to self-expression. I'd probably vote for her in just about
anything she was in, just to see what she will walk on stage
wearing next.
This year the big flap at the Oscars was over Barbra Streisand.
She directed the film _T_h_e _P_r_i_n_c_e _o_f _T_i_d_e_s, which was nominated for
Best Picture. Yet somehow the Academy snubbed her by not
nominating her for Best Director. If her film is nominated for
Best Picture, of course she should get nominated for Best Director.
THE MT VOID Page 2
After all, do they think these films direct themselves? Apparently
a fair number of people agreed with that argument and referred to
it at the microphone, as if getting a film nominated for Best
Picture without getting a nomination for Best Director was some
sort of sexist put-down. Never mind the fact that you really have
one group of people nominating for Best Picture and another group
nominating for Best Director. Now, mathematicians know that
5 - (5 - n ) = n
What does that equation mean? It means you have approximately as
many people being nominated for Best Director whose film does not
get nominated for Best Picture as you have directors with Streisand
Syndrome. This year _B_e_a_u_t_y _a_n_d _t_h_e _B_e_a_s_t and _T_h_e _P_r_i_n_c_e _o_f _T_i_d_e_s
got a Best Picture nomination without a Best Director nomination.
And by an odd coincidence, two is also the number of people who
were nominated for Best Director for films that did not get
nominated for Best Picture. Those snubbed directors were John
Singleton for _B_o_y_z _N _t_h_e _H_o_o_d and Ridley Scott for _T_h_e_l_m_a & _L_o_u_i_s_e.
Unspoken in Streisand's accusation is that it was prejudice that
prompted the Academy to honor these two men and not her. Yet is
has to be a very selective sort of prejudice to honor the director
of _T_h_e_l_m_a & _L_o_u_i_s_e and not Streisand. _T_h_e_l_m_a & _L_o_u_i_s_e was not
generally thought of as being strongly anti-feminist as a picture.
Maybe it was a prejudice to nominate John Singleton in Streisand's
place. Again, it is a selective prejudice since Singleton is black
and also the youngest director ever nominated. We could be talking
about the divide-and-conquer strategy that prompted George Bush to
nominate a conservative Black to the Supreme Court. But that would
require an absurd conspiracy by the directors who voted. (Are you
listening, Oliver Stone?)
At heart the question is, can you have someone be the Best Director
without having the film nominated for Best Picture? Suppose you
were able to make a _H_e_n_r_y _V to rival Branagh's in quality using
actors only from your son's kindergarten class. Now that would be
a real feat of direction, even if you only came close to Best
Picture. That would mean some film would be nominated for Best
Picture but not for Best Director. Even in the ads for _T_h_e _P_r_i_n_c_e
_o_f _T_i_d_e_s they talked about how beloved the book was. The actors
were ones with known box-office drawing power. The technical
credits--if somewhat over-florid--were expert. And it was a little
too obvious that the director was in love with the lead actress.
Given that, it is probably clear that this was candidate for Best
Picture with Best Director nomination.
2. Among the films that Jack Arnold directed are:
IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE (1953)
THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954)
THIS ISLAND EARTH (1954) [co-directed uncredited with Joseph Newman]
REVENGE OF THE CREATURE (1955)
TARANTULA (1955)
SPACE CHILDREN (1957)
THE MT VOID Page 3
THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957)
MONSTER ON THE CAMPUS (1958)
THE MOUSE THAT ROARED (1959)
Arnold really helped to define the 1950s science fiction film.
Reportedly it was not until the late 1980s that Jack Arnold found
out that for years studies of the science fiction film had referred
to "the Jack Arnold science fiction film" as a separate category to
be studied.
Jack Arnold (October 14, 1916 - March 17, 1992)
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
...mtgzy!leeper
It is clear that thought is not free if the profession
of certain opinions make it impossible to earn a living.
-- Bertrand Russell
THE RUNESTONE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1992 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Rent this one for a Friday
night and make some popcorn. There is a monster
loose in New York and its roots are in Norse
mythology. If the plot is less than totally
original, the writing and acting are good and the
cast is impressive. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4).
(Minor spoilers below)
By this point there is little original that can be done with
the stale plot that some myth about a fabled monster has a basis of
truth and the beastie is loose in a modern city. And, of course,
nobody believes that the myth can be true. It was even a weekly
television series, _K_o_l_c_h_a_k: _T_h_e _N_i_g_h_t _S_t_a_l_k_e_r. _T_h_e _R_u_n_e_s_t_o_n_e does
just about the best that can be done. First, it uses a genuine myth
and, at the same time, not a myth that has been over-used. In Norse
mythology the world end sin a battle between Aesir and the powers of
Hel, led by Loki. One of Loki's children was the monster wolf
Fenrir. It was really Fenrir and his wolf-cub children who bring
about Ragnarok, the great icy apocalypse of the world--icy because
one of the wolf-children stole the sun. It is Fenrir who killed and
devoured Odin. Previously Tyr once allowed the gods to capture
Fenrir, but at the cost of his right hand--bitten off by the great
wold. Just what all this has to do with modern-day New York is
rather neatly set up in the plot of _T_h_e _R_u_n_e_s_t_o_n_e.
Willard Carroll directed and wrote the screenplay based on a
novella by Mark E. Rogers. The writing is actually very crisp and
witty without lowering itself to self-satire or camp. These are
several throwaway jokes, some actually quite funny., but the main
plotline is still taken seriously. Because the script is so well-
executed, the producers were able to attract a surprisingly good
cast. Top-billed, though not quite the main character, is Peter
Riegert of _O_s_c_a_r and _C_r_o_s_s_i_n_g _D_e_l_a_n_c_e_y, playing Gregory Fanducci, a
likable sarcastic Italian policeman with a taste for Pez candy.
William Hickey, who played the aging godfather in _P_r_i_z_z_i'_s _H_o_n_o_r,
has a decent-sized role as an eccentric expert in Norse mythology
who tries to straddle the old gods' world and the modern world.
Alexander Godunov plays a clockmaker with mystical ties to the old
world. And at the center of all the activity is Joan Severance,
playing young artist Marla Stewart.
I do not know if this film has had a theatrical release. After
seeing a positive review I rented it on tape. Like last year's
_W_a_r_l_o_c_k, this is not a great film, but it is certainly a fun film.
Great for a Friday night watch after a hard week. I give it a high
+1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
REMAKING HISTORY by Kim Stanley Robinson
Tor, 1991, ISBN 0-312-85126-X, $18.95
A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1992 Evelyn C. Leeper
Ghod, I love Robinson's work!
Okay, everyone who was just looking for a thumbs up or down
vote now knows where I stand on this collection, so I feel free ti
discuss the stories at somewhat greater length.
_R_e_m_a_k_i_n_g _H_i_s_t_o_r_y is the title of the collection, the title of
one of the stories, and the book's theme as well, with several of
the stories embodying that theme.
"'A History of the Twentieth Century, with Illustrations'"
(originally published in 1991), "Remaking History" (1989), "Vinland
the Dream" (1991), "Muir on Shasta" (1991), and "A Sensitive
Dependence on Initial Conditions" (1991) all look backward at
history, not forward to the future as SF (usually meaning "science
fiction") is expected to do. Yet they're all SF ("speculative
fiction") in their own way.
The title story, "Remaking History," is a straightforward
alternate history: what if the Iran hostage rescue had succeeded?
But even here, in what is the first of these stories that Robinson
wrote (or at any rate published), history is examined on multiple
levels: what did happen, what might have happened, how what happened
is portrayed in the media, and so on. These are ideas Robinson will
return to over and over. The interlocking of events, how one thing
leads to another and the slightest coincidences can change history,
are themes that Robinson here begins to explore.
"Muir on Shasta" would appear to be an historical fiction about
John Muir. Yet Robinson gives it a mysticism in Muir's visions of
past and future that makes it something more, while at the same time
slipping in a subtle reminder that we are often unable to interpret
correctly what we see--how much more difficult to interpret things
second-hand.
"Vinland the Dream" is a perfect pairing with "Remaking
History"--it's about remaking history. What if all the evidence of
Norse exploration in Canada and elsewhere in North America had been
faked by someone in the early 1800s? What if he _h_a_d "remade
history"? In "Vinland the Dream" some archaeologists discover the
truth, making them sort of Schliemanns in reverse, turning fact into
myth. What motive would the hoaxer have? Was he just a practical
joker or a Norse chauvinist, or was he trying to give us dreams? In
both "Vinland the Dream" and "Remaking History." Robinson looks at
Remaking History March 25, 1992 Page 2
how our perceptions of history give direction to our lives.
"A Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions" is not a short
story--it's not fiction at all (though everyone seems to refer to it
as such). In this essay, Robinson trys to use the conceits of
physics to describe and understand history. Certainly the
application of chaos theory (to which the title refers) to history
is not new, but I think Robinson's use of the wave-versus-particle
duality from physics to embody the Great-Man-versus-historical-
materialism duality in history is a new and original approach to
this ongoing debate. The only parts of "A Sensitive Dependence on
Initial Conditions" that might be construed as fiction are
Robinson's many scenarios for how Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have
turned out differently, and how those changes might have affected
the future, and so on. The twists and turns that Robinson draws
give the reader a glimpse of how complicated it all is: a writer of
alternate histories can pick one scenario and make it sound
reasonable, even inevitable, but Robinson shows how many different
paths are possible and helps demonstrate Niven's contention that
alternate history is just too easy to write.
"'A History of the Twentieth Century, with Illustrations'" puts
into practice, if you will, a lot of what Robinson explores in the
first three stories I mentioned. A historian is trying to put
together a book that is "A History of the Twentieth Century, with
Illustrations," and as part of that is trying to make sense of the
century and of the feeling of one man in 1902 who said, "I believe
Man is good. I believe that we stand at the dawn of a century that
will be more peaceful and prosperous than any in history."
Robinson's Frank Churchill tries to reconcile that with the millions
of war dead, measured--in a series of powerful images--as how many
Vietnam memorials they would fill: one every six weeks for World War
I (which lasted 220 weeks in all), a hundred and twenty for the Jews
killed in the Holocaust, and so on. Most of Robinson's readers will
remember Vietnam; this takes their image of a horrifying big war and
shows them how small it was in comparison to the rest of the
century. Again, our perceptions of history are shown to be flawed;
our lives are shaped by myths rather than realities. Only by
returning to a simpler era can Churchill find some understanding,
but also some humility: we are no longer "Man," but simply "man."
"The Part of Us That Loves" is an up-to-date look at the Gospel
stories of Jesus's miracles in a town which seems oddly stuck in the
1950s. In spite of that (or maybe because of it--it gives the story
a sort of "soft-focus" feel that reinforces the theme), Robinson
conveys a strong message. What the message is--aye, there's the
rub. To the mystic, it would be that the age of miracles is not
past, or has come again; to the secular humanist, it may be that we
make our own miracles. Given Robinson's attractions to the
ambiguities of history, I don't doubt for a moment that this
ambiguity is intentional. This story also marks a return to the
Remaking History March 25, 1992 Page 3
musical theme that Robinson had in such earlier works as "In
Pierson's Orchestra" and "Coming Back to Dixieland," both from the
1976 _O_r_b_i_t _1_8.
_R_e_m_a_k_i_n_g _H_i_s_t_o_r_y also contains what is described on the dust
jacket as "Robinson's controversial South African sequence, 'Down
and Out in the Year 2000,' 'Our Town,' 'A Transect,' and 'The
Lunatics.'" What makes these a South African sequence escapes me.
The first seems to be a straightforward "our cities are going to
hell" look at the future--well-done, but having no discernible
connection to South Africa. The second is set in Tunisia. The
third is set in Montreal and South Africa through a most peculiar
space-warp. But then one might expect that of a story titled "The
Transect." It seemed similar in some vague undefinable way to
Michael Bishop's "Apartheid, Superstrings, and Mordecai Thubana." I
doubt either copied the other; Robinson's is from 1987, Bishop's
from 1990 (I believe), but it's probably one of those odd
coincidences. Then again, maybe I see a resemblance where no one
else does. It wouldn't be the first time. ("Mark, doesn't that
look like so-and-so?" "No.") "The Lunatics" is also connected to
South Africa, not by being set there, but by being a parable of what
might happen there (though recent events seem to make it less
likely). Robinson takes some very traditional science fiction
trappings and does some very modern things with them.
The five remaining stories form no special "cycle." "The
Translator" is a basic science fiction tale of a human negotiating
between two aliens with the "aid" of a mechanical translator. One
wonders if this 1990 story didn't serve as partial inspiration for
_S_t_a_r _T_r_e_k: _T_h_e _N_e_x_t _G_e_n_e_r_a_t_i_o_n's "Darmok" (first broadcast in
September 1991)--both have to do with coping with languages having
very different structures. ("Doesn't that look like ....?" "No.")
In "Before I Wake" humanity is stricken by a malady that prevents a
person from staying awake for more than a very short period at a
time, and how it changes us. "Rainbow Bridge" is a coming-of-age
story involving environmental concerns and Navaho mysticism.
"Glacier" is a sort of slice-of-life story about the return of the
glaciers; Robinson does it competently, but it has been done before.
And finally, "Zurich" is about one man's (internal evidence suggests
a man rather than a woman, though it is never stated) attempt to
outdo the Swiss at cleanliness. But I detect in this a certain
mean-spiritedness against the Swiss (as contrasted with the South
American musician, for example) that makes the story almost
unpleasant to read. It seems to be attacking an entire people--for
being too clean, no less!--and as such not at all typical of the
sensitivity and humanity most of Robinson's other works shows.
In spite of this one small disappointment (even Jove nods, as
they say), I _h_i_g_h_l_y recommend this collection.
A DOG IS LISTENING by Roger A. Caras
Simon & Schuster (Summit), 1992, ISBN 0-671-70249-1, $20.
A book review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1992 Mark R. Leeper
I grew up with a dachshund with whom I was very close. Over
the years I have given considerable thought to dog psychology in
general and to the intelligence of my dog in particular. My own
conclusion is that a dog's mind is very much like a human mind.
Most of the differences are morphological. That is, suppose a baby
was born with a good brain but physically deformed to be shaped like
a dog. You would have a human brain and mind in a dog's body. My
suspicion is that the resulting creature would grow up
indistinguishable from a bright but not exceptional dog. A cat's
mind is, I think, very different from a human's mind; a dog has a
very human-like brain using and coping with a different-shaped body.
One more conclusion of my own: anyone who tells you they have a dog
who believes himself to be human is a very poor observer of canine
behavior. Dogs may not think in those terms, but they know dogs and
humans are different.
The jacket of Roger Caras's _A _D_o_g _I_s _L_i_s_t_e_n_i_n_g (subtitled "The
Way Some of Our Closest Friends View Us") claims Caras has written
over fifty books on animals, including _A _C_a_t _I_s _W_a_t_c_h_i_n_g. This is
sort of an obvious followup to that book. Caras's style is
informal, perhaps too much so for my taste. His book is indexed but
has no chapter titles and no table of contents. His style is chatty
and anecdotal. He digresses far too easily from what would seem to
be his chapter's topic, though with no titles who can tell? There
are lots of photographs and drawings (historical and new) of dogs,
some captioned and some not. Some have bearing on the surrounding
text, though his choice of illustrations is often enigmatic. I am
not a formality freak, but there are good reasons for chapter titles
in order to let the reader know what is going to be discussed. I
want to know what Caras's conclusions are about canine behavior and
what brought him to these conclusions. Some of it is there ... sort
of ... if you can find it.
Caras starts with an introduction telling about his farm and
the wide variety of animals he has collected. Caras introduces the
reader to his whole family because they will be showing up anecdotes
later.
Chapter one starts with an explanation of the domestication of
the dog fifteen to twenty-five thousand years ago. Then somehow he
jumps to a canine pack behavior of intolerance to pups born
different, and ends talking about how when there is a stranger on
the farm different dogs will bark for different reasons--some to
brag that they heard first, some to be part of the meeting.
Dog Is Listening March 23, 1992 Page 2
There is then a chapter on each of the five senses that humans
share with dogs. It will come as little surprise to most readers
that a dog's hearing and sense of smell are far more acute than a
human's. Humans hear up to about 40,000 cycles per second. By some
estimates, dogs hear up to 100,000 cycles per second. This is very
near to constituting a different sense entirely. Perhaps we will
never know what information is carried in those ranges and that we
are missing. Caras ascribes to hearing the acute discomfort that
dogs feel in electrical storms. Caras illustrates his discussion
with stories of dogs he has known jumping through plate glass
windows in thunderstorms. One of his dogs actually ran into another
state to escape the noise of Caras shooting a gun as target
practice. (Caras makes clear that his shooting is limited to
inanimate objects and that he neither would nor could shoot at an
animal.)
Again in sight dogs have it all over us, at least for range of
vision. With peripheral vision we see a wedge of about 120 degrees;
dog's eyes are more to the side and, depending on if we have bred
for flatness of face or not, can see a wedge 230 degrees. We have
the edge on color perception. Dogs can see very subdued colors.
(Caras does not discuss this, but up until relatively recently it
was assumed that dogs were completely color-blind, based on
anatomical studies. We see colors with the cones of our eyes; they
have no cones. Ergo, they are color-blind. Behavioral studies
recently have shown, however, that somehow dogs do have some limited
color perception.) Connected with sight comes an uncanny knowledge
of ballistics. They can tell where a thrown object will fall or
where precisely it will pass by them. Caras confuses his dogs
throwing helium balloons.
Next comes the dog's super-sense, the sense of smell. There is
no good metric on how much better a dog detects smells.
Anatomically, a dog just has a lot more capacity and a dog's sense
of smell is obviously dozens of times more acute, as well as the
dog's having a nose that gives directional smelling. Dogs can pick
up a scent as weak as one particle per trillion. We get used to a
smell and stop noticing it; dogs apparently do not filter out a
smell in this way. One bloodhound of record once followed a scent
for 114 miles. Still, there are some strong scents like manure or
skunk that a dog does seem to like.
Related to scent is taste. Dogs evolved to hating bitter as a
sort of warning. They like sweet and salty tastes. They are not
fond of hot flavors like jalapenos or odd flavors like peppermint.
These again are defense mechanisms. Beyond that, _t_e _g_u_s_t_i_b_u_s. One
dog of note liked kosher dill pickles.
Much of the chapter on touch is about where dogs like to be
scratched. Caras thinks that a dog likes to have his chest
scratched because--at least in the male--that part gets rubbed
Dog Is Listening March 23, 1992 Page 3
during sex. Similarly, scratching behind the ears simulates
foreplay. Cuddling is a holdover from the dog mother's care.
Dogs and some other animals have another sensory organ humans
lack. It's called the vomero-nasal area or the Jacobson's organ.
Caras suggests the sense is a sort of "air-tasting." It appears to
be another chemical receptor like smelling or tasting. We can only
guess at what it is telling the dog. Caras discusses sensory feats
of dogs that go beyond what we can perceive. Possibly there is
magnetic field detection. Dogs appear to detect impending
earthquakes. One woman prone to violent seizures of several types
can lead a much more normal life because her dog somehow detects a
seizure coming on before the woman herself is aware of it. The dog
pushes her to a bed to cushion her pending fall.
Next comes a section that is generally on dog's emotions.
Included is the story of Greyfriar's Bobby. Caras talks about a
poodle who got a nail polish treatment and insisted on showing her
nails to all the human guests at a party. Caras ascribes this to a
sense of humor in the dog.
I could not relate well to the next section. Caras argues that
dogs actually think rather than just have a set of conditioned
responses. Apparently he thinks that there is some belief in the
scientific community that a dog's actions are all very mechanical.
I guess that deep down you cannot falsify that assertion, but then
you could make the same assertion about any human but yourself. It
is fairly clear to me that dogs reason. An anecdote at this point
tells of a bloodhound Caras had who was a loving parent. But when
his daughter, a puppy of eight months, appeared to be about to growl
and snap at Caras's mother-in-law, the hound bounded across the room
and knocked his own daughter into a refrigerator, nearly knocking
her out. The puppy learned a lesson and did not growl at humans
again. Apparently the father bloodhound saw a nasty incident
brewing and pre-empted it.
Caras concludes with sections on the evolution of the dog from
its Jurassic ancestors to the present and a discussion of the
various breeds. About the only real interest here is the odd fact
that on the evolutionary tree canines and ursines are very close and
had a relatively recent ancestor: bears and dogs are close
relatives.
Overall Caras's style is a bit too chatty and while he does
have something to say about the "canine condition," he never really
comes to grips with his subtitle and tells us how dogs view humans.