@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
         @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
         @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
         @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
         @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 12/04/92 -- Vol. 11, No. 23


       MEETINGS UPCOMING:

       Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are on Wednesdays at noon.

         _D_A_T_E                    _T_O_P_I_C

       12/09  HO: A FIRE ON THE DEEP by Vernor Vinge (HO 4N-509)
       12/30  Location TBA: The Best of 1992 (room TBA)

         _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.
       12/12  SFABC: Science Fiction Association of Bergen County: TBA
                       (phone 201-933-2724 for details) (Saturday)
       12/19  NJSFS: New Jersey Science Fiction Society: TBA
                       (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 hocpb!jrrt
       MT Chair:     Mark Leeper       MT 3D-441  908-957-5619 mtgzfs3!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 mtgzfs3!leeper
       Factotum:     Evelyn Leeper     MT 1F-329  908-957-2070 mtgzy!ecl
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       1. Our next discussion book is _A  _F_i_r_e  _U_p_o_n  _t_h_e  _D_e_e_p  by  Vernor
       Vinge, of which Dale Skran says:

       Vernor Vinge, one of the little heralded great pioneers  of  modern
       SF,  returns  after  a  long  hiatus  with  a  sweeping  tale of an
       unlikely, even impossible future.  He creates a  gimmick  to  allow
       him  to write the kind of "super-science" stories he likes to read-
       -the Slow Zone.  In some twisted fashion, the center of the  galaxy
       inhibits thought, both human and electronic, as well as faster than
       light travel, which is apparently tied in some complex  fashion  to
       thought  itself.   This  gimmick  is  similar  to that used by Poul
       Anderson in _B_r_a_i_n _W_a_v_e, but with some significant differences.

       In  the  "Unthinking  Deeps"  no  civilization  can   arise;   real
       intelligence  is  simply  impossible.   Woe  betide  the ships that
       wander here!  In the "Slow Zone" thought is possible,  as  well  as
       simple  computers,  but  faster  than  light travel is not.  In the











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 2



       "Beyond," computers and minds work much better,  and  "ultra-drive"
       works.   Finally,  in  the  "Transcend,"  it is possible to achieve
       transcendence and vanish from the ken of lesser beings.

       On this canvas Vinge spins a tale of pack-intelligences and  little
       boys,  of a woman who survived the murder of billions and a man who
       was godshatter, of a Power who learned  too  late  that  there  are
       always  the greater and the lessor, of a hollowed-eyed crew lusting
       for vengeance the heroism of the tool of an ancient  evil,  and  of
       the  courage  of a young girl.  By showing us this unlikely caravan
       of miracles, Vinge is reminding us of just how strange the universe
       may  yet  be!   There  are  even  those,  such a Roger Penrose (_T_h_e
       _E_m_p_e_r_o_r'_s _N_e_w _M_i_n_d), who believe that thought and consciousness may
       have  a  quantum  mechanical  component.   And  if  it  did,  is it
       impossible that the subtle twisting of spacetime by the black  hole
       at  the  center of the galaxy might, just might have some effect on
       thought--human and machine?  [-dls]

       2. Every once in a while I  like  to  take  different  hare-brained
       scientific  speculations  and  see  if  they  fit together.  Let me
       bounce this one off you and see if anybody has a comment.  A  while
       back  I  observed  that  flying  seems  to  be  an almost universal
       fascination with humans.  It gets manifested in different ways with
       different people, but a majority of the world's population exhibits
       some fascination with flight.   It  doesn't  have  to  be  aircraft
       enthusiasm,  though  that  counts.   Some  people like to dabble in
       paper airplanes, some in hot air balloons.   Some  people  like  to
       watch  birds  or  bats or insects in flight.  Kites are popular all
       over much of the world.  Pretty  much  anyone  like  to  play  with
       helium balloons and lots like to build models of aircraft.  We make
       folk heroes of Superman, Peter Pan,  Steve  Canyon,  Mighty  Mouse,
       Captain  Midnight,  Flash  Gordon, Buck Rogers, and Spaceman Spiff.
       Earlier I suggested that this inbred fascination with flight was  a
       rebellion  against  being  able to see in three dimensions but walk
       only in two, but maybe that's not true.  Maybe  we  think  so  much
       about  flight  because  our  bodies are equipped for it.  Maybe for
       part of our development  as  a  species  we  _c_o_u_l_d  move  in  three
       dimensions and now somehow miss it.

       Am I suggesting that at some point in human  evolution  we  were  a
       primate who could fly?  Wells, perhaps.  Did we have feathers?  No.
       But take a look at how you do look and act  differently  from  most
       primates.  We are not covered with hair like other primates, though
       if you look at Alec Baldwin's chest (or my father's) you  see  some
       have  not  lost  it entirely.  But most of us are covered with only
       very sparse hair.  Our most common sex position is  front-to-front,
       while  other  primates  do  it front-to-back.  And we have elevated
       intelligence.   These  characteristics  are  unusual   among   land
       mammals.,  but  are  actually  common  among  aquatic mammals.  The
       theory has been suggested that at some point in our development  we
       were aquatic apes.











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 3



       The concept of aquatic apes sounds strange at first, but of  course
       so does that of aquatic lizards.  And we did see aquatic lizards in
       the Galapagos.   It  has  been  seriously  suggested  by  reputable
       scientists  (how  should  I  know  who?  I heard this quite a while
       back!) that what sets humans apart from other primates is  that  we
       spent some time developing in water.

       Now let's tie the two ideas together.  Could it be that the  reason
       the  dream of flight is so widespread is that it is a lost facility
       to move about in three dimensions?  Aquatic animals do have a  form
       of  flight.   They do move in three dimensions.  The medium just is
       not air.  They glide about--over and under  each  other--in  water.
       Whales,  porpoises,  and  otters  glide  very  gracefully  in three
       dimensions.  It is an  experience  for  which  we  could  still  be
       prepared psychologically, but physically it might be impossible.

       What do you folks think?  I'll listen to  arguments  that  I'm  all
       wet.


                                          Mark Leeper
                                          MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
                                           ...mtgzfs3!leeper




            The multitude of books is making us ignorant.
                                          -- Voltaire





































                                     ALADDIN
                         A film review by Mark R. Leeper
                          Copyright 1992 Mark R. Leeper



                 Capsule review:  Good animation but an otherwise
            very bad non-telling of the story of Aladdin and the
            wonderful lamp.  The story has little to do with the
            Arabian Nights tale and even that story keeps being
            derailed by Robin Williams's much too topical humor.
            This film is many cuts below _B_e_a_u_t_y _a_n_d _t_h_e _B_e_a_s_t.
            Rating: 0 (-4 to +4).

            I am not a great fan of the animated versions of fairy tales
       and, in this case, Arabian Nights tales, as produced by Disney
       Studios.  I frankly questioned that proclivity when I saw _B_e_a_u_t_y _a_n_d
       _t_h_e _B_e_a_s_t just about a year ago.  It seemed to me at that point
       Disney (the studio, not the man) had learned how to tell a story
       with complexity and one that worked on multiple levels.  _B_e_a_u_t_y _a_n_d
       _t_h_e _B_e_a_s_t, it seemed to me, was a film that said something about the
       human condition.  Now the same company makes _A_l_a_d_d_i_n.  Is it as good
       as _B_e_a_u_t_y?  Try asking if it is even as good as _T_h_e _L_i_t_t_l_e _M_e_r_m_a_i_d.
       This one is a solid disappointment.

            Let us start with the story.  I think we all know the story of
       Aladdin, right?  Good.  Will somebody tell it to the good folks at
       Disney, please.  Disney is often less than faithful to source
       material.  In this case perhaps one or two scenes of the story made
       it to the film.  The screenplay by Ron Clements and John Musker (who
       also produced and directed) in fact is almost a reasonable version
       of the modern story "The Thief of Baghdad."  The setting has been
       moved from China to Arabia for reasons best know to Clements and
       Musker.  In this version Aladdin falls in love with the princess of
       Aqaba and sets out to win her.  Even telling that story would not
       have been a bad idea, but the film goes desperately wrong with its
       use of Robin Williams as the genie of the lamp.  When the genie is
       on the screen we go from the usual timeless story-telling to a bunch
       of topical allusions that may be amusing on first viewing, but will
       not be a second time.  Williams lampoons Arnold Schwarzenegger,
       William F. Buckley, Jack Nicholson, Robert DeNiro, Groucho Marx, and
       a host of other celebrities.  Williams totally derails any style
       that the film has been able to build up.  The story-telling often
       just stops dead as Williams does his thing or the film goes off into
       slapstick.

            At least there is something positive to say about the art and
       animation, some of which is actually quite nice.  There is a cave
       whose mouth is the head of a tiger that is both well drawn and well
       animated.  Backgrounds are intentionally blurred and then focused
       sharply to shift the eye of the viewer and give a feeling of depth.
       There is a very nice sequence involving a rolling cylinder--I will
       not describe how it fits into the plot. The animation is sufficient
       but the extremely uneven tone and the almost total lack of fidelity
       to the story make this a lesser effort from Disney.  My rating is 0
       on the -4 to +4 scale.










                                    MALCOLM X
                         A film review by Mark R. Leeper
                          Copyright 1992 Mark R. Leeper



                 Capsule review:  Spike Lee has brought _T_h_e
            _A_u_t_o_b_i_o_g_r_a_p_h_y _o_f _M_a_l_c_o_l_m _X to the screen in a film of
            large virtues and large faults.  We get some feel for
            the sweep of historic events and a feel for how
            Malcolm's views were transformed over time, but we
            get insufficient views of his beliefs at any point in
            time, nor which set of his beliefs the film is
            championing when it champions him.  Rating: +1 (-4 to
            +4).

            Spike Lee's _M_a_l_c_o_l_m _X is a mammoth 201-minute film about the
       black Islamic leader that may not always be doing what Lee intended
       it to do.  The film does say a lot about Malcolm, both positive and
       negative, but not nearly as much as one would expect for a film
       almost twice the length of most feature films.  The film tells in
       approximately equal thirds about 1) his youth and his drift into
       crime; 2) his "redemption" and his association with the Nation of
       Islam; and 3) his break with the Nation of Islam, their campaign
       against him, and his murder, very likely at their hands.  This
       should have given the audience a very good understanding of the man,
       but the screenplay by Arnold Perl and Spike Lee does not use its
       time well.  At one point it stops the action dead for an extended
       dance production number.  It also spends far too much time with
       Malcolm X's great good buddy, Shorty, who just happens to be played
       by Spike Lee.  In addition, many of the events shown in the film are
       of questionable authenticity.  For example, my understanding is that
       Malcolm's mother denies that her husband was murdered, unlike how it
       was shown in the film.

            The film opens with Malcolm's youth.  Malcolm (played by Denzel
       Washington) begins as a teenager trying to straighten his hair with
       the help of Shorty.  The film then jumps around in time, never
       giving us a really good feel for what years things are taking place.
       We see something of his earlier youth with his family harassed by
       the Ku Klux Klan.  Those scenes include one amazing shot that
       ironically seems to romanticize the Klan, riding off into a huge
       moon on the horizon.  Again it is a sign that Lee is not fully in
       control of this film.  Malcolm eventually moves first to Boston,
       then New York, then Boston again, embarking on a life of crime cut
       short by a prison sentence.

            In prison, Malcolm is recruited by Baines (played by Albert
       Hall) for the Nation of Islam.  Malcolm is impressed by Baines's
       questionable rhetoric.  (His description of why Muslims eat no pork
       is a real corker!  As for his claims that Islam has a great in-built











       Malcolm X                November 29, 1992                    Page 2



       respect for blacks as people...  am I the only person who remembers
       there was a huge Arab slave trade in Africa even well after slavery
       was abolished in Europe and the Americas?  In fact, I believe that
       the reason Swahili is still so widespread in Africa is that it was
       the language created from Bantu and Arabic for the Arab slave trade.
       That fact just does not seem to square with a large black movement
       to champion Islam.)  Malcolm leaves prison with an abiding belief in
       Elijah Muhammad--very well-played by Al Freeman, Jr., who played
       Malcolm X in _R_o_o_t_s _I_I--and in the precept that all whites are
       devils.

            The film than covers Malcolm's rise to and fall from power in
       Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam.  Here it becomes unclear exactly
       what the film's attitude toward the Nation of Islam is.  While
       Malcolm appears in some ways to be doing very positive things, he
       behaves and presents his viewpoints very differently in front of
       blacks than in front of whites.  Lee seems to be attacking the
       Nation of Islam for hypocrisy.  Eventually when Malcolm starts
       presenting the same vitriolic message to the whites that he was
       giving to the blacks, it starts the rift between Malcolm and the
       Nation of Islam.  It may be hard for much of the audience to cheer
       statements like, "The Earth belongs to us ... the black man," or
       banners that say, "We must protect our most valuable
       property ... our women."  Malcolm also rejects integration entirely
       in favor of complete separation between the black and white races.

            In the final third of the film, Malcolm's views shift entirely.
       He is no longer an advocate of racial separation, but of racial
       harmony through Islam.  He is willing to accept that there may be
       good whites in the world, as long as they are also good Muslims.  He
       is no longer willing to follow Elijah Muhammad and founds his own
       rival Muslim black sect.  This leads to the tragic events of which
       the audience is probably already aware.

            The film concludes by showing documentary footage of the real
       Malcolm X.  Often historical films shy away from showing documentary
       footage of characters they have portrayed by actors.  Perhaps it is
       to avoid confusion about if it is indeed the same person.  Or
       perhaps showing the footage would be inviting criticism of how well
       or badly the actor was made to look like the actual person.  Lee's
       use of real footage of Malcolm X shows that assumption may well be
       underestimating the audience.  After the footage, several black
       celebrities are seen wearing caps bearing the "X," though it is not
       clear which set of Malcolm X's sets of beliefs they are claiming to
       espouse.

            The performances in _M_a_l_c_o_l_m _X are generally quite good.  Denzel
       Washington very quickly becomes Malcolm X for the audience.  Al
       Freeman, Jr., is very believable as the founder of a huge movement.
       Angela Bassett and Lonette McKee are both very moving as Malcolm's
       wife and mother, respectively.  Only notably out of place is Spike











       Malcolm X                November 29, 1992                    Page 3



       Lee himself playing basically the same jazzy character he played in
       _S_h_e'_s _G_o_t_t_a _H_a_v_e _I_t, or comically fainting on hearing his prison
       sentence.  There is much he could have cut from the film to actually
       improve its effectiveness and his own performance heads the list.

            _M_a_l_c_o_l_m _X teaches some history and presents some ideas, but
       does neither well enough to justify its length and hoopla.  Lee's
       dream project falls short of some of the films he made preparing for
       it.  I rate _M_a_l_c_o_l_m _X a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.

























































          THE COLLECTED STORIES OF ROBERT SILVERBERG, VOLUME 1: SECRET SHARERS
                   Bantam Spectra, ISBN 0-553-37068-5, 1992, $12.50.
                           A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
                            Copyright 1992 Evelyn C. Leeper



               The title of this volume would lead the reader to expect
          stories from Silverberg's early period, but in fact they are from
          between November 1981 and September 1988.  Even the previous
          collection, _T_h_e _C_o_n_g_l_o_m_e_r_o_i_d _C_o_c_k_t_a_i_l _P_a_r_t_y (1984), consists
          entirely of post-1980 works.  So I have no idea why this is labeled
          "Volume 1."  (The fact that the introduction is dated over two years
          ago, and the page headers are incorrect for a few pages around page
          330 make me wonder even more about the history of this book.)

               Still, it has twenty-four pieces of Robert Silverberg's short
          fiction (short stories, novelettes, and novellas), including several
          award winners and nominees.  Though it omits "Gilgamesh in the
          Outback" (already included in _T_o _t_h_e _L_a_n_d _o_f _t_h_e _L_i_v_i_n_g), it
          includes "Sailing to Byzantium"; "Enter a Soldier, Later: Enter
          Another"; and "A Sleep and a Forgetting."  I see no point in giving
          a detailed review of each story--they're by Silverberg and
          Silverberg hasn't written a bad story in years--certainly not since
          he was turning them out two a week, and possibly not even then.
          Here you have two dozen previously uncollected Silverberg stories
          for fifty cents each--what more could you ask for?  Highly
          recommended.






































                          SPEAKING IN TONGUES by Ian McDonald
                    Bantam Spectra, ISBN 0-553-29239-0, 1992, $4.99.
                           A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
                            Copyright 1992 Evelyn C. Leeper



               Since this is a Bantam Spectra book, I suppose it goes without
          saying that McDonald's inspirations are not those writers of
          "Campbellian workmanlike prose" who appeared in the old _A_s_t_o_u_n_d_i_n_gs,
          but rather such sources as Yeats and Joyce.  The result is stories
          that focus more on style and language than on plot or hard science
          fiction ideas.  McDonald also uses the Third World ambiance of
          "cyberpunk."  His stories don't take place in New York or London or
          Amsterdam--they are about Hy Brazyl and Dahomy and Penang and
          Nairobi.  Not that all this is bad, but you should know what you're
          getting.

               "Gardenias," for example, is about the use of a matter
          transmitter to achieve a new spiritual plane.  The matter
          transmitter makes the story sound like hard science fiction, but
          McDonald is writing atmosphere, not technical details.  The neo-
          Latin world is more fully realized than the device.  The same is
          true of the dry desert world of "Rainmaker Cometh," the isolated
          world of "Listen," the 1930s Germany of "Fragments of an Analysis of
          a Case of Hysteria," the Caribbean world of "Atomic Avenue," even
          the Borgesian hyperbolic world of "Approaching Perpendicular."

               Only in a few stories does the plot overcome the background to
          stand out.  In "Floating Dogs," enhanced animals fulfill their
          destiny in carrying out the designs of their creators.  In "Fronds,"
          we see the clash of species in conflict--the advancement of one will
          cause the death of another.  Ironically, even though this has the
          strongest plot, it may be the weakest story, because the plot--even
          to its use of dolphins as another sentient species--is by now
          familiar to most readers.  And "Winning," another plot-oriented
          story (or perhaps character-oriented), just made me think, "I've
          seen all this in a movie.  An Academy-Award-winning movie, true, but
          still...."

               "Toward Kilimanjaro" is the best example of McDonald's
          strengths and weaknesses.  When he is putting the reader in the
          encroaching plastic jungle, he is excellent; when he gets into the
          specifics of what is happening, he falters badly.  Is this new life
          form indigenous or alien?  McDonald wants it both ways.  And it is
          impossible for biological entities to develop wheels (see Stephen
          Jay Gould's essay "Kingdoms Without Wheels" in _H_e_n'_s _T_e_e_t_h _a_n_d
          _H_o_r_s_e'_s _T_o_e_s).

               Still, McDonald's skills as a stylist overcome the flaws and
          familiarities in plot that he occasionally falls into.  _S_p_e_a_k_i_n_g _i_n











          Speaking in Tongues      November 28, 1992                    Page 2



          _T_o_n_g_u_e_s is not for everyone, but for those pursuing the literary
          branch of science fiction and fantasy, this is recommended.

               (I must make one minor complaint against Bantam: they chose to
          use the book title for the page header rather than the individual
          story titles.  This makes it impossible to flip through to find a
          particular story--most annoying.)