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

Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 02/19/93 -- Vol. 11, No. 34

MEETINGS UPCOMING:

Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Holmdel 4N-509
Wednesdays at noon.

_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C

03/10 WEST OF EDEN by Harry Harrison (Primitive Humans Vs.
Alternatively-Evolved Bio-Tech-Advanced Reptiles)
03/31 STEEL BEACH by John Varley (Near-Future Uptopias--
Or Are They?)
03/31 Deadline for Hugo Nominations
04/21 ARISTOI by Walter Jon Williams
(If This--AI, Virtual Reality, Nanotech--Goes On)
05/12 THOMAS THE RHYMER by Ellen Kushner (Fantasy in a Modern Vein)
06/02 WORLD AT THE END OF TIME by Frederik Pohl
(Modern Stapledonian Fiction)
06/23 CONSIDER PHLEBAS by Iain Banks
(Space Opera with a Knife Twist)
07/14 SIGHT OF PROTEUS by Charles Sheffield (Human Metamorphosis)

Outside events:
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the second
Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call 201-933-2724 for
details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society meets on the third
Saturday of every month in Belleville; call 201-432-5965 for details.

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 quartet!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. With this issue we inaugurate a new sort of review. We have
reviewed films, TV, books, and other miscellaneous manifestations
of science fiction in the public media in the past but until now we
have missed one of the biggees. We have not talked a lot about
science fiction in postage stamps.

THE MT VOID Page 2

Now until recently science fiction did not show up a whole lot in
postage stamps. In my opinion there was a lot of fantasy and more
than a little horror, but not much science fiction. Then the Post
Office Department started selling envelopes with built-in stamps
that were a hologram of a spaceship and a space station. Now that
the Elvis stamp was a big success they have decided to go more to
the popular media for stamp subject. Yes, soon we may have a
postage stamp celebrating the nuptials of Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm.
But for now they have a five stamp panorama--a sort of pentatych--
showing a scene out of a Buck Rogers style future. They call it
"Space Fantasy." It cost $5.80 for a book of four strips of 5 $.29
stamps each. Correspondent Bill Higgins wrote Evelyn and me about
the stamps:
Perhaps you and Mark can explain the story this little mural
is telling. There is a fleet of green pointy ships and a
fleet of red zucchini-shaped ships, but they don't seem to be
shooting at each other or anything. [I think we are at a
sort of a cross-roads. It is sort of like you get cars going
in different directions on the L.A. Freeway and they only
sometimes shoot at each other.--mrl] And where are those
domed cities, or shopping malls, going? [It looks like they
are going generally upward.--mrl]

The astronomical details are puzzling, too. Why is the sky
the color of tomato juice? [For artistic effect! If we knew
if this was night or morning we would know if the sky is a
good sign or a bad sign. --mrl] I count fifteen or maybe
sixteen spherical worlds in the pictures. All are crescent-
lit by the white star in the center stamp.

There two people (?) in spacesuits, silhouetted against the
big white star, yet we can clearly see colors and details of
their costumes-- therefore they must be lit by a source much
brighter than the star, coming more or less from the
direction of our point of view. But the source can't be
*too* bright or we wouldn't see crescent planets, we would
see full planets. The same light source would seem to be
shining on most of the spaceships. I suppose this could be a
moderately bright source close to us and the ships but
distant from most of the planets. On the three biggest
planets, we can see detail in their shadowed parts (i.e., not
in the crescent), which supports this theory.

Technology: All the vehicles appear to have rocket plumes
coming out the back. But what kind of rockets are they
using? The exhaust colors are distinct for each kind of ship
in view: blue, chartreuse, orange, pink, turquoise, and
yellow.

I hope you can clear up some of these mysteries. [Sure I
can. It is all a fantasy. And after all, isn't it the
thought that counts?--mrl]

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

KINGDOMS OF THE WALL by Robert Silverberg
Bantam Spectra, ISBN 0-553-09309-6, 1993, $22.95.
A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Evelyn C. Leeper

If it seems as if this is a reworking of Silverberg's own _T_h_e
_F_a_c_e _o_f _t_h_e _W_a_t_e_r_s--a journey across an alien world to seek God--
that's because to a large extent it is. In _T_h_e _F_a_c_e _o_f _t_h_e _W_a_t_e_r_s,
it's humans traveling across an ocean world; in _K_i_n_g_d_o_m_s _o_f _t_h_e _W_a_l_l
it's aliens climbing the Wall, an enormous mountain set atop a
series of cliffs. It's true that in _T_h_e _F_a_c_e _o_f _t_h_e _W_a_t_e_r_s the
pilgrims are pilgrims by necessity, while in _K_i_n_g_d_o_m_s _o_f _t_h_e _W_a_l_l
they are pilgrims by choice. And this distinction does change the
main focus of the story from survival to the quest for ... what? Is
it a quest for knowledge or a quest for something greater than
oneself? The pilgrims of _K_i_n_g_d_o_m_s _o_f _t_h_e _W_a_l_l are climbing to meet
the gods, who live at the top of the Wall. But some go merely as
worshippers, while others see themselves in more Promethean terms.
The question being examined is not just the purpose of the climb,
but of life itself.

Silverberg has chosen to make his pilgrims aliens--not a
primitive people who are supposedly alien, but who are, nonetheless,
human in their biology and motivation--but a race who are _n_o_t human,
whose biology is very different than our own. I was happy to see
this change from the usual approach, but disappointed in what
Silverberg used it for. Or, more precisely, I was disappointed that
it wasn't this way purely for its own sake. I was also disappointed
that Silverberg felt it necessary to spell out the "lesson of the
Wall" rather than allow the reader to derive it him- or herself from
the story.

If you've already read _T_h_e _F_a_c_e _o_f _t_h_e _W_a_t_e_r_s, this will
probably seem just a reworking of that in a different setting with a
few changes (somewhat like _S_o_m_m_e_r_s_b_y is to _T_h_e _R_e_t_u_r_n _o_f _M_a_r_t_i_n
_G_u_e_r_r_e). Of the two, I would say _K_i_n_g_d_o_m_s _o_f _t_h_e _W_a_l_l is marginally
better.

THE SEVENTH BULLET by Daniel D. Victor
St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0-312-08291-6, 1992, $17.95.
A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Evelyn C. Leeper

Three points stick out in this account of Sherlock Holmes's
investigation of the murder of journalist David Graham Phillips.
One, Victor has been heavily by the JFK conspiracy theories. Two,
Victor telegraphs his ending. Three, Victor desperately needs a
1912 calendar.

To take the last first, Victor has Watson say he first met
Mrs. Carolyn Frevert on Friday, March 13, 1912. Other days and
dates are in sync with this. But in 1912, March 13 was a Wednesday.
That the year is 1912 is obvious from many other statements in the
book, as is the fact that it is March. And Victor/Watson makes a
point of saying it was a Friday the 13th. Very sloppy. The same
carelessness, or perhaps artlessness, is evident when the resolution
of it all becomes obvious about three-quarters of the way through
the book.

And without giving too much away, I have to say that the facts
of the case seem to bear no small resemblance to some of the claims
regarding the Kennedy assassination. Mysterious bullets, incomplete
autopsy results, and more make me think that Victor patterned the
Phillips assassination at least in part after one fifty years later.
And Holmes doesn't so much solve the crime as have large pieces of
the solution handed to him. (Phillips, by the way, was a real
journalist who really wrote the works attributed to him in this book
and really was assassinated in 1912. It is _p_o_s_s_i_b_l_e that all the
similarities to the Kennedy assassination are real, but I doubt it.)

On the plus side, Victor manages the characterization of Holmes
and Watson fairly well and writes a narrative in the correct
Watsonian style. Except for one slip into a Britishism by an
American character, he handles the differences between the two
nationalities and makes them distinct. The use of Theodore
Roosevelt as a character is perhaps gratuitous--I am of the school
that believes Sherlock Holmes can be interesting even if he doesn't
meet Freud or Dracula or Theodore Roosevelt--but it's not enought to
detract seriously from the novel.

On the whole, this is a fairly lightweight entry, but still a
pleasant way to pass an evening.

Capsule review: If you could live one day over
and over, as if you were replaying a video game,
could you ever get the day perfect? What would be
your best strategy? Bill Murray plays a weatherman
reliving over and over February 2 in Punxsutawney,
PA. What is the best he can make of the day? The
premise is engaging and the execution entertaining.
Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4).

On May 5, 1961, _T_w_i_l_i_g_h_t _Z_o_n_e ran an episode called "Shadow
Play," written by Charles Beaumont and directed by John Brahm.
Dennis Weaver played Adam Grant, a man sentenced to death. It is
the day Grant is to be executed for murder. He claims to have a
sort of deja vu and can even tell people verifiable facts he seems
to have no way of knowing. He claims that he is living the same day
over and over. Eventually he is executed only to wake up in his
cell with the same day starting over. This idea gets re-used and
explored in detail in _G_r_o_u_n_d_h_o_g _D_a_y.

Phil (played by Bill Murray) is a television weatherman with a
funny on-screen persona. Of the television he is bitter and cynical
and does just about whatever he can to make himself difficult to
deal with. February 2, Groundhog Day, finds Phil in Punxsutawney,
Pennsylvania, filming the famous Groundhog Day festivities. Phil is
less than thrilled and is making life miserable for his producer
Rita (played by Andie McDowell) and cameraman Larry (played by Chris
Elliot). Next morning he wakes up and it is still Groundhog Day.
Phil is living the same day over and over and making the same
mistakes. The day becomes like a video game that he plays over and
over, practicing to get past all the hazards of the day. He uses
one strategy after another trying to find how to get the most out of
the day and how best to benefit from having gone through the day use
his experiences of having already been through the day.

The script (by Danny Rubin and director Harold Ramis) starts
taking on a higher meaning of just what the purpose of life. Phil
can play his day for thrills, he can play it to gain self-
enrichment, he can play it to get sex, he can be an altruist, or he
can romance Rita. The latter is questionable since, first, Rita is
a bit sappy herself, but also it is a bit of a challenge since after
Phil has been so nasty way back on February 1, it seems unlikely
that one day would be enough for re-educating Rita. The film's
conclusion about what the best of all possible Groundhog Days is is
a bit of a cheat, since it depends very heavily on previous
knowledge--life is not really like a video game--and it is somewhat
reminiscent of _I_t'_s _a _W_o_n_d_e_r_f_u_l _L_i_f_e.

Ramis has an intriguing premise taken just about as far as it
could be taken. It is pleasant but not particularly deep. I rate
it a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.

HOMEWARD BOUND: THE INCREDIBLE JOURNEY
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Mark R. Leeper

Capsule review: This is a remake of the 1963
film _T_h_e _I_n_c_r_e_d_i_b_l_e _J_o_u_r_n_e_y. In this version,
however, the animals talk to each other, often in
off-color wisecracks. It is not a good sign that the
producers thought this device was needed for modern
audiences, but it does add its own entertainment
value to the film. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4).

I was twelve years old when I read Sheila Burnford's _I_n_c_r_e_d_i_b_l_e
_J_o_u_r_n_e_y. It must have been a year or so later that I saw the Walt
Disney adaptation. I do not actually remember if that film was
narrated or not. I suspect it must have been narrated to keep the
story understandable. (I think _T_h_e _B_e_a_r was about the first case I
saw of a feature film that shows animal characters completely non-
verbally.) In any case, now the film has been remade almost thirty
years later and the approach to conveying animal action has taken a
step backwards from realism. In Duwayne Dunham's remake the animals
talk and even wise-crack to each other. That certainly makes the
animals easier to understand, and it opens the way for a lot of
humor--a la _L_o_o_k _W_h_o'_s _T_a_l_k_i_n_g--but it regrettably pushes the story
into fantasy.

Shadow (played by Ben with Don Ameche's voice), Chance
(Rattler/Michael J. Fox), and(Tiki/Sally Field) love their human
family, but are left temporarily with a family friend. Through a
mix-up, they decide they have been abandoned and determine to strike
out on their own to make their way home. Between them and home are
some unspecified hundreds of miles (250 miles in the original) of
beautiful but treacherous wilderness.

The screenplay is by Linda Wooverton (who worked on _B_e_a_u_t_y _a_n_d
_t_h_e _B_e_a_s_t) and Caroline Thompson (who wrote _E_d_w_a_r_d _S_c_i_s_s_o_r_h_a_n_d_s).
Often the wise-cracking animals get off a good one, but it is
somewhat hit or miss. Lines like the referring to a porcupine as
having a "bad hair day" just don't work. In spite of that misplaced
humor, _H_o_m_e_w_a_r_d _B_o_u_n_d does hit a responsive chord and will have many
members of the audience openly crying at the loyalty of these pets
for their humans. Not a perfect film, but generally one that should
please adults and children. I give the film a +1 on the -4 to +4
scale.