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

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 03/26/93 -- Vol. 11, No. 39


       MEETINGS UPCOMING:

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

         _D_A_T_E                    _T_O_P_I_C

       03/31  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 1C-523  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 mtgpfs1!ecl
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       1. Our next discussion book is _S_t_e_e_l _B_e_a_c_h by John Varley,  and  of
       it Rob Mitchell says:

       I've  been  a  fan  of  John  Varley  for  almost   twenty   years,
       particularly  of  his  shorter  works.   His short stories, such as
       "Press  Enter"  and  "Persistence  of  Vision",   were   dizzyingly
       creative,  and  yet  plausible,  looks  at  what if? (e.g., What if











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 2



       people could  buy  customized  bodies  as  easily  as  we  can  buy
       customized  automobiles?).   His longer work, though, was generally
       verbose and dull.   After  a  promising  first  book,  his  "Titan"
       trilogy  quickly  bogged  down,  and  his  award-winning novelette,
       "Millenium," suffered when when expanded into a novel.   I  had  my
       doubts  that  Varley could sustain the creativity and pacing of his
       shorter works.  With his new book, _S_t_e_e_l _B_e_a_c_h,  Varley  proves  he
       can write an outstanding novel.

       Many years in the future, humanity has colonized the Moon  and  (by
       implication)  several  other  satellites  or  planets  in the Solar
       System.   Earth  has  been  lost,   however,   decades   ago   when
       essentially-omnipotent aliens landed and eliminated all human life.
       These aliens do not further affect the humans  off-Earth,  but  the
       loss  of  the  planet has scarred the psyches of the survivors.  In
       Luna, the colony on the moon, lives Hildy Johnson, an ace  reporter
       for  one  of  Luna's  most  respected newspapers, a sleazy tabloid.
       Hildy lives in a  near-paradise;  people  live  virtually  forever,
       science has cured most physical ailments from cancer to bad breath,
       and the Central Computer  keeps  the  climate  comfortable  and  is
       available  to talk to people or otherwise entertain them.  Although
       there is a vaguely capitalistic economy,  one's  needs  are  easily
       satisfied.   You can even change your sex if you're bored with your
       present one.

       Hildy's not happy, though.  In fact,  he's  rather  depressed,  and
       survives several suicide attempts only through the prompt action of
       the benevolent and ever-monitoring Central Computer.   Hildy  talks
       to  the  Computer  (on  several  levels),  and learns that he's not
       unique; other people are increasingly feeling anxiety, stress,  and
       suicidal  impulses.  In fact, the Central Computer admits it itself
       has been feeling rather depressed lately...  Meanwhile, Hildy comes
       across  a  bunch of "anarchists" who have their own vision of where
       the human race should be going.

       It's a tense roller-coaster of a ride, full of  exotic  characters,
       imaginative  situations,  and  believable  extrapolations.   Varley
       excels at taking us into an environment quite  different  from  our
       own,  but  within our grasp because that environment is a plausible
       and detailed extension of human society and  psychology.   In  this
       book,  Varley  wrestles with the big questions, such as "What makes
       Life worth Living?" as well as lesser questions such as "What if  a
       cult  made  Elvis  Presley  a saint?"  _S_t_e_e_l _B_e_a_c_h has already been
       nominated for a Nebula, and I'm sure it will also be nominated  for
       a  Hugo.   It  deserves both nominations, and quite possibly is the
       best book published last year.  [-jrrt]

       2. From the Department of "The More Things  Change  the  More  They
       Stay  the  Same, Only Different":  I cannot help but notice how old
       plots are being seen in new lights.  John Ford made his Westerns in
       which  the  cavalry  was pitted against the Indians.  In about two-











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 3



       thirds of these films the bad guys were the Indians.   Occasionally
       Ford would throw in a plot where the real bad guy was the commander
       of the  fort  (_n_e_v_e_r  played  by  John  Wayne)  who  just  did  not
       understand  the  tenuous  relations  between  the  cavalry  and the
       Indians and messes them up.  Then of course the Indians spring like
       a  mousetrap.   Today  the  political climate is different but what
       really has happened is that the political pendulum has  swung  from
       one  extreme  to  the  another.   Any reasonable reading of history
       tells you there were a lot of times  the  Euros  were  wrong,  some
       times  the Indians were wrong, and a whole lot of times when either
       there was more than enough blame to go around or  you  just  cannot
       tell.

       Then there were a bunch of films of the variety  "Boy  meets  girl.
       Boy  likes  Girl.   Girl  does  not like Boy.    Boy is persistent.
       Girl still does not like Boy.  Boy is more persistent.  Girl  falls
       for Boy.  Boy gets Girl."  That was the plot of _T_h_e _G_r_a_d_u_a_t_e.  Mike
       Nichols's film was considered to run counter to  the  establishment
       of  the  1960s.  But for a lot of different reasons it is even more
       counter to today's establishment.

       What makes me think of all this is that I see a  made-for-TV  movie
       coming  up  called  _I  _C_a_n  _M_a_k_e  _Y_o_u _L_o_v_e _M_e.  Sounds like an old-
       fashioned love  story,  doesn't  it?   But  the  subtitle  is  "The
       Stalking  of  Laura  Black."  The description is, "A Silicon Valley
       engineer cannot escape from a co-worker  who  has  become  obsessed
       with  her."   It  sure  sounds a lot like the plot of _T_h_e _G_r_a_d_u_a_t_e,
       doesn't it?  But it is just slightly different in tone.

       If you made _T_h_e _G_r_a_d_u_a_t_e today it would have  to  end  with  Elaine
       Robinson  shooting  Benjamin  Braddock.   Benjamin gets up.  Elaine
       pushes Benjamin  under  the  bus.   Bellowing,  Benjamin  gets  up.
       Police  arrive with guns.  Bus is hit by stray bullet and explodes.
       Toasted Benjamin drags himself out of the flames, cries, "Elaine!",
       and  dies.   Happy  ending.   Roll  the  credits for six and a half
       minutes.

       3. REMINDER: Hugo nomination ballots must be  postmarked  by  March
       31, 1993, and reach the convention by April 6, 1993.


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



            There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism.
            By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us
            in touch with the ignorance of the community.

                                          - Oscar Wilde














                  ISAAC ASIMOV'S CALIBAN by Roger MacBride Allen
                      Ace, ISBN 0-441-09079-6, 1993, $9.95.
                        A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
                         Copyright 1993 Evelyn C. Leeper



            Although this is called _I_s_a_a_c _A_s_i_m_o_v'_s _C_a_l_i_b_a_n (and _A_s_i_m_o_v'_s
       _C_a_l_i_b_a_n on the spine, though merely _C_a_l_i_b_a_n on the page preceding
       the title page) and was written "with his cooperation," one suspects
       Asimov's involvement was limited to authorizing Allen to write this
       and to approving the general story line.  Still, Allen has kept many
       Asimov trademarks: the female roboticist, the police robot, the
       apparent violation of the Three Laws, and so on.

            Unfortunately, he's also kept the too-simple mystery: I figured
       out "who-dun-it" well before the police.  Also, the whole sub-plot
       of the secret affair seems more in keeping with Asimov's attitudes
       toward sex than any consistent set of societal mores.  In fact,
       another similarity to Asimov's style is that although the story
       takes place "untold thousands of years" in the future, everything
       seems very much like today.  For example, the police force and
       police work are structured exactly as now.  But our police procedure
       has certainly changed from that of thousands or even hundreds years
       ago.

            Allen has added his own contributions: a deeper discussion of
       the Three Laws than Asimov ever attempted (though hardly the
       "searing examination" the back cover promises) and a somewhat
       topical ecological theme, as well as other current issues, thinly
       veiled.  The result is not optimal: Allen's attempts to examine
       issues are blocked by the necessity to write in Asimov's style, but
       the issues remind us we're not reading an Asimov novel anyway.

            Allen is a good writer in his own right.  I would rather see
       him writing his own books than trying to shoehorn his style into an
       Asimov copy.





























                             MY TOP TEN FILMS OF 1992
                         A film article by Mark R. Leeper
                          Copyright 1993 Mark R. Leeper



         1.  LORENZO'S OIL: How did two parents with no medical background
             find a cure for the previously terminal disease that afflicted
             their son?  You actually will understand, step by step in this
             true story part intellectual puzzle, part political statement
             about the medical community, part story of a family medical
             tragedy.  We need more films like this.  Rating: +3

         2.  THE CRYING GAME: An IRA kidnapping leads to a chain of events
             that keeps both the characters and the audience guessing.
             MONA LISA director Neil Jordan has equaled or surpassed that
             film in one of the best movies of the year.  Rating +3.  See
             it before someone spoils it for you.

         3.  GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS: Little more than just a filmed stage
             play, but a very compelling one.  David Mamet's play is a
             tense story of people caught up in the real estate game.  The
             play is both suspenseful and at the same time makes a bitter
             piece of social commentary.  See this one just for the sheer
             joy of hearing rich and powerful dialog.  Rating +3.  Rating:
             +3

         4.  FAR AND AWAY: A really big film with impressive historical
             sweep.  The sort of epic storytelling that films do so well
             and just have not done very often in recent years.  Tom Cruise
             and Nicole Kidman star in a story of Irish immigrants coming
             to the Irish slums of Boston and then to the Oklahoma land
             rush just about one century ago.  This is the most enjoyable
             film I have seen in 1992.  Rating: low +3.

         5.  UNFORGIVEN: A film to debunk most of the myths in other
             Western gunfighter films.  Perhaps Eastwood made UNFORGIVEN as
             an act of contrition for glorifying violence in so many of his
             previous pictures.  In any case, this is a very adult and
             intelligent Western about myth and reality.  Rating: high +2.

         6.  THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS: Michael Mann's LAST OF THE MOHICANS
             is finally available and while James Fenimore Cooper might
             cavil, this is still a film that teaches a lot about a
             little-dramatized chapter of history.  In some ways it is more
             intriguing in concept than the source novel.  Technical
             credits are good across the board including remarkable
             stylistic restraint coming from Mann.  Rating: high +2.

         7.  PRELUDE TO A KISS: Romance, comedy, fantasy, and even a little
             softcore horror combine in an intelligent and thoroughly











       Top Ten of 1992           January 31, 1992                    Page 2



             enjoyable film.  PRELUDE handles an old idea, but at the same
             time says a lot about life and human relationships.  Even the
             acting by minor characters is good.  (This is one of those
             films whose actual premise comes as a surprise well into the
             film.  I will be very vague below rather than spoil the plot.)
             Rating: high +2.

         8.  DEAD AHEAD: Some subjects are just intrinsically difficult to
             adapt to film.  There were no human deaths and little visually
             spectacular in the Exxon Valdez disaster.  There WAS a lot of
             political fighting in the wake of the disaster with a large
             number of players.  DEAD AHEAD compares favorably with films
             that had similar obstacles such as ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.
             This HBO-BBC co-production is remarkably compelling watching.
             Rating:  high +2.

         9.  HOWARD'S END: One of the best, indeed probably the best, of
             the recent run of film's based on E. M. Forster's novels.  It
             takes a long time before the audience knows for sure where
             this story is going, then it turns out to be a story that is
             subtle and complex.  Very good performances all around.
             Rating: +2.

        10.  ENCHANTED APRIL: This is a light and VERY pleasant comedy that
             could be used as an ad for the Italian Tourism Board.  It
             starts like E. M. Forster's indignant social dramas and then
             unwinds under the warm Italian sun into a rich romantic
             comedy.  It features beautiful settings and people you would
             love to meet.  Rating: +2.





































                                    Boskone 30
                                  (Part 2 of 3)
                          Con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
                          Copyright 1993 Evelyn C. Leeper


                     Short Science Fiction: The Cutting Edge
                                  Saturday, noon
            Sheila Williams (mod), James Patrick Kelly, Steven Popkes,
                        Darrell Schweitzer, Connie Willis

            People as usual promoted their latest books.  Willis said the
       new collection of her short fiction, _I_m_p_o_s_s_i_b_l_e _T_h_i_n_g_s, would be
       coming out in December, at which time _F_i_r_e _W_a_t_c_h would also be re-
       issued.  (This, by the way, explains why someone thought Willis had
       a collection called _A_r_t_i_f_i_c_i_a_l _T_h_i_n_g_s, which is actually a Karen Joy
       Fowler collection which had originally been titled _T_h_e _L_a_k_e _I_s _F_u_l_l
       _o_f _A_r_t_i_f_i_c_i_a_l _T_h_i_n_g_s.)

            Regarding the "cutting edge," someone quoted George Bernard
       Shaw as saying, "Everything changes but the avant garde."  While the
       panelists talked mostly about the "cutting edge" of science fiction
       in terms of cyberpunk et al, I thought the title of the panel mean
       that short fiction _w_a_s the cutting edge of science fiction.  (I
       certainly find it easier to find Hugo nominees among the short
       stories than among the novels; in fact, it seems the longer the
       stories get, the harder it is to find Hugo nominees.)  Williams
       seemed to think that rather than being the cutting edge, most of
       what she gets for _A_s_i_m_o_v'_s _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n is the "cutting sponge,"
       by which I assume she means it just soaks up whatever ideas are
       hanging around.  Kelly thought the whole idea of the cutting edge
       was somewhat anti-artistic in that once a cutting edge has been
       declared, it silences dissent.

            Going back to older ideas of the avant garde, the "New Wave,"
       and the cutting edge, Schweitzer said that Barry Malzberg felt that
       the golden age of science fiction was from 1948-1955 because that
       was when ground-breaking work was done.  On the whole, though, the
       panelists agreed that trends and movements were dangerous and
       counter-productive, not only because they silence dissent, but
       because they lead to too much "copy-cat-ism."  As one panelist said,
       "Unique voices don't fit into a history of science fiction."  (This
       person had been talking to an academic who was teaching a course on
       the history of science fiction and mentioned that R. A. Lafferty [I
       believe] was not included.  The response was that Lafferty didn't
       start any trends and influenced no specific authors in any
       noticeable fashion, so he was irrelevant to the course.)

            Secular humanism was described by Willis as "decaying
       decorations on an already moldy wedding cake of literature."  (I'm
       not sure what that means, but it sounds great.)  Most of science











       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                     Page 2



       fiction seems to be in the direction of "minor works by junior
       authors," franchise works, and general land-fill material.  Where
       are the great "patterning works" the panel mentioned: H. Rider
       Haggard's _S_h_e, Bram Stoker's _D_r_a_c_u_l_a, J. R. R. Tolkien's _L_o_r_d _o_f _t_h_e
       _R_i_n_g_s?  (My guess is they're scheduled for next year's Boskone's
       "Neglected Authors" track--after all, two years ago they did Jules
       Verne.)

            Luckily, there is hope.  Magazines are forced to buy fiction
       from new writers to survive, so there is a chance to see new, fresh
       fiction.  This is why short fiction is the cutting edge, I guess.
       (I might claim the golden age of short stories is now, in fact.)
       What they are seeing could be described as the "Third Wave" of
       cyberpunk.  The First Wave was William Gibson's _N_e_u_r_o_m_a_n_c_e_r.  The
       Second Wave was all the rip-offs that came out of that.  The Third
       Wave are the works which deal with the use of real-world technology
       from authors like Greg Egan, Alex Jablokov, Jonathan Lethem, and
       Vernor Vinge.  Schweitzer pointed out in this context that John
       Varley's _S_t_e_e_l _B_e_a_c_h, for example, is full of matter-of-fact sex,
       technology, and genetic engineering that would have made the book
       revolutionary in 1968.  (The sex alone would have gotten it bounced
       by a number of publishers.)  Now, it's considered "straightforward"
       science fiction--nothing ground-breaking.  And the "ground-breaking"
       works of the 1960s were all copies of literary ground-breakers that
       had gone before: John Brunner's _S_t_a_n_d _o_n _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r was the child of
       John dos Passos's work; Brian W. Aldiss's _B_a_r_e_f_o_o_t _i_n _t_h_e _H_e_a_d was
       heavily influenced by James Joyce.  Still, Williams emphasized that
       "the best authors have their own voice."  While any author will be
       influenced by other literature, good authors try to set trends
       rather than follow them, try to write their own works instead of
       copying others.  Willis agreed, saying that this was what kept the
       science fiction field fresh while other genres stagnate: "Romances
       imploded into a neutron star; science fiction is like a blob that
       keeps growing."  (Someone noted that the fastest growing sub-genre
       in romances is the time-travel romance.)

            Willis also observed that the new voice is what can revive an
       ailing field.  "An author like a Stephen King can come along and
       rejuvenate a dead and decaying [!] field."

            Brief mention was made of short fiction for children.  Most
       markets for this are very unreasonable regarding republication
       rights (according to Schweitzer, who thought only _C_r_i_c_k_e_t was a
       worthwhile market to sell short children's fiction to).  Because of
       the limited number of outlets, few authors find it worthwhile to
       write a children's story that they can send to only one or two
       publications, and have no chance of resale income.

            Asked what were the problem areas in science fiction today,
       Schweitzer said he was tired of the proliferation of "elfy-welfy"
       fantasy.  Willis attacked "horrible, ghastly 82-volume trilogies."











       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                     Page 3



       There is no dearth of stories per se, but often it seems that the
       bad drives out the good.  Schweitzer closed by saying that "90% of
       today's science fiction wouldn't have been published in 1940."  (Of
       course, a lot of it couldn't have been written then either.)

                                    SF Origami
                                  Saturday, 1 PM
                                  Mark R. Leeper

            I didn't attend this, but I did look in and see that there were
       about twenty people folding origami.  In fact, Mark got asked to
       come to the con suite Saturday night and teach some more, and ended
       up spending another couple of hours there.

                           Responsibility and the Arts
                                  Saturday, 2 PM
       Ellen Asher, A. J. Austin, Michael F. Flynn, Charles Ryan, Jane Yolen

            The issues posed to the panelists beforehand to be thinking
       about dealt in part with the question of whether the panelists
       censor themselves.  Austin's response was, "Self-censorship?  My mom
       reads my stuff!"  Asher said the real problem seemed to be that the
       trend was to call any form of selection censorship.  (Certainly the
       recent discussion of John Norman on Usenet seems to fall into this
       category.)  The panelists never completely agreed on a definition of
       "censorship" but seemed to agree that it included physical sanctions
       of some sort.  As long as someone was free to publish his or her own
       works and sell them, then censorship per se was not being exercised.
       One can certainly argue this--an entire hour could be spent without
       ever deciding whether the refusal of two or three major book
       distributors to carry some work constituted some form of _i_p_s_o _f_a_c_t_o
       censorship, for example.  Yolen said the problem in trying to arrive
       at such a definition was that some people are defining censorship in
       terms of commerce and some are defining it in terms of art.  (Is the
       NEA's refusal to fund certain artists censorship?)

            Another issue these days is the credentials of the author.
       This is not merely the question of their technical knowledge of
       whatever they are writing about, but whether, for example, a
       biography of Malcolm X is as valid when written by a white author as
       by a black author.  The best-known example of this was _T_h_e _E_d_u_c_a_t_i_o_n
       _o_f _L_i_t_t_l_e _T_r_e_e, a book about Native Americans widely praised until
       it was discovered that Forrest Carter, the "Native American" who
       wrote it, was actually a white racist (some say a former racist).
       Does a people have the exclusive rights to their story?  Yolen said
       she would not want to see a situation where only Jews could write
       about Jews, only blacks could write about blacks, and so on, in part
       because if that is the case, then you can never have a book that
       includes people from many groups.  What people seem to forget, Yolen
       said, was that writers _c_r_e_a_t_e.  That's what writing is about.
       Writers are _s_u_p_p_o_s_e_d to be able to write characters other than











       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                     Page 4



       themselves.  Shakespeare may or may not have been Francis Bacon, but
       he was not a Jew _a_n_d a Moor _a_n_d a teenage girl _a_n_d a Danish prince
       _a_n_d an aging king ....  This gets into the whole question of cross-
       racial casting in films.  Could a white man successfully play Martin
       Luther King?  (Yes, Olivier played Othello, but does that apply?)
       Could Whoopi Goldberg play Juliet?

            Ryan pointed out that the artist is supposed to challenge
       society, and that it is impossible to do so without offending
       someone.  The whole issue of political correctness often seems to
       center around a distrust of imagination.  (In fairness, it seems to
       me that if "political correctness" is the left-wing of the spectrum,
       then the right-wing also distrusts imagination and wants to control
       strictly what children can see and read.)  A well-known literary
       example of challenging society was Henrik Ibsen's _A_n _E_n_e_m_y _o_f _t_h_e
       _P_e_o_p_l_e, and panelists pointed out that similar problems occur even
       today when newspapers discover facts about toxic waste that
       governments want to conceal.

            The panelists left themselves and the audience pondering the
       question of what the difference between self-censorship and moral
       cowardice was.  For example, bookstores that carried Salman
       Rushdie's _S_a_t_a_n_i_c _V_e_r_s_e_s were threatened.  In some cases, the stores
       would have the employees decide for themselves whether to carry the
       book.  If a company decides that it is not fair to minimum-wage
       employees to put them on the front line, is this censorship?  Is
       this moral cowardice?  If a school librarian fights to keep a book
       on the shelf and wins, when the next year's decisions roll around,
       is she more likely to play it safe and select less controversial
       books?  Is this selection or censorship?  Yolen said that the
       artists should be quicker to praise the clerks and librarians who
       support them, and much slower to condemn those who have to decide
       whether to put their jobs and lives on the line for someone else's
       art.

                        Biblical Themes in SF and Fantasy
                                  Saturday, 3 PM
               Evelyn Leeper (mod), Jeffrey A. Carver, Anne Jordan,
                           Mark Keller, Josepha Sherman

            There was no specified moderator for this panel so I
       volunteered, on the theory that the moderator gets to ask the
       questions rather than having to come up with answers.

            I started by saying that I had begun to suspect that there was
       a growing trend towards Biblical themes in science fiction and
       fantasy, having read in short order Norman Spinrad's _D_e_u_s _X, Thomas
       Monteleone's _B_l_o_o_d _o_f _t_h_e _L_a_m_b, Gore Vidal's _L_i_v_e _f_r_o_m _G_o_l_g_o_t_h_a, and
       Jack Womack's _E_l_v_i_s_s_e_y.  I thought this might be attributable to
       millenialism, but the other panel members seemed to think that this
       was just part of an oscillating trend, and noted that the Bible,











       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                     Page 5



       particularly the Old Testament, has always been a major source of
       literary as well as spiritual inspiration.  The stories of Esther,
       David, Moses, and others lend themselves to retelling in various
       times and places, including science fictional settings.  Mark
       Keller, in fact, thinks that all of _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
       is a retelling of I Kings, with various characters representing
       Saul, David, Jonathan, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and so on.

            One person asked if all these characters didn't represent
       Jungian archetypes, but the panelists seemed to feel that while they
       were archetypal, attaching Jungian significance to them was probably
       over-kill.  People also discussed deuterocanonical and semi-Biblical
       influences (_T_h_e _B_o_o_k _o_f _M_o_r_m_o_n for prophetic figures and especially
       in the work of Orson Scott Card, for example).  Some thought that
       recent discoveries regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hamadi
       Library, and other semi-Biblical and pseudepigraphal works might
       lead to more obscure borrowings.  Andrew Greeley is known to rely
       heavily on Biblical sources, and Harold Bloom's _F_l_i_g_h_t _f_r_o_m _L_u_c_i_f_e_r
       was also mentioned (though I can't recall the context).

            There was some question as to whether one found more Biblical
       influences in science fiction or fantasy.  At first guess, you might
       think fantasy, but it turns out that most fantasy is influenced by
       various other mythologies rather than Biblical, and that it may very
       well be true that Biblical sources and imagery are used more in
       science fiction.

            Regarding millenialism, it actually began much earlier than the
       end of the 20th Century, with William Miller preaching the Second
       Coming of Christ first in 1843, then March 21, 1844, and finally
       October 22, 1844.  As _G_r_o_l_i_e_r'_s _A_c_a_d_e_m_i_c _E_n_c_y_l_o_p_e_d_i_a says, "The
       failure of these predictions was a serious setback to the movement
       [founded by Miller], but Miller and some devoted followers continued
       to preach the imminent return of Christ."  The Seventh-Day
       Adventists grew out of this movement.  Just this past year, in fact,
       another group predicted the end of the world.  If it happened, I
       didn't notice it.  (Then again, there was a group that predicted the
       end of the world around 1918, and when the time passed, they
       published a book explaining that the world _h_a_d ended but no one had
       noticed.)

            Someone noted that science fiction used to be about science,
       but now was perfectly willing to be about religion instead.  Someone
       else said that the two were not unconnected: predestination is
       basically the religious version of Newtonian mechanics, free will is
       more related to Einsteinian theories, the Heisenberg Uncertainty
       Principle, and the recent theories of chaos.















       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                     Page 6



                      Religious Intolerance in SF and Fandom
                                  Saturday, 4 PM
         Elisabeth Carey (mod), Janice Gelb, Alex Jablokov, Melissa Scott

            Carey was worried that this panel would turn into a flame war
       and so said that the panelists would discuss the topic for a half-
       hour before taking any questions from the audience.  While the
       discussion may have gotten lively at times, I don't think it was
       ever near problem proportions.

            Jablokov said that the most obvious intolerance was toward
       religion in general: when one sees religious characters in science
       fiction or fantasy, they are either "decadent voluptuaries or
       fanatical fundamentalists."  Scott added a third category: Zen
       masters.  The latter at least tend to be portrayed in a non-negative
       light; at worst they seem to be treated as harmless cranks rather
       than evil forces.  Scott said that one reason for this somewhat
       slanted view is that religious institutions make easy villains.
       Also, the most obvious religious people are the most annoying, since
       they are the proselytizers et al.  Frequently the author may have
       his or her own prejudices against certain organizations.  One must
       be careful not to assume this is always the case, however, since
       characters in a story may have prejudices independent or even
       contradictory to those of the author.  Still, this provides multiple
       levels for prejudices to appear in a story.  Of course, science
       fiction must also follow through on its premises (Jablokov gave the
       example of Donald Kingsbury's _C_o_u_r_t_s_h_i_p _R_i_t_e).  Add to this that
       writers work with a shared set of assumptions that the readers may
       not share, and you can see that misunderstandings are almost
       guaranteed.

            Someone (Jablokov, I think) said that all this is what
       mainstream science fiction fans see, but he noted that there are a
       large number of science fiction novels published by religious
       publishers and marketed only in religious bookstores in which
       religious people are the heroes.  One example he gave was a
       cyberpunk novel in which Southern Baptists are targeted for
       genocide, but the religious Christian uses his talents to defeat the
       plot.  (Sorry, he didn't give the title or author.)

            There is also a tendency to make aliens just like us, only
       shaped different.  Jablokov described this for a story of
       intelligent dolphins by saying that "dolphin religion is
       Christianity filtered through several miles of water."

            One of the distinctions I asked about was the dividing line
       between irreverence and intolerance.  One response was that to be
       irreverent one must be a believer, which was not quite what I was
       asking.  Later Gelb said that she drew the line somewhere around the
       point where people started saying things like, "How can you or any
       rational person believe such garbage?"











       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                     Page 7



            Some people suggested that fandom is an ideology or a religion.
       I doubt that most people would agree, but to many fans there is
       definitely a sense of shared beliefs.  Of course, one of these
       beliefs is that openness is good, so fans say what they think, and
       this is where the statements such as, "Only an idiot could believe
       such garbage" come from.  Jablokov summed it up by saying that the
       question is not what is true, but what is polite.

                                     Reading
                                  Saturday, 5 PM
                                  Connie Willis

            Willis started by giving the audience the option of hearing
       part of her novella "Uncharted Territory" (which she was delivering
       to Bantam), or her novelette "Death on the Nile" from the March
       issue of _A_s_i_m_o_v'_s _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n.  But first she talked about a
       story that came from her Nebula nomination for "Even the Queen,"
       which appeared in last year's April issue.  Apparently people often
       send out copies of their nominated stories to all SFWA (or is it
       SFFWA now?) members, with cover letters saying, "In case you missed
       this, here's a copy in case you might want to consider voting for
       this for the Nebula award, etc."  Usually the copies are extra
       copies of back issues of the magazines the stories appeared in
       (though sometimes photocopies were sent if there weren't enough back
       copies).  Anyway, the warehouse in which the back issues of _I_s_a_a_c
       _A_s_i_m_o_v'_s _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n _M_a_g_a_z_i_n_e were stored burned down (making
       all your back issues more valuable in the process), so Willis was
       looking forward to sending out letters saying, "In case you missed
       this, here's a copy in case you might want to consider voting for
       this for the Nebula award, etc.," and enclosing a tablespoon of
       ashes.  However, the copies of "Even the Queen" were sent out before
       the fire, so she will have to wait until next year's nominations and
       see if "Death on the Nile" gets nominated.

            Anyway, the audience voted in favor of the first part of the
       novella, so she read that, first explaining that it arose out of
       what she called her "_D_a_n_c_e_s _w_i_t_h _W_o_l_v_e_s rant," which started before
       the credits on that film had even finished rolling and ended only
       when her husband threatened to leave her if she didn't stop.  (She
       says the couple who went to the movies with them will never go with
       them again.)  This rant can also be found in abbreviated form in the
       _L_o_c_u_s interview mentioned earlier (July 1992 issue).  She talked
       about the fact that Sitting Bull became friends with Buffalo Bill
       Cody shortly after the Battle of Little Big Horn and toured in
       Buffalo Bill's road show, which Willis finds hard to comprehend.
       (In an interesting piece of coincidence, Sitting Bull was killed in
       the Ghost Dance at Wounded Knee in 1890; the Ghost Dance arose from
       a millenial cult; we had just discussed millenialism an hour
       earlier.  Okay, so it's _n_o_t an interesting piece of coincidence.)
       Willis recommended Evan S. Connell's _S_o_n _o_f _t_h_e _M_o_r_n_i_n_g _S_t_a_r: _C_u_s_t_e_r
       & _L_i_t_t_l_e _B_i_g _H_o_r_n (Harper Collins, 1991, 464pp, $10.95) as a good











       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                     Page 8



       book about that period of history.  In addition to objecting to some
       of the content of _D_a_n_c_e_s _w_i_t_h _W_o_l_v_e_s, she also objected to the
       pedestal that the movie was put on.  Western movies were _n_o_t all
       one-sided, she pointed out, and films such as _S_h_e _W_o_r_e _a _Y_e_l_l_o_w
       _R_i_b_b_o_n made the white men as much or more the villains than the
       Indians.  In any case she emphasized that the West was not simple.
       While there was some mis-information in older images of the West,
       she continued, "you correct a stereotype with the truth, not with
       another stereotype."  What happened in the settlement of the West
       she describes as "a tragedy, not a crime."

            Another film that she disliked for its distortion of facts to
       make a "politically correct" statement was _F_a_t _M_a_n _a_n_d _L_i_t_t_l_e _B_o_y,
       which claimed that everyone involved with the atomic bomb knew all
       about radiation poisoning and other effects of the bomb but used it
       anyway, rather than the truth, which was that while some people had
       some idea of the effects, most people thought of it as just a more
       powerful bomb.

            In regard to political correctness, Willis made some additional
       comments (see also the "History in SF" panel).  She said that there
       are any number of trends and fads in social theory, and that
       political correctness was one of them.  Others she mentioned were
       the "100th Monkey Theory" and the belief that the American public
       are sheep.  A book she recommended was _F_r_e_e _S_p_e_e_c_h _f_o_r _M_e--_B_u_t _N_o_t
       _f_o_r _T_h_e_e: _H_o_w _t_h_e _A_m_e_r_i_c_a_n _L_e_f_t & _R_i_g_h_t _C_e_n_s_o_r _E_a_c_h _O_t_h_e_r by Nat
       Hentoff (Harper Collins, 1992, 384pp, $25), which discusses the
       censorship by the Left.  In this regard she mentioned the people who
       want to ban Mark Twain's _A_d_v_e_n_t_u_r_e_s _o_f _H_u_c_k_l_e_b_e_r_r_y _F_i_n_n because it
       uses the word "nigger." In fact, she said, it was removed from the
       school library of a high school named Mark Twain High School!  (She
       didn't said what town or state.)  Willis said that it is important
       to break the ice around ideas, not enshrine some and ban others.

            Willis also talked about writing in general.  She said she
       could never understand writers who say their characters get away
       from them and take on a life of their own.  "They're my characters,
       by God!  They will do what I tell them to!" She also said that
       people say that a book should be about the most important day in a
       person's life, which would seem to imply that most people should
       write only one book (unless their lives are on a constant up-track).

            Complimented on "Even the Queen," Willis hinted it was her
       response to people who were big on the idea of celebrating
       womanhood, but hoped it didn't start a genre of "menstruation-punk"
       even though it could be considered the "bleeding edge" of science
       fiction.  (I have a great idea for the beginnings of an anthology in
       the "menstruation-punk" genre if anyone is interested.)

            The story itself (remember the story?) seems to be of humans
       arriving on a "primitive" planet and trying to explore it, except











       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                     Page 9



       that the indigenous peoples have somehow discovered political
       correctness, and use it to stymie even the most trivial efforts.
       For example, driving a vehicle gets the explorers fined for
       "disturbing planetary surface." I will certainly look for it when it
       comes out (but then I'm an unrepentant Willis groupie); it will be
       the first of three novellas Willis does for Bantam in their novella
       series.  In addition, she has another novel set in the _D_o_o_m_s_d_a_y _B_o_o_k
       universe, tentatively titled _T_o _S_a_y _N_o_t_h_i_n_g _o_f _t_h_e _D_o_g, but much
       lighter in tone than _D_o_o_m_s_d_a_y _B_o_o_k, with no deaths--except maybe a
       cat that everyone keeps trying to kill.

                                War of the Worlds
                                  Saturday, 8 PM

            This consisted of a fifteen-minute radio interview with
       H. G. Wells and Orson Welles, followed by the famous broadcast.  I
       had heard the broadcast many times, and was interested in the slide
       show they put together to go with it, but that turned out to be a
       bit of a disappointment, since there weren't very many slides (they
       tended to leave a slide up for two or three minutes), they reused
       slides (the same farm picture showed up about five times), and the
       slides weren't always in focus.  It was a good idea, though, and
       with a bit more effort on the visual side could be quite good.
       After all, it's basically what Ken Burns did with his "Civil War"
       series (and all his other documentaries, for that matter).

                  The Cross-Time Bus: A Comic Play by Joe Mayhew
                                 Saturday, 10 PM
          Bruce Coville, Esther Friesner, Joe Haldeman, Chip Hitchcock,
                Suford Lewis, Joe Mayhew, Greg Thokar, Mike Zipser

            Waiting for this to begin, I found out that somewhere there is
       a betting pool going on how long my next convention report will be.
       I just want to mention that for the right price, I can adjust the
       length to suit. :-)

            The play itself was _n_o_t an alternate history (which I had
       thought it might be), but was just a comic play about someone
       building a time travel machine (bus, actually), then taking a bunch
       of Dungeons & Dragons players back to King Arthur's time.  Amusing
       enough, though some of the characters got wearisome after a while.
       Maybe I was just tired.

            At the end they brought out a big birthday cake and everyone
       sang "Happy Birthday" to Suford Lewis, whose birthday it was.  (She
       had agreed to pinch-hit for Jane Yolen, who was originally supposed
       to be in the play but was not feeling well.)

            After the play, I dropped into the Baltimore in '98 party.  As
       I said before, I was _n_o_t impressed.  Time will tell; there are still
       more than two years before the site selection for 1998.











       Boskone 30                 March 11, 1993                    Page 10



                                  The Green Room

            One of the interesting things about the Green Room is the
       conversations one overhears.  Sunday morning I came in just in time
       to hear Esther Friesner say, "Do you have any idea how big a
       walrus's penis is?!"  I'm sure she had a good explanation....

            She also donated Laura Kinsale's _T_h_e _S_h_a_d_o_w _a_n_d _t_h_e _S_t_a_r (from
       one of the racier lines of romance novels) to the Green Room reading
       material supply.  Most people stuck to the Sunday _T_i_m_e_s instead.


                                 (End of Part 2)