@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 12/03/93 -- Vol. 12, No. 23
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Holmdel 4N-509
Wednesdays at noon.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
12/08 STAND ON ZANZIBAR by John Brunner (Classic SF)
01/05 A MILLION OPEN DOORS by John Barnes (Nebula Nominee) (MT)
01/26 Bookswap (MT)
02/16 Demo of Electronic Hugo and Nebula Anthology (MT)
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 MT 2G-432 908-957-5087 holly!jetzt
LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell HO 1C-523 908-834-1267 holly!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 HO 2C-318 908-949-4156 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 John Brunner's STAND ON ZANZIBAR,
of which Charlie Harris says:
I nominated this book, winner of the 1969 Hugo, because I own a
copy and hadn't yet read it. I neglected to check on how many
pages it has. According to Nicholls' _T_h_e _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n
_E_n_c_y_c_l_o_p_e_d_i_a, Brunner's "magnum opus, _S_t_a_n_d _o_n _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r (1968),
[is] probably the longest sf novel written from within the genre to
that date." I'm a slow reader, and last weekend while visiting my
daughter and son-in-law, I mentioned that by Thursday I had to
write a review of a 650-page book that I hadn't yet finished
reading. "How far along are you?" asked Elaine. "Page 34."
Quipped Chris, "You'll have to get the Cliffs Notes."
THE MT VOID Page 2
On Wednesday, having progressed not much farther, I stopped at the
local library, and headed for Dewey 809.3. Imagine my delight when
I saw, nestled among the volumes of critical commentary on sf, the
familiar yellow and black of a Cliffs Notes cover! Sure enough, it
was Cliffs _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n: _A_n _I_n_t_r_o_d_u_c_t_i_o_n, with analyses of a
dozen or so great SF novels.
Alas, _S_t_a_n_d _o_n _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r is not one of them. (_T_h_e _M_o_o_n _I_s _a _H_a_r_s_h
_M_i_s_t_r_e_s_s is; I could have used that last month.) Is it fair to go
ahead and review a book that one hasn't finished reading? Yes, I
think so, especially if the fault is at least partly the author's.
_S_t_a_n_d _o_n _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r is very difficult to read. Not only does it make
heavy use of future slang, but, following in Dos Passos' footsteps,
it intermixes snippets of news stories, biographies, excerpts from
fictitious books, and commercials with rather short segments of the
main plot line. Or rather, with at least three main plot lines.
I have no doubt that the plot lines will converge eventually, and
that the snippets will be seen as integral to the book. At the
start, though, trying to make sense of it all is a struggle. I
have the feeling (as with John Barth's equally long _T_h_e _S_o_t-_W_e_e_d
_F_a_c_t_o_r) that as soon as I finish _S_t_a_n_d _o_n _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r I'll want to
read it again, to catch all that I missed the first time.
The title of the book stems not from its setting, but from the
overpopulation that is its shaping force: Whereas in 1900 the
entire population of the Earth could have stood shoulder-to-
shoulder on the Isle of Wight (147 square miles), by 2010 Brunner
postulates that they'd cover the Island of Zanzibar (some 650
square miles)--and by the time the book ends, "tens of thousands
would be knee-deep in the water." Stringent restrictions on
reproduction have not stemmed the human tide. Living space is at
such a premium that even a rising corporate executive like Norman
House is obliged to share the exorbitant cost of an apartment with
Donald Hogan, a "synthesist" paid by the Government to study
everything and look for connections. In return for the Government
support, Hogan has agreed to take on other roles (for example, spy)
when so instructed; the role he's later given is assassin.
Other characters include Dr. Sugaiguntung (a genius at genetic
biology), Shalmaneser (a sentient computer), Chad Mulligan (a rebel
sociologist, whose name we first encounter as author of several
book excerpts), and Zadkiel Obomi (president of the suspiciously
peaceful West African country of Beninia).
Comparing _S_t_a_n_d _o_n _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r with another dystopian Brunner novel,
_T_h_e _S_h_e_e_p _L_o_o_k _U_p (which I greatly enjoyed), David Samuelson in
Magill's _S_u_r_v_e_y _o_f _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n _L_i_t_e_r_a_t_u_r_e found _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r "less
didactic, less directive in its social message.... Although the
reader may not fully understand it, his complicity in helping to
put together the fragments of this both familiar and unfamiliar
THE MT VOID Page 3
world may have a more lasting effect on the conscious level,
reorienting the reader's observation of his own contemporary
society, as well as the nature of the science fiction novel.... In
_S_t_a_n_d _o_n _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r, [Brunner] has given us a textbook example of how
a futurological imagination can employ modernist literary devices
to produce a science fiction masterpiece." [-csh]
===================================================================
2. I always knew that at some point we would really get to the "me
generation." No, I don't mean just that everyone is thinking of
themselves. I mean ME! As in Mark Leeper. People had to realize
sooner or later that the true essence of cool is Mark Leeper.
People would be trying to look and act like me. They would imitate
my stylish, irreverent wit, my casual yet thoughtful style of
dress, they would be growing beards that look like mine with the
dashing highlights of brown and gray. Or people might be be able
to buy false-Mark-Leeper beards so they could look like me even if
they could not grow such a great beard themselves and so the trend
would not discriminate on the basis of sex.
Well, I have this to say about the Mark Leeper trend. Uh, it isn't
here yet. But it's starting. People are starting to imitate how I
was as a teenager. More and more people are getting into things
that have been interests of mine all along. As a teen I was
interested in Samurais and Japanese culture in general. Well it is
more true on the west coast but there are a lot of people who share
that interest. Movies have reflected the television shows I used
to watch. When I was really young it was Superman for me, and
films sort of followed the trend and have gotten up to my teenage
years. This summer they got up to _T_h_e _F_u_g_i_t_i_v_e there is now a
release of _T_h_e _B_e_v_e_r_l_y _H_i_l_l_b_i_l_l_i_e_s. They have not made a movie of
_O_u_t_e_r _L_i_m_i_t_s yet, but I suspect it cannot be too long. _T_w_i_l_i_g_h_t
_Z_o_n_e has been made into a film, as has _S_t_a_r _T_r_e_k. Of course they
have already done _T_h_e _U_n_t_o_u_c_h_a_b_l_e_s. Hollywood is slowly working
its way up to my college years.
One real shocker was that I never expected recreational mathematics
to take off. I loved it as a teenager. Give me a pencil and some
paper and I was busy and happy for a long time. At the time I
thought that if other people thought of mathematics in the right
way, they would be doing the same thing. The problem was that most
people just hadn't seen the beauty of mathematics. Well not all of
math took off, but one problem in group theory did. At one point I
remember seeing little kids on the street working the problem of
finding inverses to arbitrary elements in a particularly complex
group. The group is, of course, the set of positions of a Rubik's
Cube. I guess the moral here is that if you can cast a math
problem in plastic, it can capture people's imagination. There was
even a cartoon show on TV with a Rubik's cube as a hero. No it
THE MT VOID Page 4
doesn't make sense, but it shows the degree to which people can
learn to get enthused about a math problem.
Well, if I am right and we are going to get the Mark Leeper
Generation, soon we should be finding a great flourish in quality
writing and soon everybody is going to be writing weekly comments
on the world around them. Just remember when they do that it was
me who started the trend. The only thing that bothers me is that
it is coming in so slowly--Rubik's Cube was almost a decade ago and
_T_h_e _F_u_g_i_t_i_v_e was just this year--that by the time the Mark Leeper
Generation comes along it may be too late to save the world.
===================================================================
3. ADDAMS FAMILY VALUES (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule review: In a second-rate plot punctuated by
some first-rate jokes, the new Addams Family film
tells the story of what happens when a new baby and
a murderous nanny come to the Addams household.
Lots of funny gags in the ghoulish Addams style fail
to save the rather uninteresting plot. Rating +1
(-4 to +4).
Yes, it's time for another visit to the little house out in the
middle of nowhere, the Addams House. Perhaps it is out in the
middle of nowhere because nobody could stand to move next to the
Addams, or perhaps it was once a thriving neighborhood before the
darling Addams children were let loose on it. In either case, back
are Gomez (Raoul Julia), Morticia (Angelica Huston), Uncle Fester
(Christopher Lloyd), Wednesday (Christina Ricci), Thing (Francis
Ingram), and the rest of the Addams clan. The characters are based
on those of the television series which in turn were inspired by
the ghoulish New Yorker cartoons of Charles Addams. Unfortunately
that sums up the strengths and weaknesses of the new film and its
predecessor. Magazine cartoons have no plot at all, just quick-
punch jokes. Where the two Addams Family films are their strongest
is in the quick-punch jokes. When the film tries to advance a plot
it loses most of its energy and humor, and tells a rather weak
story. It is only when the story-telling comes to a full halt for
the sake of a joke that the film is really funny.
This time around the Addams have a new baby and little Wednesday
and Pugsley decide to execute the little thing as ghoulishly as
possible to protect the status quo. To keep peace in the family
Gomez and Morticia hire a nanny who turns out to be a Black Widow
murderess (Joan Cusack) out to marry and kill Uncle Fester for his
fortune. Did I miss something? The plot calls for Fester to be
rich and famous. I do not remember that ever being part of the
plot before this outing. The story also calls for Wednesday and
THE MT VOID Page 5
Pugsley to go to Summer Camp. So we flash back and forth between
the Addams at home, a married-to-a-killer subplot, and a
Wednesday-and-Pugsley-make-a-shambles-of-a-Summer-Camp subplot.
The two subplots have been done better as full-length films in the
past. There is also an equation of Wednesday's and Pugsley's
eccentricities with positive political correctness. The latter
really was a fiasco and threatens to torpedo the whole spirit of
the series.
Still, when it is just showing little vignettes that could have
come from Addams cartoons, it is terrific. We have very little
impression of what Addams characters are like between the little
flashbulb glimpses we get from the cartoons, so Huston's and
Julia's performances are based on the interpretations of John Astin
and Carolyn Jones. It is not easy to outdo an actor at a popular
role that actor created. That is like trying to do Inspector
Clouseau better than Peter Sellers. But Julia and Huston actually
outdo Astin and Jones at their own game. This is a film with big
ups and big downs so overall it gets just a +1 on the -4 to +4
scale. (My apologies to Christopher Hart who did such a good job
as Thing. Attributing the part to Ingram was something of an
inside joke though I doubt that anyone will recognize the reference
to Francis Ingram. Anyone want to try to identify that name?)
===================================================================
4. THE PIANO (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule review: I may stand alone on this one, but
for me _T_h_e _P_i_a_n_o is an unbelievable and over-wrought
melodrama. Keitel is at least able to put in a good
performance, but as talented as Hunter is, even she
cannot make the bizarre Ada believable. The
production values are good, but the writing of this
pot-boiler strikes me as being on a par with that of
_M_a_n_d_i_n_g_o. Rating -1 (-4 to +4).
Do not trust me on this one. I am not someone who gets a whole lot
out of stories of people who do strange illogical things in the
heat of passion. I tend to find these tales comic at just the
moment that they are trying to be the most serious. I have this
nasty tendency to chuckle at D. H. Lawrence stories. But for me,
_T_h_e _P_i_a_n_o was an incredibly overwrought and pretentious melodrama.
When I should have been shuddering I found myself chortling. The
critics who are liking this film so much clearly are better able to
appreciate this sort of story.
Holly Hunter plays Ada, a woman who has chosen at an early age to
remain mute for reasons that even she does not understand. Already
we can see that Ada gets caught up in situations where she does not
THE MT VOID Page 6
understand her own behavior and motives. Rather than a voice she
has come to express herself through music on her piano and through
sign language. As the story opens, some time in the 19th Century,
she has a daughter of about eight (Ana Paquin) and her father has
arranged a marriage between her and a New Zealand settler Stewart
(Sam Neill). On her arrival in New Zealand her husband decides
that her piano is wrong for life in New Zealand. For practical
reasons, though also insensitively, he abandons it on the beach.
But without a care for the wishes of his new wife he does not go
back for the piano even when he has a chance. Ada goes to a crude
neighbor, George Baines (Harvey Keitel) to ask him to rescue the
instrument. That he does but convinces Stewart to trade to him the
piano for a piece of land. Stewart agrees without even consulting
Ada. He knows how much the piano means to her, but after all he is
a man and so is insensitive to the wishes of the wife whose
affection he is trying to win.
Baines is extremely lonely and he finds seeing and hearing Ada play
extremely erotic. He first works a deal for Ada to teach him to
play the piano as part of the land agreement. But as a side
arrangement he tells Ada she can buy back the piano, a black key at
a time if she will give him little sexual favors while she plays.
This arrangement sets into motion a melodrama of sex and violence
worthy of a drive-in triple feature of exploitation films. Perhaps
writer/director Jane Campion has made this film with a modicum more
polish, but the material is no less trashy than if the story were
set on an Arkansas sawmill.
Keitel, Hunter, and Neill are all good actors but of them only
Keitel manages to rise above the material and invest his character
with real humanity. At his worst Baines is never far from being a
sympathetic character. It is a bit too easy to feel sorry for poor
Ada as the powerless victim. But still her character is top-heavy
with too many weird facets for even Hunter to make believable.
(Are there genuinely people who not only sleepwalk but sleep-
piano-play?) Ada brings about the climax of the story of her and
Stewart in an enigmatic act of piano mutilation that was
disastrously unsuccessful, but which would have been no less a
fiasco had it gone as she planned. Somebody would have noticed the
effect on the piano soon. In addition the act seemed to involve a
note to someone whom she already knew was illiterate.
At least the film is well-photographed, showing both positive and
negative aspects of life among the Maori of New Zealand in the last
century. That adds what watchable elements the film has. But I
cannot help feeling that in years to come, once we are past the
initial rush of political sympathy, this film is going to be
considered an embarrassment in just the same way _B_i_l_l_y _J_a_c_k has
been. I give this film a -1 on the -4 to +4 scale. For me, this
is the most over-rated film of the year. Sorry, I fully expect
that there will be many who disagree, but Harvey Keitel and the
THE MT VOID Page 7
Emperor are dressed just alike.
===================================================================
5. A PERFECT WORLD (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule review: This is something of a departure
for Eastwood, a gritty and realistic crime drama
that slowly fades into a story with warm
relationships. Costner has center stage as an
escaped convict who forms a father-son relationship
with his young hostage. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4).
Clint Eastwood has built a career on playing violent characters
particularly his "Man with No Name" and Dirty Harry. Two films
back he made _U_n_f_o_r_g_i_v_e_n, an anti-violence Western that was
nonetheless violent. There was speculation that his films would be
less violent from that point on and that _U_n_f_o_r_g_i_v_e_n was a sort of
penance. The next film he starred in, _I_n _t_h_e _L_i_n_e _o_f _F_i_r_e, was
another film in the "Dirty Harry" mold, but Eastwood claimed that
he had no artistic control and was just an actor playing a part.
Eastwood has now directed his first film since _U_n_f_o_r_g_i_v_e_n. Like
_U_n_f_o_r_g_i_v_e_n it is a film with some violence, but at the same time
does not glorify that violence.
Kevin Costner plays Butch Haynes, who breaks out of a Texas prison
on Halloween night of 1963 together with Terry Pugh, a brutal hood.
Along the way they pick up an eight-year-old hostage, Philip,
played by T. J. Lowther. On their trail is Texas Ranger Red
Garnett (Eastwood) who has been assigned a state criminologist
Sally Gerber (Laura Dern). This is a Clint Eastwood film, so of
course Dern is along to play the required female lead to be
subjected to the Eastwood character's insensitive male chauvinism
in the early parts of the film but to be won over by Eastwood in
the later parts of the film. In this outing, however, Eastwood and
Dern take a backseat to Costner and Lowther, who play the real main
characters of the film, Haynes and Philip. Eventually it is just
Haynes and Philip on the run and learning to get along with each
other. Lowther is attracted to the father figure he was missing at
home, Costner is torn between his anti-social urges and his desire
to be a better father figure to Philip than Haynes's father had
been to Haynes. Costner make a very believable Texas con.
Much of the story is told with very little mood music as Eastwood
adopts the realistic style of _I_n _C_o_l_d _B_l_o_o_d and _B_a_d_l_a_n_d_s.
Unfortunately that is only the part of the story about the
fugitives. The witty in-fighting of the police on the case and
comic bits involving an aluminum trailer serving as police
headquarters for the Texas backroad chase tend to sabotage the
almost documentary style of the fugitives' story. Eventually this
THE MT VOID Page 8
part of the plot gives in to more humanistic values and we get some
more background music to tell us how to feel about what we are
experiencing.
Costner's character is one of the more complex ones we have seen on
the screen in a while, particularly in an Eastwood film. His
unfinished business with his own father has led him to idolize
children and his violence is usually triggered by his seeing a
child not being treated well. He is infuriated to discover that
Philip's religion, Jehovah's Witness, does not allow the boy to
trick or treat or to go to carnivals and does not distinguish
between religious restrictions and parental brutality. It is the
combination of his own unintended cruelty to his young companion
and his desire to protect the boy that lead the story to its
denouement.
Eastwood makes a few beginner's mistakes not expected of an
experienced director. There are serious continuity flaws,
particularly with arm positions in a key scene at both the
beginning and end of the film. This combined with the uneven style
do not sink the film, but certainly count against it. My rating
for _A _P_e_r_f_e_c_t _W_o_r_l_d would be a less than perfect +1 on the -4 to +4
scale.
===================================================================
6. MRS. DOUBTFIRE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule review: This is an electric blanket of a
movie. It is thin but it is reliable and can be
warm when it has to be. Robin Williams plays a
divorced man who wants to be with his children and
is willing to cross-dress to secretly become the
family nanny. There are funny moments and warm
moments, but few thoughtful, intelligent, or
perceptive moments. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4)
Robin Williams plays Daniel Hillard, who is a bit like a big child.
He tempermentally walks off of a job providing voices for cartoon
characters over a principle. (This reminds one of _T_o_o_t_s_i_e, and it
certainly will not be the last such reminder.) To cheer himself up
he throws a lavish birthday party for his son which backfires
involving both police and his wife Miranda (Sally Field). This is
the last straw and Miranda files divorce proceedings that severely
limit Daniel's right to see his own children. To appease his need
for work as well as his emotional need to see his children Daniel
has his brother, a gay makeup artist, make him up to look like a
woman. Disguised and taking the name Mrs. Doubtfire, he secretly
takes the job of nanny to his own children. There he is able to
win the acceptance, albeit unknowing, of his family. From there
THE MT VOID Page 9
you can pretty well figure out what comic situations arise. For
example, he must learn to cook for his family. Most of the gags
here do not even require the major premise of the film, they are
just generic learning to cook gags. Then when his ex-wife starts
dating a rich handsome bachelor (Pierce Brosnan), and of course he
uses his position as confidant to steer Miranda back to him. There
are few unfamiliar situations in this by-the-numbers comedy. We
even have that old standby from dating movies, having to balance
two simultaneous dates (well, dinner appointments) without anybody
realizing he is not spending full time with them.
I will not say I was a big fan of _T_o_o_t_s_i_e, but at least it
attempted a little more substance than this light-weight comedy. I
will say that if I saw both Dustin Hoffman and Robin Williams on
the street dressed as women, I would probably be more convinced by
Williams portrayal, but there the advantages of _M_r_s. _D_o_u_b_t_f_i_r_e over
_T_o_o_t_s_i_e end. There are serious flaws in logic in this film. Not
the least of these flaws is that even using a bodysuit and mask,
the Doubtfire costume would take on the order of fifteen minutes to
put on and perhaps as long to take off. There are times in the
film where Williams slips in and out of his disguise in seconds.
Williams is good at varying his voice, but probably not so good as
the story calls for him to be. In specific, he fools his wife of
fourteen years throughout the story with many different voices. I
doubt that even Mel Blanc could have done that. The film glosses
over the difference between being able to put several different
characterizations in a voice and the ability to actually disguise a
voice so is not recognizable. Another flaw is the dependence on
slapstick comedy. Yes it brings a quick laugh, but it just is not
as satisfying as real wit in writing. Too many of the scenes are
just obvious and mechanical. This is a fluffy see-once situation
comedy that is about what you would expect from Chris Columbus who
directed the two "Home Alone" films and the somewhat better
_A_d_v_e_n_t_u_r_e_s _i_n _B_a_b_y_s_i_t_t_i_n_g. This one gets a rating of +1 on the -4
to +4 scale.
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
leeper@mtgzfs3.att.com
Every age is fed on illusions, lest man should renounce
life early and the human race come to an end.
-- Joseph Conrad
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK