@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 4/1/94 -- Vol. 12, No. 40
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Middletown 1R-400C
Wednesdays at noon.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
04/20 VALIS by Philip K. Dick
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. What with one thing and another it has been a while since we had
a film festival. It probably is time to reschedule. It has been a
long hard winter so it probably would be a good idea to have some
light-hearted comedies. We recently were treated to the film
_G_r_e_e_d_y, a reputedly not-very-funny comedy about human greed. Human
greed is a fairly serious subject, of course. Second only to sex,
greed brings out the unvarnished animal in us. That probably is
what makes greed a funny subject for film. It stands to reason
there should be some good comedies on the subject. I can think of
three good comedies on this thorny subject. We don't have _T_h_e
_F_o_r_t_u_n_e _C_o_o_k_i_e but we do have the other two. On Thursday, April 7,
at 7PM we will be showing:
Crime, Greed, and Chaos
RUTHLESS PEOPLE (1986) dir. by Abrahams, Zucker, Abrahams
WRONG BOX (1966) dir. by Bryan Forbes
THE MT VOID Page 2
In _R_u_t_h_l_e_s_s _P_e_o_p_l_e Danny DeVito has very deep feelings about his
wife of fifteen years (played by Bette Midler). One of the things
he feels deeply is that he doesn't want her alive to make it
sixteen. He is ready and willing to kill her when his plans go
wrong--sort of. She is kidnapped by two desperate people who will
kill her if DeVito doesn't come up with $500,000. But can they be
enticed to carry out their threat? I won't describe the chaos that
occurs, but _R_u_t_h_l_e_s_s _P_e_o_p_l_e is a sort of a _B_l_o_o_d _S_i_m_p_l_e with jokes.
Lots of them. And little surprises. This film is directed by the
same team that directed _A_i_r_p_l_a_n_e! And back then it was the full
team--nowadays they are working separately. _R_u_t_h_l_e_s_s _P_e_o_p_l_e is a
laugh-out-loud comedy. Feisty little DeVito carries the film with
a good-natured malevolence that is a positive joy to watch. Bette
Midler's anything-but-helpless kidnap victim will give nightmares
to any potential kidnapper in the country. Judge Reinholt and
Helen Slater are a little too pat as the kidnappers, but the script
even gives them a few good scenes.
_T_h_e _W_r_o_n_g _B_o_x starts with about ten minutes of solid laughs, then
calms down to just a very funny film. The film is about a tontine
amongst gentlemen. Whoever lives the longest wins the lottery and
he or his heirs will be fabulously wealthy. There are two cousins,
played by John Mills and Ralph Richardson, who are the last
survivors. Things start happening when Richardson's two evil sons
(played by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore) decide to secure the prize
with--gasp!--foul play. This is a terrific screwball comedy based
on a novel by Robert Louis Stevenson and set in Victorian London.
The film stars Michael Caine as John Mills's not-to-bright son and
also has a delightful small role for Peter Sellers. But the most
hilarious character is Peacock. I won't even describe Peacock.
This film is not an easy one to find and it is very, very funny.
===================================================================
2. THE PAPER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule review: Ron Howard's look at the turbulent
life on a struggling middle-brow newspaper makes
some pointed observations about the newspaper
business but spoils it all trying to tie too many
loose ends in too silly a final act. Rating: low +1
(-4 to +4)
Ron Howard's newest film about working-class heroes is a look at
what goes on in and out of an incredibly chaotic newsroom. Just as
he previously did with firefighters in _B_a_c_k_d_r_a_f_t, he is now showing
how a good newspaper staff, even on a sleezy-looking tabloid, can
make all the difference for a city like New York. It is a story
that has been done several times, though usually based on the play
"The Front Page" by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur. _T_h_e _P_a_p_e_r is
THE MT VOID Page 3
not obviously based on that play, but the fast-paced style,
newsroom pandemonium, comic touches, reporter looking to get out of
the job, and even the basic plot of the news scoop that could
prevent an injustice leave little doubt where David and Stephan
Koepp probably got much of their inspiration.
The film covers 24 hours and 10 seconds in the life of wise-
cracking tabloid editor/reporter Henry Hackett (played by Michael
Keaton). Even in Hackett's hectic life, this is a particularly
frenetic day. His very pregnant wife (played by Marisa Tomei) is
an ex-reporter with numerous nightmares of impending empty and
prosaic future. Martha Hackett is pushing her husband to take a
better-paying and more dependable job. Henry has been offered the
job at the New York Times (pronounced "Sentinel") where he will be
a soulless, neat professional instead of the wild seat-of-the-pants
reporter he is used to being. The Sentinel is the kind of paper
where you worry less about scoops and more about being
"comprehensive." Complicating matters is a local government
functionary has a vendetta against McDougal, a brilliant and grungy
co-reporter played by Randy Quaid. Throw into the mix Bernie White
(Robert Duvall) a slightly obnoxious chief editor with family
problems, prostate cancer, and apparently smoking-related
illnesses. All the subplots tie themselves up in ways ranging from
unsurprising to highly predictable, even if along the way they take
detours through total absurdity.
The pacing of the story is frenetic though at the same time often
informative, if somewhat cynical. The meetings to decide how much
to emphasize the various breaking stories are absolute gems. One
irritation I had watching the film was I kept getting carbonation
bubbles up my nose. Ron Howard kept rubbing it in Coca-Cola and
its subsidiary products. Calling these product "placements" seems
too gentle. This was a product barrage. Howard may have been
making up for product placement opportunities missed when he made
_F_a_r _a_n_d _A_w_a_y.
It would be nice to say that Keaton brought some sort of deep
resonance to his role. One sort of expects that, but the character
of Hackett really does not need or give opportunity for good
acting. Hackett is an inconsiderate wiseguy who loves only his job
and his wife, in pretty much that order. That doesn't give Keaton
much latitude to act. Marginally more room is given to Duvall as
Bernie White. Duvall gives him a few rough Jewish characteristics,
but this will not be a well-remembered role for him. Glenn Close
is bullish and officious. Hers is certainly one of the more
interesting characters but her role in a disastrously miscalculated
scene toward the end. Marisa Tomei has more drama than she has had
in previous roles but doers not carry it well.
_T_h_e _P_a_p_e_r has many good moments but overall could have been a much
better movie. I give it a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
THE MT VOID Page 4
[Note: the play "The Front Page" referred to above has been filmed
four times: _T_h_e _F_r_o_n_t _P_a_g_e (1931), _H_i_s _G_i_r_l _F_r_i_d_a_y (1940), _T_h_e
_F_r_o_n_t _P_a_g_e (1974), and _S_w_i_t_c_h_i_n_g _C_h_a_n_n_e_l_s (1988).]
===================================================================
3. Boskone 31 (con report by Evelyn C. Leeper) (part 3 of 3):
Creating an Internally Consistent Religion
Saturday, 3 PM
David A. Smith (mod), James Patrick Kelly, Rosemary Kirstein
In the usual introductions, Kelly said that he had written _P_l_a_n_e_t
_o_f _W_h_i_s_p_e_r_s and _L_o_o_k _i_n_t_o _t_h_e _S_u_n (based on Julian Jaynes's _O_r_i_g_i_n
_o_f _C_o_n_s_c_i_o_u_s_n_e_s_s _i_n _t_h_e _B_r_e_a_k_d_o_w_n _o_f _t_h_e _B_i_c_a_m_e_r_a_l _M_i_n_d).
The panelists started out by saying they were not going to define
religion. (Darn!) So they began by asking what it means for a
religion to be inconsistent. Well, one answer would be that it
says one thing and does another, though no examples were given.
Also, they said, reality can make a religion inconsistent. I do
not know if by this they were referring to the sort of problem that
strict Biblical fundamentalists have with a heliocentric solar
system, or what. (Later, the example was given of the Boxer
Rebellion, in which warriors were told that they were invincible.
The problem, as someone expressed it, was that the bullets did not
believe this.) Another idea of an inconsistent religion might be
one in which on the one hand there is a command to be fruitful and
multiply, while on the other hand, sex is taught as something to be
avoided.
Someone listed the five branches of philosophy at this point:
- logic--provides the rational basis for philosophical
discussion
- epistemology--theory of knowledge
- metaphysics or ontology--study of nature of reality
- ethics--study of what is good
- aesthetics--study of what is beautiful
It was not clear what this had to do with the question at hand, but
it was educational enough that I decided to include it.
The discussion moved to examining the nature of consciousness.
Someone felt that consciousness was connected to the idea of a
personal god that speaks to one.
As to why to create a religion at all, the panelists said that it
was one way to motivate a character. But they warned about getting
too specific too quickly, which may be why most fictional religions
THE MT VOID Page 5
are not inconsistent--there is not enough there to make them
inconsistent.
As an example of a fairly completely fleshed-out religion (as
fictional ones go), someone gave the example of the religion in
Frank Herbert's _D_u_n_e. Harry Turtledove has the premise that all
religions are true in his "Visdessos" series, and also in _T_h_e _C_a_s_e
_o_f _t_h_e _T_o_x_i_c _S_p_e_l_l _D_u_m_p, which I would think would lead to
inconsistencies if two different religions claim that they are each
the only way to salvation.
Someone asked if humans need religion (here defined as a belief in
something beyond oneself). Many people seemed to agree that there
could be an ethical content without spiritual motivation (though
the Boy Scouts of America seem to disagree). And there is also a
distinction between "hard" religion and "soft" religion.
Books mentioned that used religion as a major focus included Walter
M. Miller's _C_a_n_t_i_c_l_e _f_o_r _L_e_i_b_o_w_i_t_z (a pre-Vatican-II, post-nuclear
Catholicism); Robert A. Heinlein's _U_n_i_v_e_r_s_e; Fritz Leiber's _G_a_t_h_e_r,
_D_a_r_k_n_e_s_s; James Blish's _C_a_s_e _o_f _C_o_n_s_c_i_e_n_c_e and _B_l_a_c_k _E_a_s_t_e_r; Kurt
Vonnegut's _C_a_t'_s _C_r_a_d_l_e; and the work of L. Ron Hubbard. The
latter was in response to someone who said that in novels, you know
the made-up religion is false so you do not believe it. This gave
rise to the question of whether an author could create a religion
that people will believe in (or at least want to). And what people
want to believe in can vary widely--someone claimed that the Inuit
often find descriptions of Hell inviting! Heinlein's _S_t_r_a_n_g_e_r _i_n _a
_S_t_r_a_n_g_e _L_a_n_d was given as an example of a religion that people did
want to believe in, though whether it actually "worked" was
unclear. And Heinlein of course reminds us that authors may also
create religions to "prove" their ideas. Early Roger Zelazny,
according to some, did this as well.
A religion must also be economically viable as well as internally
consistent. For example, if a religion demands a virgin sacrifice
every day, there better be a _l_a_r_g_e supply of virgins handy. (One
of the reasons the Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs was that
all the neighboring tribes helped fight the Aztecs, who had been
raiding them to get enough victims for their sacrifices.)
Autographing
Saturday, 4:30 PM
Emma Bull
Luck of Leeper states that if I bring books by two authors to be
autographed, at least one will not be at the convention. So I got
my _W_a_r _f_o_r _t_h_e _O_a_k_s autographed by Emma Bull, but Kara Dalkey was
not there to autograph _T_h_e _N_i_g_h_t_i_n_g_a_l_e.
THE MT VOID Page 6
Parties
I dropped by the Readercon party to buy my supporting membership
and the "Boston in 2001" party to find out what was going on. Not
much was happening either place, or at most of the other parties
(maybe I was just early), so I went back to the room and crashed.
Last year I had attended the "Boston in 1998" party and my feeling
had been that there was no really good choice for 1998, because
Niagara Falls and Boston probably did not have the
facilities/hotels needed, and the Baltimore people were
concentrating too much on offering rum drinks and not enough on
content or planning. The latter seems to have improved (I think
someone told them they had to _s_h_o_w that their act was together, not
just have it secretly together), and they seem to be the front-
runner. (I'm saving my Boston vote for 2001, since if it's in
Boston in 1998, it cannot be in Boston in 2001.)
Origami
Sunday, 10 AM
Mark R. Leeper (mod)
I did not attend this, but saw it while I was cruising the art
show. It seemed well-attended, though Mark mentioned that he was
not happy about having the workshop shut down after only one hour.
Since teaching origami takes a while, it would have been better to
have it somewhere where they could have gone two hours.
The Forgotten Fantasists: Swann, Warner, and others
Sunday, 11 AM
Greer Gilman, Nancy C. Hanger, Don Keller
This was described as an "advocacy" panel. Much of it consisted of
the panelists either listing authors they recommended, or actually
reading excerpts from these authors' works. But other interesting
tidbits were revealed. For example, Keller mentioned that William
Morris invented the fantasy novel writing pastiches of medieval
romances.
Gilman started by reading from Sylvia Townsend Warner's _L_o_l_l_y
_W_i_l_l_o_w_e_s (which she mentioned had been the very first Book-of-the-
Month Club selection). She also recommended Warner's _K_i_n_g_d_o_m_s _o_f
_E_l_f_i_n and _C_a_t'_s _C_r_a_d_l_e, and Rachel Ferguson's _T_h_e _B_r_o_n_t_e_s _W_e_n_t _t_o
_W_o_o_l_w_o_r_t_h'_s (recently reprinted by Virago Press), which she
described as "the urban fantasy of its time." (The Library of
Congress, by the way, does not list the title _C_a_t'_s _C_r_a_d_l_e for
Warner. However, it also does not list Hope Mirrlees's _L_U_D-_i_n-
_t_h_e-_M_i_s_t, which I _k_n_o_w exists, so do not take this as gospel.)
George MacDonald was also recommended. His works are hard to find,
but the panelists recommended you try Christian publishers. The
edition of his works someone had was from the Ballantine "Adult
THE MT VOID Page 7
Fantasy" series, which led people to list all the other authors
published in that series as well. (There were about sixty books in
the series; no, I cannot list them all!) MacDonald's were "dream
country" rather than "somewhere else," a distinction that turns out
to be of some interest in analyzing fantasy. MacDonald was
described as a Christian theologian rather than as a Christian
apologist (a term usually applied to C. S. Lewis).
A lot was said about Charles Williams, including that he could also
be considered a writer of urban fantasy. Someone said they fell in
love with his work when they read the first sentence of _W_a_r _i_n
_H_e_a_v_e_n: "The telephone was ringing wildly but there was no one to
answer it except the corpse lying under the desk."
Hope Mirrlees was called a "minor Bloomsburyite."
Karen Michalson's study _V_i_c_t_o_r_i_a_n _F_a_n_t_a_s_y _L_i_t_e_r_a_t_u_r_e was
recommended. It explains, among other things, why fantasists were
forgotten. (It has to do with political heterodoxy, and also with
the fact that they wrote with no marketing constraints.) A lot of
literary terms and references were thrown around, which I did not
note down.
Other recommendations included _E_a_r_t_h_f_a_s_t_s and _T_h_e _G_r_a_s_s _R_o_p_e by
William Mayne (I could not find a listing for the latter in the
Library of Congress); _T_r_a_v_e_l_l_e_r _i_n _T_i_m_e by Alison Utley; someone's
_R_a_c_h_e_l _a_n_d _t_h_e _S_e_v_e_n _W_o_n_d_e_r_s (again, I could not find a listing);
_T_h_e _A_b_a_n_d_o_n_e_d, _T_h_e _M_a_n _W_h_o _W_a_s _M_a_g_i_c, and _M_a_n_x_m_o_u_s_e by Paul
Gallico; _L_a_d_y _F_e_r_r_y by Sarah Orne Jewett (I found lots of listings
for her, but no book of this title); and _T_h_e _S_h_e_r_w_o_o_d _R_i_n_g and _T_h_e
_P_e_r_i_l_o_u_s _G_a_r_d by Elizabeth Marie Pope.
The City and The Story
Sunday, 12 noon
Moshe Feder (mod), Emma Bull, Greer Gilman, Steve Popkes, Madeleine Robins
Most of the panelists (at least the authors) had written urban
fantasies, but Gilman described herself as the "token pastoralist"
on the panel, since none of her work is set in cities. (Apparently
the idea of "the City and the _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _F_i_c_t_i_o_n Story" was not going
to be discussed.)
The obvious first question (which was also the actual first
question) is, "Are cities good places for fantasy?" The panelists
felt that they were, because the density of people in cities
provides a lot of opportunity. They also note that Teresa Nielsen
Hayden claimed there were two different scenarios for cities in
fantasy (or science fiction): the City of Tomorrow, and the City of
Dreadful Night. According to someone on the panel, Nielsen Hayden
made the distinction by saying, "The City of Tomorrow is full of
hope but has no sex and no one takes out the garbage," while the
THE MT VOID Page 8
City of Dreadful Night may be more depressing but is also more
realistic.
The wide opportunity for characters is enhanced by the fact that
"being born in New York City doesn't make you a New Yorker" (as one
panelists noted). "Some people are born to live in Cleveland."
Other panelists compared this lack of identification with the city
of one's birth to some people's lack of identification with the
gender of their birth.
The whole question of the "city and the story" made the panelists
ask if there were stories in which the setting was paramount, or at
least more important than the characters. Bull said that people
respond to their environment, but that the people (characters) are
paramount. Gilman disagreed, at least mildly, by citing Joseph
Conrad as an author whose settings are very important, perhaps more
important than his characters. Someone responded that Conrad's
settings _a_r_e his characters. Bull agreed that settings could
replace some characters; she said that Lankhmar would need at least
eighteen characters to replace it as a setting.
People agreed that science fiction uses settings more than
mainstream fiction does. Some examples of setting-based mainstream
fiction given were John Dos Passos's _U_S_A, Toni Morrison's _B_e_l_o_v_e_d,
Peter Matthiessen's _F_a_r _T_o_r_t_u_g_a, Thornton Wilder's _B_r_i_d_g_e_s _o_f _S_a_n
_L_u_i_s _R_e_y, Gabriel Garcia Marquez's _O_n_e _H_u_n_d_r_e_d _Y_e_a_r_s _o_f _S_o_l_i_t_u_d_e,
and most of Charles Dickens's works. Science fiction works that
are setting-based include John Stith's _M_a_n_h_a_t_t_a_n _T_r_a_n_s_f_e_r, Samuel
Delany's _D_h_a_l_g_r_e_n, Ursula K. LeGuin's _L_e_f_t _H_a_n_d _o_f _D_a_r_k_n_e_s_s, Brian
Aldiss's _M_a_l_a_c_i_a _T_a_p_e_s_t_r_y, Robert Sheckley's "Street of Dreams,
Feet of Clay," A. J. Deutsch's "Subway Named Moebius," and Thea von
Harbou's _M_e_t_r_o_p_o_l_i_s. One book mentioned as being an interesting
urban fantasy was Rachel Pollack's _U_n_q_u_e_n_c_h_a_b_l_e _F_i_r_e, in which
magic devices are bought at the local K-Mart.
Has the city, then, replaced the island in literature as a
microcosm? It has its own self-imposed isolation. (The film
_P_r_o_s_p_e_r_o'_s _B_o_o_k_s is an urban landscape, even though everything
takes place indoors.) Neighborhoods in the city can recreate the
village, and parts outside the neighborhood can appear to be the
dark wood (which panelists had agreed _h_a_d been replaced by the
city). And since people in cities ignore a lot of things, fantasy
can occur unnoticed. Some people on the panel claimed this image
of city people ignoring their surroundings was not a true image of
city people, but the fate Kitty Genovese reminds us that it is at
least partly true.
I asked if authors write about cities they have not visited as well
as cities they are familiar with. Then I rephrased it as, well,
yes, of course they do sometimes, but what are the differences?
Robins said that she used the money from her first book set in
THE MT VOID Page 9
London to make her first visit to London, but the question got
dropped fairly fast. Bull did say that the Plaza of the Three
Cultures in Mexico City was her most science-fictional experience.
There a statue there which is remaining at the same level while the
plaza (and the city) around it are sinking, so gradually more and
more steps are added up to the statue. Robins said her most
science-fictional experience was going to the World's Fair in New
York after it was closed and seeing what looked like a post-
holocaust world around her. (Someone asked her which World's Fair,
to which Bull responded that Robins "has this oil painting in her
attic....")
As far as writing stories in different cities, Bull said that she
would like to spread out, and perhaps set her next story in
St. Paul (especially after how she treated it in _W_a_r _f_o_r _t_h_e _O_a_k_s).
She also wanted to set a story in Taxco, Mexico. Popkes wanted to
set a story in Berlin, Gilman in Whitby (used in Bram Stoker's
_D_r_a_c_u_l_a), and Robins in Florence, Italy; or Los Angeles.
Gilman pointed out that even her pastoral settings are not natural.
Moors are made by burning forests and will return to forest unless
they are maintained. So even landscapes are not untouched by
humans and civilization. Popkes saw this, and cities, as a
metaphor of humans changing the earth. He also said that cities
have one of everything, and described walking down Park Avenue last
December and passing a man carrying a handful of whips and calling
out, "Whips for sale! Whips for sale! Great stocking-stuffers!"
(I figure he was probably doing a brisk business with tourists who
then took them home and said, "Hey, Marge, look what they're
selling on the streets of New York!" Like Broadway shows, it's
probably only the tourist trade that keeps him going.)
What's BIG in the Small Press
Sunday, 1 PM
Mark Olson (mod), Ken Gale, Carl Lundgren, Charles Ryan, Lawrence Schimel
First the panelists listed their small press "credentials." Olson
works with NESFA Press, which started out doing books to honor the
Guests of Honor at Boskones, but has branched out into doing other
works, its latest being _T_h_e _R_e_d_i_s_c_o_v_e_r_y _o_f _M_a_n, the collected short
stories of Cordwainer Smith. Gale does Evolution Comics, Lundgren
does his own art books, and Schimel does poetry through Midsummer
Night's Press, a letter press. Ryan does "First Books," which he
said was an example of how small presses take the risk when large
companies will not. Olson agreed with that, saying that when NESFA
Press had gone back to Smith's estate to try to purchase the rights
for _N_o_r_s_t_r_i_l_i_a, they were told that these right were more valuable
and would cost most than NESFA had offered to pay. NESFA pointed
out that they were more valuable precisely because NESFA had
published the collection and generated new interest, but also said
that if the estate could sell the rights to a major publisher for
THE MT VOID Page 10
the higher price, that was fine with them: NESFA's goal is to get
the works they like back in print.
Among the problems faced by small press publishers seems to be the
necessity to pay "placement fees" to get distributors to carry
them. (So far as I could tell, these were more like bribes than
legitimate fees.) Ryan said that the inability to pay these fees
was one reason why _A_b_o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l had problems getting into the market.
Also, bookstores want a lot of extra copies. For example,
Waldenbooks wants no more than 50% sell-through, meaning that if
the publisher sends them 1000 copies, at least 500 will not be sold
and will be destroyed. So it the publisher is working on a small
margin, meeting these requirements is impossible.
NESFA also has problems because of the marketing. Dealers get a
40% discount, so the list price for the book must actually reflect
a profit at their wholesale rate, e.g., if the book costs $12 to
produce, then it must be priced at a minimum of $20 just to break
even. And bigger distributors want bigger discounts (50%-55%), so
if you plan on using those, the list price goes even higher (in the
previous example, it would have to be $25). Of course, this means
when you buy direct from NESFA (at a convention, for example), they
get a lot more of the profit.
Good reviews help a little--NESFA estimates that they add about 6%
to the retail sales of the book. (_T_h_e _R_e_d_i_s_c_o_v_e_r_y _o_f _M_a_n was
reviewed favorably in _P_u_b_l_i_s_h_e_r_s _W_e_e_k_l_y, for example.) Harlan
Ellison's rantings about the same book at ConFrancisco, colorful as
they were, seem to have added only about thirty more retail sales
than NESFA was expecting there.
There was some discussion of hardback versus paperback books and
their marketing. Someone gave the example that Tor does a hundred
hardback books a year and a thousand paperbacks, yet makes more on
their hardbacks. This undoubtedly has to do with the returns
system--unsold hardbacks are returned to Tor for resale, while
unsold paperbacks are stripped and destroyed. Also, some magazines
and newspapers will not review paperbacks, which means less
exposure.
Authors and artists who are currently being published almost
entirely by small presses include Carol Emshwiller, David Bunch,
and R. A. Lafferty. Someone mentioned Edward R. Tufte's _V_i_s_u_a_l
_D_i_s_p_l_a_y _o_f _Q_u_a_n_t_i_t_a_t_i_v_e _R_e_s_e_a_r_c_h from Graphics Press, and Tom
Clancy got his start having _T_h_e _H_u_n_t _f_o_r _R_e_d _O_c_t_o_b_e_r published by
the Naval Institute Press.
Small presses used to do more with "collector's limited editions"
(or maybe one should say that there used to be more small presses
who specialized in them), but the market crashed a few years ago.
Some, like Mark Zeising and Donald Grant, are still around, but
THE MT VOID Page 11
others, such as Pulphouse and Phantasia, are gone.
The Transcendent Man--A Theme in SF and Fantasy
Sunday, 2 PM
Evelyn C. Leeper (mod), Jeffrey A. Carver, Geary Gravel,
Nancy C. Hanger, James D. MacDonald
(Thanks to Mark Leeper for taking copious notes at this panel.)
There were the usual introductions. Carver writes about
transcendence in books such as _N_e_p_t_u_n_e _C_r_o_s_s_i_n_g. Gravel said
something about "transcending the limits on animation," whatever
that meant. Hanger said she was in editorial production and a
priest (she did not say of what church). MacDonald said his books
could be found under Doyle (Debra Doyle, his co-author).
We all agreed we were talking about the transcendent person rather
than just the transcendent man. Of course, that still left us with
the question of what exactly was meant by transcendence. My
reading beforehand led me to believe that this meant the
transformation of the physical into the spiritual, and while there
were some stories that used this as a theme, there were not many.
However, by extending the definition of transcendence to include
any transformation of humans into something substantively greater
(or at least different), we could find far more to talk about, and
indeed that is the definition we used.
At the beginning some examples were given, just so the audience
could get a handle on what we meant. Carver mentioned Greg Bear's
_B_l_o_o_d _M_u_s_i_c as an example of a physical transformation. (A
spiritual transformation, on the other hand, might involve no
physical transformation.) Gravel said that things that affect one
person affect all of humanity and gave Alfred Bester's _D_e_m_o_l_i_s_h_e_d
_M_a_n and _S_t_a_r_s _M_y _D_e_s_t_i_n_a_t_i_o_n as examples. When someone is
transformed, they ask, "What do I do now?" and the answer seems to
be, "Go cosmic. Push the race someplace new." Carver felt that at
its core science fiction was about the transformation of man, and
that in a real sense what people were saying was true, but not in a
science fiction sense. Someone noted that science fiction novels
deal with how we get from here to there, while in fantasy the
transcendence is often assumed and is the basis of the story.
Hanger saw transcendence as "man plus" building a "newer, better
man," but always making sure that the result still had a soul.
MacDonald asked if there was any way to prove that transcendence
had happened, and if we were not really talking about a type of
elitism. Carver responded that we were not--that we were not
talking about some people being above others, but about everyone
changing into something different. He gave the example of Vernor
Vinge's _F_i_r_e _U_p_o_n _t_h_e _D_e_e_p and its part of the galaxy known as the
Transcend. I suggested that this idea was very similar to Poul
THE MT VOID Page 12
Anderson's _B_r_a_i_n _W_a_v_e, in which the Earth passes out of a cloud
that has slowed down our mental functions, and as a result we
become much smarter. Hanger said that she would not call that
transcendence, but did not know what she would call it.
Carver said that there have been examples of transcendence in
science fiction, and cited Arthur C. Clarke's _C_h_i_l_d_h_o_o_d'_s _E_n_d.
Hanger added Spider and Jeanne Robinson's _S_t_a_r_d_a_n_c_e. I said that a
lot of Olaf Stapledon dealt with transcendence, often physical (as
in _L_a_s_t _a_n_d _F_i_r_s_t _M_e_n), but often spiritual. Indeed, many of his
beings are not physical entities in the usual sense in the first
place.
Gravel said that transcendence was a very attractive idea--the
science fiction fan wants something that will transform us. I said
this made it sound as though transcendence came from an outside
influence or force rather than from within. Gravel said that in
fiction, of course, this outside force was the author, and added,
"I like the author as God." He again gave as a good example of
transcendence in science fiction _T_h_e _S_t_a_r_s _M_y _D_e_s_t_i_n_a_t_i_o_n, in which
the result of the transcendence is that "man will spill out into
the stars."
As an example of non-human transcendence, I talked about Arthur
C. Clarke's "Dial 'F' for Frankenstein," in which the telephone
switching system gets enough computers added to it that the
complexity reaches a certain level and it becomes sentient.
MacDonald said that might be connected to the fact that lawyers
communicate over the telephone; I asked him if he also wrote for
the _W_e_e_k_l_y _W_o_r_l_d _N_e_w_s. (By the way, did you know that according to
the _W_e_e_k_l_y _W_o_r_l_d _N_e_w_s, during the recent Los Angeles earthquake the
freeways cracked open and demons from Hell came through the
cracks?)
Even what is often called the first science fiction novel, Mary
Shelley's _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n, deals with a form of transcendence. And
the early science fiction film _M_e_t_r_o_p_o_l_i_s does as well, giving the
theme a long history in that medium too. Carver said that in these
and other works, the old issue of transcendence centers around who
we are and why we are here, and that when hard science fiction
examines these questions, you have the point where hard science
fiction merges with fantasy and religion.
Hanger asked if someone can be transcendent without God's
interference; can an author write a novel convincingly in which
this happens? This, of course, is one of the underlying themes of
_F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n. Gravel pointed out that since MacDonald had asked
earlier if there was any way to prove that transcendence had
happened, and said that he thought that the only way you could be
sure was if God appeared and validated it. Audience members said
that all of this got into the difference between the Western and
THE MT VOID Page 13
Eastern ideas of godhead. The Western idea says that God is
external to us; the Eastern idea is that God is internal (is within
each of us). Therefore, if we transcend, then the seed of
transcendence was in us all along, so it is not really
transcending. Carver said that there are novels that assume no
outside influence (i.e., God), and gave _B_l_o_o_d _M_u_s_i_c as one example.
MacDonald said that the problem was that often the transcendence or
transformation can be interpreted as just in other people's
perceptions. If we say it is the perception of others, then we
cannot say it has happened at all, and if it's from inside, then we
cannot tell whether it has "really" happened either, even if (as
Hanger suggested) we assume a limit and say that anything beyond it
is transcendence.
Of course, in many stories human beings reject transcendence, and
Gravel pointed out that a lot of science fiction says that the best
thing you can be is human. _C_o_c_o_o_n _2, for example, is about why the
human beings who have been given eternal youth (certainly a form of
transcendence) are not happy with it. Someone in the audience
pointed out that frequently after transcending, going back means
dying or getting killed. Hanger noted that coming back for the
wrong reasons is not acceptable either (and cited "The Little
Mermaid"). This reinforced Carver's question as to why anyone
would _w_a_n_t to come back from transcendence (other than to move the
plot along). Then too, in some stories people do not give up
transcendence, but rather refuse it in the first place: some of the
characters in _B_r_a_i_n _W_a_v_e and also in Robert Charles Wilson's
_H_a_r_v_e_s_t.
I said that a lot of mythologies have the story of the god who
becomes human, although of course the question is whether he really
_b_e_c_o_m_e_s human or just seems human. If he knows that he cannot die
(permanently), then he isn't fully human. Someone in the audience
said that Roger Zelazny's _L_o_r_d _o_f _L_i_g_h_t and _I_s_l_e _o_f _t_h_e _D_e_a_d are
stories about transcendence, in which characters take on the
godhead but are still human, and that _I_s_l_e _o_f _t_h_e _D_e_a_d actually
"plays both sides of the fence." (I have not read it, at least not
recently, so I couldn't say.)
Gravel said that _L_o_r_d _o_f _L_i_g_h_t was definitely about transcendence,
but that even as gods people were human. Similarly, in the film
_F_o_r_b_i_d_d_e_n _P_l_a_n_e_t it was the human (or rather, non-transcendent)
nature of the Krell (and of Moebius) which remained in force that
made the transcendence such a danger. Gravel said that the latter
is showing there are thing you cannot do (shades of "there are some
things Man was not meant to know/tamper with"). In H. G. Wells's
"Man Who Could Work Miracles" the main character is given great
powers, and then must be bailed out by the angels at the end.
Hanger responded that this belief in human limitation was a
function of two thousand years of Catholicism shaping our views.
THE MT VOID Page 14
Mark Leeper added that the Kabalah required that you have the right
motives for using it. And of course they must be genuine right
motives--you cannot will yourself to want something for the right
reasons.
Someone in the audience asked how an author could depict super-
intelligent creatures. Carver said that one way was from the
"other's" (i.e., that being's) point of view. I noted that Daniel
Keyes tried to do this in _F_l_o_w_e_r_s _f_o_r _A_l_g_e_r_n_o_n, which of course is
another transformation story, but that of an individual rather than
of humanity as a whole.
MacDonald asked if Superman was transcending in his phone booth.
Carver responded that Superman was always Superman; he was merely
changing his persona. On the other hand, I pointed out, a werewolf
is genuinely undergoing a transformation. Someone in the audience
added that Captain Marvel was another example of a genuine
transformation, and MacDonald asked, "What about Batman?" I said
that no, he didn't get any new powers when he put on the costume.
On the other hand, is the growing up of a child into an adult
transcendence?
Gravel concluded by saying, "Science fiction readers are
transcendence people. Most of us look at the film _T_h_e _M_a_n _W_h_o
_C_o_u_l_d _W_o_r_k _M_i_r_a_c_l_e_s and say, 'I'd know what to do.'" At the very
end of the panel, Carver said that without the theme of
transcendence we would not have science fiction today, to which I
immediately responded, "How can you say that at the end when
there's no time to discuss it?!" So we have a lead-in for a panel
next year if anyone's interested.
Does It Have to Be a SpaceMAN?: Gender and Characterization
Sunday, 3 PM
Hal Clement, Peter Johnson, Evelyn C. Leeper
After the previous panel we went down to the Green Room so that
Mark could get reimbursed for the origami paper he had bought. The
phone rang, and someone called me to it. Who could be calling me
in the Green Room? It was Laurie Mann, who said she was at the
panel on gender and characterization and none of the scheduled
women panelists had shown up. Since having a panel on gender that
had only men on it was a little peculiar, she asked if I could fill
in. So it was not really me that the call was for, but any woman
who happened to be there.
At any rate, I agreed to do the best I could, given that I had no
preparation and the panel apparently had no moderator. (By sitting
down between the other two panelists when I arrived, I managed to
inherit that task.) But I can't say that much of substance was
discussed or concluded. After all the panelists agreed that, no,
it doesn't have to be a space_m_a_n, what else was left? Clement said
THE MT VOID Page 15
that he usually avoided the issue entirely by using aliens instead
of human beings, because the science and world-building was the
part he liked, not the characterization. I said that it was more
important to have realistic characters than some artificial mix,
and that while Heinlein's women are often used as examples of
strong women characters in science fiction, they are really fairly
badly drawn--but then, so are Heinlein's men. The discussion
filled the hour, but I can recall nothing else to include here. (I
realize now how much I have come to depend on Mark's notes for
panels I'm on!)
Deconstructing Tokyo: Godzilla as Metaphor, etc.
Sunday, 4 PM
Jim Mann (mod), Bob Eggleton
(Having stayed for the 3 PM panel, we figured we might as well stay
for this one as well. After all, the drive home was not going to
include a blizzard this year.)
There's not too much to say about this panel. There were only four
or five attendees (all of whom got official Boskone "Godzilla Fan"
ribbons). The panelists felt that because of the way Godzilla
films are perceived in the United States, people do not notice some
of their positive points. For example, according to the panelists,
they are filmed beautifully. And although the effects are often
done on a shoestring (or perhaps because of this), the effects are
frequently ingenious.
Mann said that the Godzilla films have a certain charm. (Well, if
that were not true, at least for some people, this panel probably
would not have happened.) Eggleton said that the Japanese are
really into the idea of the "inner child," so the best Godzilla
films are made for the child in us.
The rest of the time was just general reminiscences and a mention
of the _K_a_i_j_u _R_e_v_i_e_w fanzine.
(Shortly after Boskone, Mark and I saw the original _G_o_d_z_i_l_l_a--
before they chopped out a bunch of stuff and added Raymond Burr.
The original is very different from the American version.)
The Green Room
Unfortunately, there were no really interesting conversations in
the Green Room this year. Last year, for example, I came in just
in time to hear Esther Friesner say, "Do you have any idea how big
a walrus's penis is?!" I guess the era of great Green Room
conversations is passing along with other old Boskone traditions.
THE MT VOID Page 16
Leaving
Leaving was much easier this year--no dead battery. We skipped the
Traveler Restaurant Book Cellar; the gimmick of "a free book with
every meal" is cute, but the books are of the sort one would find
at the end of the day in a rummage sale and the food is
undistinguished. Instead we ate at a Chinese restaurant
recommended by Jim Mann--okay, but nothing great.
Miscellaneous
(If I went to fewer panels this year, why is my report 15% _l_o_n_g_e_r
than last year's?)
Membership seems to have _f_i_r_m_l_y settled in around 900, in spite of
the return to the Boston area. Framingham is still not convenient
enough to public transportation to show a really big increase over
Springfield.
Next year for Boskone 32 (February 17-19, 1995) the Guest of Honor
is Diana Wynne Jones.
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
leeper@mtgzfs3.att.com
The typical American of today has lost all the love of
liberty that his forefathers had, and all their digust
of emotion, and pride in self-reliance. He is led no
longer by Davy Crocketts; he is led by cheer leaders,
press agents, word-mongers, uplifters.
-- H. L. Mencken