@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 5/20/94 -- Vol. 12, No. 47
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Middletown 1R-400C
Wednesdays at noon.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
06/01 GREEN MARS by Kim Stanley Robinson (Hugo Nominee)
06/22 Hugo-nominated short stories
07/13 MOVING MARS by Greg Bear (Hugo Nominee)
08/03 GLORY SEASON by David Brin (Hugo Nominee)
08/24 VIRTUAL LIGHT by William Gibson (Hugo Nominee)
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 j.j.jetzt@att.com
LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell HO 1C-523 908-834-1267 j.j.jetzt@att.com
MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 m.r.leeper@att.com
HO Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 908-949-7076 n.j.sauer@att.com
LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen HO 2C-318 908-949-4156 l.f.larsen@att.com
MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 m.r.leeper@att.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 908-957-2070 e.c.leeper@att.com
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. I was talking last time about the Paris company trying to be at
the forefront of both sex and of technology. Cyber SM is working
on ways to allow people to--get this--physically make love over
telephone wires. No, I don't mean just to say things to each
other. When people are in the same room, just talking to each
other is often not enough. This company is trying to get away from
the traditional need to be physically co-located for real monkey
business. Well, presumably for something biological to take place,
the participants still will be need to be physically together. But
often the biological exchange is not really the intended purpose of
such proceedings. (Am I saying things explicitly enough to get the
point across, but not to get us shut down?) I guess you could
THE MT VOID Page 2
think of it as a form of telecommuting. Cyber SM is looking at
combining data communications, virtual reality, and special
electronic suits to see if they can give a whole new meaning to
"Reach out and touch someone." If you think this sounds too Buck
Rogers even for Buck Rogers, dig out the April 1994 issue of _W_o_r_l_d
_P_r_e_s_s _R_e_v_i_e_w and read this reprint from _L_i_b_e_r_a_t_i_o_n, a Paris
magazine.
The initial models of the system are designed mostly for kinky
sorts of things. Pain has always been easier to create than what
is generally thought to be pleasant feelings. The participants can
see virtual images of each other and can direct painful electrical
shocks to specific locations. I guess for some tastes, that seems
pretty nifty. But this is clearly a technology only in its
infancy. It sounds like right now it is more like a computerized
version of going after your enemy with paint guns. But the
innovators think that it will only be a matter of time before they
can make it to market with something a little more subtle. But, of
course, the thing to do is make it to market with what you have,
then get the capital to develop something to hit a broader market.
So the first step is the S&M suit. More thoughts on this next
week. (I bet you just can't wait!)
===================================================================
2. Lunacon '94 (part 3 of 3) (an abbreviated con report by Evelyn
C. Leeper):
_A_r_e _S_F _R_e_a_d_e_r_s _a_s _L_i_t_e_r_a_t_e _a_s _W_e _T_h_i_n_k?
Saturday, 4PM
John Hertz (mod), Moshe Feder, Michael Kandel,
Evelyn C. Leeper, Darrell Schweitzer
[Thanks to Mark, who took notes for me for this panel.]
Hertz started by asking the panelists each to say something useful
about themselves. His "something useful" was a handout of excerpts
from classics which seemed to be somewhat random. He said audience
members might or might not have run into them (well, that covers
all the possibilities, I guess). (The handouts included excerpts
from Rebecca West's _B_l_a_c_k _L_a_m_b _a_n_d _G_r_e_y _F_a_l_c_o_n, Thucydides'
_P_e_l_o_p_o_n_n_e_s_i_a_n _W_a_r, Samuel Johnson's "Preface to the _W_o_r_k_s _o_f
_S_h_a_k_e_s_p_e_a_r_e," Maimonides' _G_u_i_d_e _o_f _t_h_e _P_e_r_p_l_e_x_e_d, and Dante's
_D_i_v_i_n_e _C_o_m_e_d_y ("Purgatorio").) Actually, Hertz also said that he
was an editor and discovered that he was not literate. (If you're
wondering exactly what "literate" means, that was never clearly
defined.)
I said that I wrote book reviews, convention reports, and trip
logs, mostly on the Internet but also in such fanzines as _L_a_n'_s
THE MT VOID Page 3
_L_a_n_t_e_r_n, _P_h_l_o_g_i_s_t_o_n, _C_y_b_e_r_s_p_a_c_e _V_a_n_g_u_a_r_d, and _A_l_t_e_r_n_a_t_e _W_o_r_l_d_s. In
an attempt to get (more) literate, I am currently reading the
novels of the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen, and Charles Dickens (as
well as lots of other stuff). My observation was that I never
liked the classics they assigned in school (though I often liked
all the other books by the same authors), and thought that might be
because they always expected you to remember all the details of the
novel ("What color was Jim's coat when he went to Mary's house?").
I also related how when I read Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's
_I_n_f_e_r_n_o and mentioned to another fan that I liked the original
better, the other fan asked, "Oh, you mean the magazine version?"
This, I said, was when I realized that at least some fans were
illiterate. But not all fans--_B_a_b_y_l_o_n _5 has a lot of literary
references, including Tennyson's _I_d_y_l_l_s _o_f _t_h_e _K_i_n_g and Mark
Twain's "War Prayer"--so there was hope for the future. Maybe this
will get fans reading Tennyson and Twain.
Schweitzer said he hadn't really noticed the literary references
but he did note that they mentioned the space liner Asimov. I said
that there was a lot of poetry recited or heard throughout the
first few shows. Schweitzer thought that fans wouldn't mind as
long as the literary aspect doesn't get in the way.
Kandel is a translator of Stanislaw Lem, an author (_C_a_p_t_a_i_n _J_a_c_k
_Z_o_d_i_a_c), and an editor (he recently edited Jonathan Lethem's _G_u_n
_w_i_t_h _O_c_c_a_s_i_o_n_a_l _M_u_s_i_c). He also made a stab at defining what
"literate" meant, or rather what it didn't mean. He said we often
say that someone is not literate if s/he has not read X, but a
better distinction might be between people who read widely and
people who don't. For example, one bookseller whose store sells
science fiction and mysteries says that the science fiction fans
who frequent his store will also look in the mystery section, but
the mystery fans do not generally look in the science fiction
section. And Kandel felt that the fact that he "couldn't read"
Henry Miller did not immediately exclude him from the ranks of the
literate.
I commented that a lot of my non-science-fiction reading was still
"inspired" by my interest in science fiction. For example, I have
been reading a lot of early travelogues (of travelers from the
Middle Ages through the 19th Century) and they are a lot like the
classic "first contact" stories of science fiction. Feder later
mentioned that he read Greek and enjoyed it, partly because it was
learning about an alien society.
Schweitzer thought one of the best ways to become "literate" is to
read books by cultures other than one's own, from Herodotus to
Chinese novels. Not that this means one should emulate all these
writers--he felt one should learn how _n_o_t to write from Suetonius,
who was a letter writer when people wrote letters without saying
anything. As he put it, "[He] reads like the later essays of
THE MT VOID Page 4
Samuel Delany. He lived through the fall of Rome and never
mentioned it." He also said that Gene Wolfe learned classical
Greek so that he could try to think like the classical Greeks for
his writing. Of course, Schweitzer warned that it was also
possible for something to be classical without being good.
I noted that people reading from other cultures with almost
definitely be reading translations, and the differences in
translations will affect their reactions to the works, and to the
cultures. The most common example of this would be the many
translations of Dante's _D_i_v_i_n_e _C_o_m_e_d_y, each with a different
flavor.
Hertz said that the trouble with art is that it is often hard to
recognize assumptions. As he quoted, "Whoever discovered water, it
wasn't fish."
As far as what makes something a classic, Feder believes that if
you wait long enough, only the good works survive, and that there
are standards, but that they are not absolute. Hertz disagreed
somewhat, saying that what survives is what can muster support at
the time (sort of like what wins the Hugo awards). Schweitzer
added that if you look at the old Modern Library Classics, you
would discover that there are a lot of "ex-classics," while much of
science fiction is not part of the "canon." Kandel's response was
that this might be true, but much of what is part of the canon is
not great. Hertz agreed, saying the canon helps you but is not
conclusive.
I asked how many people had read James Fenimore Cooper, an author
much more popular towards the beginning of this century. It turned
out that a large number of people had, thought someone noted that
the popularity of the film _T_h_e _L_a_s_t _o_f _t_h_e _M_o_h_i_c_a_n_s may have had
something to do with that. In any case, this somewhat undercut my
point that Arthur Conan Doyle, who was considered a mediocre writer
then, has far outlasted Cooper. (Someone else claimed that Doyle
also retained his popularity because of the Holmes movies, but this
was quickly dismissed as not true.) Schweitzer said that Cooper
was "too observably ridiculous" when he was in high school to be
read by many. "Kids would laugh at you" if you read him. Even an
excerpt given in class was funny. (Well, Twain certainly managed
to tear him apart quite thoroughly.)
Schweitzer said that authors were popular for reasons not connected
with merit. Cooper, for example, was popular because people wanted
to read about the frontier, to see some action. (Was Natty Bumppo
the Arnold Schwarzenegger of his time?) Hertz felt that this was
merely another argument in favor of the "test of time" theory.
There can be great art, he argues, that never appeals to the
masses.
THE MT VOID Page 5
We noted at this point that we had barely touched on the topic of
the panel, but the fact that people were still in the room
indicated that there was _s_o_m_e interest in what we were saying.
Feder, trying to get us back on track, said that it was hard for
him to say someone was "well-rounded" (literate, I presume) unless
they have read certain specific books (which he didn't name).
Hertz was of the belief that if you know the "classics," or how to
recognize a classic, you can get a lot more out of science fiction.
He gave the analogy of a scene in _D_i_a_m_o_n_d_s _A_r_e _F_o_r_e_v_e_r in which
James Bond is shown a stone and asked what it is worth. After he
answers, he is told that the stone was just paste, and shown a _r_e_a_l
diamond. Hertz said we should be concerned with how well we read
as well as how well-read we are, but that "great books magnify our
sense of wonder." (The mention of James Bond resulted in Kandel
saying that Natty Bumppo was the James Bond of his time. And here
I thought he was the Arnold Schwarzenegger!)
Someone said that "great books" are those that have great ideas,
leading Hertz to say that he hates Mortimer Adler because Adler
thinks that great books are about great ideas. Hertz observed that
the trouble with the "great idea" notion is that then you are open
to anyone who can "twiddle" you. On the other hand, people who go
back and re-read their marginalia in books after several years
often find that the "great ideas" that struck them then were all
wrong.
One problem with defining the "classics" is that some of them seem
to be excluded by their nature. _T_h_e _D_i_v_i_n_e _C_o_m_e_d_y is a genre work
(according to Schweitzer) and Shakespeare wrote for the mob
(according to Hertz), yet both are accepted as classics, because
they are more than just genre works or "pop" works. Kandel thought
that as soon as you got into "high-brow" versus "low-brow," you
were in a trap.
But are fans literate?
A quick survey indicated that most of the audience members read
mostly science fiction, though a fair number had science fiction as
only about 25% of their total reading. People said that their co-
workers usually read less than them, but Hertz and I noted that in
determining whether fans are literate we should be comparing them
to other readers, since compared to the majority of people in the
country (probably) or the world (certainly), they would be more
literate simply because they read _s_o_m_e_t_h_i_n_g. I observed that there
was literary fiction (say John Cheever) that sells, so there must
be people out there reading somewhere.
The phenomenon that a good percentage of fans want to be writers--
at any rate, a higher percentage than one finds in most other
THE MT VOID Page 6
fields--would probably result in increased literacy among fans,
since writers tend to read a lot. (Of course, who's to say that
these "wannabe" writers do the reading?) People thought in general
that while readers (and writers) tend to be well-read, they are
still surprisingly illiterate in areas of science. As Hertz said,
"'Science' is our first name," and hence we should try to be more
knowledgeable about science. Schweitzer said that may be true, but
we weren't: there are a lot of crystal believers and such (whom he
termed the "reality-impaired") at conventions.
Someone said that _H_a_r_p_e_r'_s wrote some anti-science-fiction articles
a few years back, and that an article there or in _T_h_e _N_a_t_i_o_n said
that science fiction was an outgrowth of children's literature.
Hertz suggested that maybe we don't care what _H_a_r_p_e_r'_s or _T_h_e
_N_a_t_i_o_n say and Kandel responded, "What's wrong with children's
literature?"
One reason that fans may be more literate is that fandom is a place
where literate people look for other literate people. Outside of
fandom, there are few ways to find the literate population. The
Net is one; as I said, "There are people in _r_e_c._a_r_t_s._b_o_o_k_s who know
more about literature than I ever will." And occasionally you will
find someone at random (for example, the supervisor at work who
could discuss semiotics and deconstructionism). The theatrical
world also attracts literate people, although Schweitzer says they
usually know even less science than we do. Some bookstores attract
literate people (that's how we met George "Lan" Laskowski, for
example). Basically, according to Hertz, we have worked out a
cultural recognition system, and in fandom your chances of finding
the literate is much greater.
Feder closed by saying that we should not be too hard on ourselves.
In the 18th Century it was tough to be literate, but as society got
larger there is more stuff out there. This is a two-edged sword.
It's easier to find what makes us literate, but there's so much of
it that it would take more than a lifetime to read it all.
_S_F _f_r_o_m _B_e_f_o_r_e _Y_o_u _W_e_r_e _B_o_r_n
Saturday, 5PM
Keith De Candido, Nancy C. Hanger, John Hertz, Andrea Lipinski, Bob Lipton
In discussing this topic, the panelists said that at first they
were going to make the cut-off date somewhere around 1970, because
they were worried that they wouldn't be enough to say about _r_e_a_l_l_y
early science fiction, but that turned out to be a groundless fear.
The obvious beginning was to talk about Mary Shelley's _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n
(1818), which marked the origins of science fiction. There had
been a few "questionable" inclusions before then: Lucian of
Samosata's _T_r_u_e _H_i_s_t_o_r_y (second century C.E.), Cyrano de Bergerac's
_V_o_y_a_g_e_s _t_o _t_h_e _M_o_o_n _a_n_d _t_h_e _S_u_n (1687), Marie Corelli's _A_r_d_a_t_h, and
THE MT VOID Page 7
so on. But one reason _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n was such a landmark was that it
used science instead of magic. In this regard it was a product of
the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, and represented
one side of the dichotomy between the supernatural and science.
Previously there had been rationalist trends in religion, it's
true, but during Shelley's time rationalism was put forth as a
_r_e_p_l_a_c_e_m_e_n_t for religion. (Perhaps as a result of this challenge,
Western religions--as contrasted with Eastern religions--have a
strong thread of rationalism in them. On the other hand, it is
probably more accurate to say that the strong thread of rationalism
in Western religion before the Enlightenment was what led Western
philosophers to come up with the Enlightenment in the first place.)
This was also a period of Utopian movements as well, which resulted
in such works as Samuel Butler's _E_r_e_w_h_o_n (1872). Contrast _E_r_e_w_h_o_n
with the earlier _U_t_o_p_i_a (1516) by Thomas More (or even Swift's
_G_u_l_l_i_v_e_r'_s _T_r_a_v_e_l_s (1726)). The earlier works were religious in
nature; Butler and others were not. (Hertz seemed to think
Jonathan Swift was "fannish.") Although later than some of the
rationalist works mentioned, Stevenson's _S_t_r_a_n_g_e _C_a_s_e _o_f _D_r. _J_e_k_y_l_l
_a_n_d _M_r. _H_y_d_e (1886) still had its roots firmly in the notion of
original sin. (Although some see it as early psychoanalysis along
the lines of Freud's work, Freud did not publish his first
psychoanalytic work, _S_t_u_d_i_e_s _i_n _H_y_s_t_e_r_i_a, until 1895.)
Hertz reminded us that although the Shelleys were both apostates in
the terminology of their time, we would consider them religious
today. Percy Bysshe Shelley said, in fact, "Religion has betrayed
me and I have to rebuild to somehow," which indicates that he did
not entirely turn his back on the concept of religion. It was also
noted that religion has been "disestablished" in the United States,
which means that those of us from the United States don't always
realize what challenging the established religion meant in other
times or other places. One of the main challenges by science to
religion was the theory of evolution, which Charles Darwin first
presented in 1858, and that caused considerably more tumult in the
British government and society than it did here, though we did (and
still do) have our share.
In _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n the creature (never named, though there is an
analogy made to Adam, which results in the creature often being
given that name) says, in effect, "I was not created evil, and I
have a right to live." This is a very science-fictional concept,
just as the question of what changes in science do to humanity is a
very science-fictional question.
After Shelley, Verne (who started writing novels in the 1860s) and
Wells (_T_h_e _T_i_m_e _M_a_c_h_i_n_e (1895), _T_h_e _I_n_v_i_s_i_b_l_e _M_a_n (1897), _T_h_e _W_a_r
_o_f _t_h_e _W_o_r_l_d_s (1898), and other works) are the earliest authors
whose works would be called science fiction now. This of course
led to a discussion of what exactly science fiction was. Someone
THE MT VOID Page 8
proposed Sam Moskowitz's definition: "Science fiction is a branch
of fantasy in which the willing suspension of disbelief is made
easier by an attempt to add an air of scientific verisimilitude."
Someone else's famous definition is something like "a story that
couldn't take place without its scientific content." Personally, I
like Damon Knight's the best: "Science fiction is what I point to
when I say it." One panelist claimed that art is on a (continuous)
spectrum of imagination, and trying to set up clear definitions was
unlikely to work. For example, Robert A. Heinlein's _M_a_g_i_c, _I_n_c.
and Poul Anderson's _O_p_e_r_a_t_i_o_n _C_h_a_o_s seem to be both fantasy _a_n_d
science fiction. Is Twain's _C_o_n_n_e_c_t_i_c_u_t _Y_a_n_k_e_e _i_n _K_i_n_g _A_r_t_h_u_r'_s
_C_o_u_r_t science fiction or fantasy?
Another characteristic of science fiction is that it is knowledge-
based. As Hertz expressed it, "if knowledge is important [in the
story], then it's science fiction."
De Candido used this opportunity to plug his latest productions,
_T_h_e _E_s_s_e_n_t_i_a_l _F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n, _T_h_e _E_s_s_e_n_t_i_a_l _D_r_a_c_u_l_a, and _T_h_e
_E_s_s_e_n_t_i_a_l _D_r. _J_e_k_y_l_l _a_n_d _M_r. _H_y_d_e.
_M_i_s_c_e_l_l_a_n_e_o_u_s
The Green Room was close to the programming and had a large
assortment of beverages and light snacks. It was also a more
popular gathering place than at some other conventions. (I'm not
sure when the con suite was or if it was open.) The restaurant
situation was less than ideal--nothing was within walking distance,
and even driving didn't add a lot of options within a reasonable
radius. There was no map to go with the restaurant guide, another
problem.
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
m.r.leeper@att.com
We use ideas merely to justify our evil, and speech
merely to conceal our ideas.
-- Voltaire