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

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 07/15/94 -- Vol. 13, No. 3


       MEETINGS UPCOMING:

       Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Middletown 1R-400C
            Wednesdays at noon.

         _D_A_T_E                    _T_O_P_I_C

       07/16  Movie: THE MAN FROM PLANET X (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
       07/23  Movie: THE THING (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
       07/30  Movie: WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
       08/03  Book: MOVING MARS by Greg Bear (Hugo Nominee)
       08/09  Movie: THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
       08/24  Book: 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.


       MT Chair:        Mark Leeper   MT 3D-441  908-957-5619 m.r.leeper@att.com
       HO Chair:        John Jetzt    MT 2G-432  908-957-5087 j.j.jetzt@att.com
       HO Co-Librarian: Nick Sauer    HO 4F-427  908-949-7076 n.j.sauer@att.com
       HO Co-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
       Distinguished Heinlein Apologist:
                        Rob Mitchell  MT 2D-536  908-957-???? r.l.mitchell@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. We got more giant rings in the sky.  I wrote several  years  ago
       about a ring that was found in the sky and reported by _S_c_i_e_n_c_e _N_e_w_s
       but  could  not  be  explained.   If  I  remember  right  what  was
       particularly  odd about it is that as near as we could tell we were
       on the axis of symmetry of this giant ring.  If  the  ring  were  a
       giant  wheel,  its  axle  would  go through the Earth.  That sounds
       suspiciously like some sort of optical aberration.  But it was kind
       of  fun to toy with.  I don't remember that phenomenon ever getting
       explained, though I suspect that it did  and  the  explanation  was
       just  not  reported.   Perhaps  the  same  principles  apply to all











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 2



       magazines that apply to tabloids.  It could be  that  the  exciting
       stuff   gets  the  press  and  the  explanations,  which  are  less
       interesting, get shuffled off to the back pages or never printed at
       all.  Besides, in science when you explain something weird as being
       your own mistake, you don't make a big thing of it.  You just  hope
       everyone forgets.

       Anyway, there are rings  in  the  news  again.   Some  of  you  may
       remember  that  seven  years  ago there was a supernova.  That is a
       star that for no readily  apparent  reason  just  explodes  spewing
       light  and matter all around. You can often see these things in the
       daytime sky after they go off.  Well supernova  1987A  occurred  in
       1987--I  suspect  the name was not a coincidence.  Actually I doubt
       if there was a 1987B, but I don't know.   Anyway  astronomers  have
       looked  at the site of the explosion and what do they see but three
       huge rings.  It looks a little like the big space station in  2001.
       It is three parallel rings with the one in the center maybe of half
       the diameter.  There is a nice color picture in the May 28  _S_c_i_e_n_c_e
       _N_e_w_s.   It  comes  with  two  explanations as to how the rings were
       formed.  One is that the explosion might have been in the shape  of
       an  hour-glass.   That explanation comes from Robert P. Kirshner of
       Harvard.   Christopher  Burrows  of  the  Space  Telescope  Science
       Institute of Baltimore thinks the explosion may have been channeled
       into two jets by a nearby compact object, a neutron star or a black
       hole.   A  black  hole would send a jet of matter in its direction,
       but as it rips apart the matter it would send a jet in the opposite
       direction also.

       The fact that this phenomenon can be explained two  different  ways
       is  my  answer to the Fermi Paradox.  That is the paradox that says
       if the probability for intelligence on a given planet is  so  high,
       why  haven't  we  seen  any signs of extra-terrestrial life.  Well,
       like the two jets of matter in opposite directions, there could  be
       directly  opposite  explanations as to why we have not seen sign of
       extraterrestrial life, both occurring at the  same  time.   Suppose
       that  there  is  some  huge unimaginable race out there who fill up
       their tank by finding some star about to supernova then sucking  up
       a  piece  of  that  energy.   The thing is that tapping a supernova
       leaves these telltale rings afterward.  Maybe we are  so  smart  we
       can  come  up with multiple explanations about what those rings are
       doing there and at the same time so stupid that we do not recognize
       what   is   happening.    I   can   tell  you  the  first  sign  of
       extraterrestrial intelligence probably will not be a flying  saucer
       landing  on  the  White  House  lawn,  it  is  probably going to be
       something like some funny rings left around a supernova and we will
       have  been both too stupid and too smart to recognize them for what
       they really are.  Am I suggesting a change in how we  do  anything?
       No.   I  am  just  pointing  out  the irony.  We may get so good at
       explaining things that we miss something essential.













       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 3



       ===================================================================

       2. For those of you who are tracking such things we were in  Latvia
       from  May  13  to  May 17 of this year.  Yesterday in Riga, Latvian
       Prime  Minister   Valdis   Birkavs   announced   his   government's
       resignation  in  the  wake  of  demands  by  farmers for more price
       supports  and  protection  from  imported  food.   So  far  no  new
       government  has been announced for Latvia and there have no reports
       of  disasters  yet   from   the   other   countries   we   visited.
       International  specialists are closely watching those countries and
       tensely waiting for the inevitable.

       Riga is a nice city, by the way.


       ===================================================================

       3. RHINEGOLD by Stephan Grundy (Bantam, ISBN  0-553-09545-5,  April
       1994, 721pp, US$23.95) (a book review by Evelyn C. Leeper):

       This is a remarkable first novel, though I must admit at the  start
       that  my  ability  to  judge  its  faithfulness  to  its sources is
       limited.  It is a retelling of the classic Germanic legend, but  my
       knowledge  of  the  legend  is  based  almost  entirely on Wagner's
       operatic  interpretation--which  was  undoubtedly  colored  by  his
       philosophy--and  by  Anna Russell's summary of Wagner's story which
       is, to say the least,  eccentric.   So  all  I  can  say  regarding
       Grundy's faithfulness to the original legend is that knowing Wagner
       may be more hindrance than help.

       But as a story in its  own  right,  _R_h_i_n_e_g_o_l_d  succeeds  admirably.
       Though  part takes place earlier, it is primarily set in the period
       when Rome was on the decline but Christianity was making inroads in
       Germany.   It  is  full  of  the  stuff  of  epics: battles, magic,
       forbidden loves, dragons, ancient gods, oaths, and marvels.  Grundy
       eschews  a  "formal"  style,  the  result  being  a very direct and
       realistic re-telling.  (So direct and realistic, in  fact,  that  I
       found  reading  a  vivid  description  of  a  wolf  attack during a
       somewhat bumpy plane flight was _n_o_t a good idea!)  This style gives
       the  reader a real feel for the geography of the area--a real sense
       of place, if you prefer.  And it makes  the  story  seem  real  and
       serious,  something  happening  to  real people with real feelings,
       rather than merely symbols.

       Will you like this book?  It's not like other  fantasies  that  are
       popular,  though  I  haven't  read _M_i_s_t_s _o_f _A_v_a_l_o_n by Marion Zimmer
       Bradley, and suspect that there might be some level  of  similarity
       between  the  two.   But  _R_h_i_n_e_g_o_l_d is almost definitely darker and
       heavier, simply because it is so dark and heavy.  It  doesn't  rely
       on gratuitous gore, but it does have its share of explicit violence
       when necessary.  I have no idea what Grundy will do for an  encore,











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 4



       but  this  strikes  me as a serious contender for a Hugo nomination
       next year.

       (Note: At 700-plus pages, chances for a mass-market paperback  seem
       slim--if  that's  not an oxymoron.  Give it the "page 117" test and
       if you like what you read, spring for the hardback.)


       ===================================================================

       4. THE ASCENT OF WONDER: THE EVOLUTION OF HARD SF edited  by  David
       G.  Hartwell  and Kathryn Cramer (Tor, ISBN 0-312-85062-X, June 29,
       1994, 992pp, US$35) (a book review by Evelyn C. Leeper):

       I will confess up front that I have not read  this  book  cover  to
       cover.   In  the  interests  of getting this review out in a timely
       manner, I compromised by reading the introductions and  a  sampling
       of  the  stories  that I had not previously read.  (I "fell off the
       book wagon" a couple of weekends ago and bought thirty books, so my
       reading schedule is in some disarray.)

       In any case, I think that I can shed some light on two of the three
       questions people may be asking about this hefty (3-1/2-pound) tome:
                 What is it attempting to do?
                 Does it succeed?
                 Is it any good?

       The first question--what is the purpose of  this  book?--is  one  I
       can't  answer.   The  book is subtitled "The Evolution of Hard SF,"
       but evolution implies a flow of time, a continuity  (of  cause  and
       effect,  perhaps),  and  the stories here are in what appears to be
       random  order.   They   are   not   arranged   chronologically   or
       thematically,  but  are divided into "Part I," "Part II," and "Part
       III," with no clue as to what the parts represent.  (The  alternate
       ordering  given  in  the  back  has at least some logic to it.)  In
       keeping with this random order, Benford's introduction  appears  to
       be  a  series  of  one-liners  about  various  hard science fiction
       stories, also in random order.

       Hartwell claims on page 30 in his introduction  that  this  is  the
       first  anthology  to focus on all of hard science fiction.  I would
       debate that: Healy &  McComas's  _F_a_m_o_u_s  _S_c_i_e_n_c_e  _F_i_c_t_i_o_n  _S_t_o_r_i_e_s:
       _A_d_v_e_n_t_u_r_e_s  _i_n  _T_i_m_e  _a_n_d  _S_p_a_c_e did it in 1947.  The blurb for the
       latter was "35 great stories of the world of atomic power, rockets,
       robots,  time and space machines, etc."  These are definitely "hard
       SF," but Hartwell and Cramer, with an additional four  and  a  half
       decades  to choose from, have not even stayed within the incredibly
       broad range of "hard SF" stories,  but  include  stories  based  on
       anthropology, psychology, and other "soft" sciences.  The result is
       that many well-known hard  science  fiction  authors  are  missing,
       while  there  are  _t_w_o  stories  by  each  of J. G. Ballard, Ursula











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 5



       K. LeGuin, John M. Ford, and  Hilbert  Schenck.   And  why  include
       Rudyard Kipling's "With the Night Mail"?  In terms of the evolution
       of hard science fiction, it  was  a  virtual  dead  end,  inspiring
       little  or  none  of  what  came  after  it.  Nathaniel Hawthorne's
       "Rappaccini's Daughter" isn't hard science fiction.  Jules  Verne's
       "In the Year 2889" is minor, even according to Hartwell and Cramer,
       and seems to be here only  because  Verne  was  a  major  influence
       (through  his  novels).   Poe  is known as a major influence in the
       fields of horror and mystery; his inclusion here seems strained.  I
       suppose  part  of  the issue was what Hartwell and Cramer could get
       the rights to, but many of the classic hard science fiction stories
       that  Healy  and McComas collected are missing from this anthology.
       Of course, trying to include "everyone's who's anyone"  appears  to
       have  been the downfall of _L_a_s_t _D_a_n_g_e_r_o_u_s _V_i_s_i_o_n_s, so one shouldn't
       be too hard on Hartwell and Cramer.  At least this  book  has  been
       published.

       In the introductions as  well,  there  is  much  room  for  debate.
       Hartwell,  for example, says on page 39 that 1965 was the last year
       "Campbell's magazine" (_A_s_t_o_u_n_d_i_n_g/_A_n_a_l_o_g)  won  the  Hugo  as  Best
       Professional  Magazine,  and attributes this to the rise of the New
       Wave.  The fact is that the award was  replaced  in  1973  by  Best
       Professional  Editor  and  Ben  Bova  won it from 1973 to 1977--for
       editing _A_n_a_l_o_g.  Gregory Benford on page 21 says _L_a_s_t _a_n_d _F_i_r_s_t _M_e_n
       was Olaf Stapledon's first work; it was his first _f_i_c_t_i_o_n work, but
       his _t_h_i_r_d published work.) And on page 43 it is claimed that  "Nine
       Lives"  is  "perhaps [Le Guin's] most famous" story.  Really?  More
       than "The Word for World is Forest" or  "Vaster  than  Empires  and
       More  Slow"  or  "Buffalo Gals Won't You Come Out Tonight" (all but
       the first of which were nominated for Hugos, which "Nine Lives" was
       not, though it was nominated for a Nebula).  And drawing a parallel
       between Marcel Proust and Bob Shaw's "slow glass" seems like a real
       reach.  (Whether from an attempt to elevate science fiction or not,
       Cramer also quotes M. C. Escher, Poincare, and Leonardo da Vinci in
       her introduction.)

       There were also a few minor annoyances.  The editors seem  to  have
       decided  that the correct abbreviation for science fiction is "sf"-
       -and at the beginning of a sentence, "Sf."   They  repeatedly  talk
       about  the "affect" of a story (and, no, they don't mean "effect").
       This may be correct English, but it is an uncommon usage that  will
       cause  many  readers to think the editors don't know the difference
       between "affect" and "effect."  And they use a sans serif font  for
       the introductions that I find very hard to read.

       Having said all that, I _s_t_i_l_l recommend this book.  Why?  Well, you
       get  sixty-seven stories which, while not all classics, or even all
       hard science fiction, certainly all  have  something  to  recommend
       them.   Some  are indeed classics (Arthur C. Clarke's "Star," James
       Blish's "Surface Tension," and Tom Godwin's "Cold  Equations,"  for
       example).   It's  a  sign  of  how  far  _A_n_a_l_o_g  has fallen that it











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 6



       recently published a pastiche of "The Cold Equations" in which  was
       changed  the one thing that made the Godwin story a classic.)  Some
       are famous even if they aren't classics (in which category I  would
       put  the  Kipling and Poe stories).  Some are "merely" good stories
       by the important writers in the field  of  science  fiction  (hard,
       soft,  gooey,  or  otherwise).   With the three introductions, this
       works out to fifty cents a story.  If  you're  a  longtime  science
       fiction  fan,  you  may  already have many of these stories, but if
       you're relatively new, this is a great book for discovering authors
       and stories and ideas that can lead to further exploration.


       ===================================================================

       5. A few weeks  ago,  Evelyn  Leeper  reviewed  the  Tor  hardcover
       edition  of Mike Resnick's _W_i_l_l _t_h_e _L_a_s_t _P_e_r_s_o_n _t_o _L_e_a_v_e _t_h_e _P_l_a_n_e_t
       _P_l_e_a_s_e _T_u_r_n _O_f_f _t_h_e _S_u_n?  It has just been  re-issued  in  a  trade
       paperback edition by Orb, and this is as good an opportunity as any
       to tell people that Orb is Tor's trade  paperback  line  for  books
       they  do  _n_o_t  intend to issue in a mass-market edition.  So if you
       see a book in an Orb edition, there's no point in waiting  for  the
       mass-market  edition--there  won't  be  one.   (Just to clarify the
       terms: a mass-market paperback is about four inches by seven inches
       and  costs about US$4-US$6 in the United States.  A trade paperback
       is about seven inches by nine inches and costs about US$10-US$15 in
       the  United States.  In Britain both the books and the prices are a
       little larger.)  [-ecl]


                                          Mark Leeper
                                          MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
                                          m.r.leeper@att.com


            Women want mediocre men, and men are working hard to
            become as mediocre as possible.
                                          -- Margaret Mead