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

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                     Club Notice - 9/2/94 -- Vol. 13, No. 10


       MEETINGS UPCOMING:

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

         _D_A_T_E                    _T_O_P_I_C

       09/03  Movie: *No film this week*
       09/10  Movie: WAR OF THE WORLDS (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
       09/14  Book: A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT by Mark Twain
                       (Classics)
       09/17  Movie: INVADERS FROM MARS (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
       09/24  Movie: PHANTOM FROM SPACE (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
       10/05  Book: MINING THE OORT by Frederik Pohl (tentative)
       10/26  Book: INTERVIEW IWTH A VAMPIRE by Anne Rice (movie tie-ins)
       11/16  Book: FRANKENSTEIN (Classics *and* movies tie-ins)

       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  908-957-6330 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. With films like _T_o_o_t_s_i_e, _L_a _C_a_g_e _a_u_x _F_o_l_l_e_s, and _M_r_s. _D_o_u_b_t_f_i_r_e,
       we  are  used  to  seeing  men  playing  women  on the screen.  The
       problem, as I was telling a friend, is that it is never convincing.
       There  are males who can play females on the screen in a convincing
       fashion, but somehow  it  takes  a  particular  quality  to  do  it
       correctly  and  most  men  just  don't have that quality.  If I saw
       Dustin Hoffman on the street in drag, I  would  immediately  assume











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 2



       that  what  I  was  seeing  was  man in drag.  I certainly would be
       suspicious.  I saw a local production  of  the  play  _L_a  _C_a_g_e  _a_u_x
       _F_o_l_l_e_s  and  about half of the men in drag were convincing and half
       were not.  So, my friend challenged, who do I think is better?   Is
       there  any  famous actor who does a really good job at cross-gender
       actor?  Well I was convinced by Linda Hunt in _T_h_e  _Y_e_a_r  _o_f  _L_i_v_i_n_g
       _D_a_n_g_e_r_o_u_s_l_y  but  as  far  as  I am concerned the best cross-gender
       actor is currently in a film.  In fact he is from an acting  family
       that  specializes in cross-gender roles and is so good, most people
       do not realize that any of the actors in the family are male.   And
       yet  they  all are.  Of course I am talking about that great acting
       family, the Lassies.  These guys have been pulling  this  deception
       off for a long time.  It is particularly impressive since when they
       perform they are doing it almost totally  nude.   Yet  nobody  ever
       notices  that  this is a female impersonator that is running to get
       help to dig little Timmy out of the collapsed mine shaft.

       Now I have always had a certain fondness in my heart for Lassie, be
       it  a  male  or  a  female.  And when I was a kid, I always assumed
       Lassie was a male, not being all that facile with languages at  age
       five.  I only discovered as I was growing up that Lassie had a name
       almost exclusively used by females.  Sometimes ignorance  can  lead
       you  to  the  right  conclusions.  I don't know if you have noticed
       that Lassie is one of only two continuing characters  in  film  who
       consistently get title credit for being intelligent.  The other is,
       of course, Sherlock Holmes.  And when Lassie comes  to  the  rescue
       she  comes  alone.   Sherlock  Holmes  usually  has  to bring along
       Watson.  Whether you call Lassie or Holmes and Watson you  seem  to
       get four legs and about 250 IQ points.

       But this bit of substituting a male for a female sounds like it  is
       grounds  for  an affirmative action complaint.  Next thing you know
       they will be having Jonathan Pryce playing Lassie.  But if it seems
       unfair to female dogs that a male gets to play in a female, realize
       that they have already had their revenge.  First of all there is  a
       famous  canine  role in which what everybody assumed was a male dog
       was really a female.  Any guesses who?  Well, you should have  been
       reading  this  notice  since  I released the sordid fact here years
       ago.  Longtime readers of this column will know that  only  females
       have  ever appeared as Spuds Mackenzie.  The reason has not so much
       to do with actors' equity or quotas  as  that  males  usually  play
       long-haired  dogs  and females play short-haired dogs.  I am not so
       sure why the former  is  true,  but  the  latter  is  for  prudish,
       Victorian reasons that I will leave to your imagination.


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

       2. PARABLE OF THE SOWER by Octavia  E.  Butler  (Four  Walls  Eight
       Windows,  ISBN  0-941423-99-9, October 1993, 299pp, $19.95) (a book
       review by Evelyn C. Leeper):











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 3



       Post-holocaust stories have been with us for quite a  while.   Even
       eliminating  such  classics  as  Noah  and the Flood or Lot and his
       daughters, the category dates back at least to Mary Shelley's  _L_a_s_t
       _M_a_n  (1826),  Richard Jeffries's _A_f_t_e_r _L_o_n_d_o_n (1885), Jack London's
       _S_c_a_r_l_e_t _P_l_a_g_u_e (1915), and S. Fowler  Wright's  _D_e_l_u_g_e  (1928),  to
       name some of the better-known works.  In the 1950s the theme met up
       with the atom bomb and, spurred perhaps by the  recent  success  of
       Edwin  Balmer  and  Philip  Wylie's  _W_h_e_n _W_o_r_l_d_s _C_o_l_l_i_d_e (1933) and
       George Stewart's _E_a_r_t_h _A_b_i_d_e_s (1949), really took  off.   The  most
       enduring  of  this  period's work is undoubtedly Walter M. Miller's
       _C_a_n_t_i_c_l_e _f_o_r _L_e_i_b_o_w_i_t_z.

       But in general post-holocaust, or post-apocalyptic, stories  needed
       an  apocalypse--almost always one of the classic four: fire (in the
       form of atomic radiation), flood, plague, or war.  After all,  with
       the  war behind us, the only way to go was up.  Things were getting
       better--everyone was moving up in the wold.  So the only thing that
       could  produce  a primitive set of conditions would be some sort of
       natural disaster or, of course, the Bomb.  But now  it's  the  90s.
       Things  don't look as rosy.  Our cities are becoming more run-down,
       less safe.  And so it's not surprising that we are starting to  see
       more  stories  in which there are post-holocaust conditions without
       an actual holocaust.

       Which brings us to _P_a_r_a_b_l_e _o_f  _t_h_e  _S_o_w_e_r.   There  hasn't  been  a
       plague,  a flood, or a war, but by 2025 people are living in fenced
       and guarded enclaves.  A new street drug  has  turned  people  into
       pyromaniacs,  and  those  driven  from  their burned-out homes have
       little choice but to go into slavery in the new  border  factories.
       At  the beginning of the story, Lauren Olamina is fifteen years old
       and  living  in  a  small  neighborhood,  relatively  safe  (though
       everyone  is  getting  weapons  training, and no one goes "outside"
       unless they must).  Her father is a  minister,  but  Olamina  finds
       herself  drawn  away from his religion to a new religion/philosophy
       called Earthseed which she is formulating based on her view of  the
       world.   Earthseed  seems  to  have two aspects: life is change and
       humanity's destiny is the stars.  Or  to  quote  from  the  various
       verses  preceding each chapter, "All that you touch/You Change./All
       that  you   Change/Changes   you./The   only   lasting   truth   is
       Change./God/Is  Change,"  and,  "We are all Godseed, but no more or
       less so than any other aspect of  the  universe.   Godseed  is  all
       there   is--all  that  Changes.   Earthseed  is  all  that  spreads
       Earthlife to other earths.  The universe is Godseed.  Only  we  are
       Earthseed.  And  the Destiny of Earthseed is to take root among the
       stars.  One character describes  Earthseed  as  a  "combination  of
       Buddhism, existentialism, Sufism, and I don't know what else."

       But--not surprisingly--Olamina's neighborhood is destroyed and  she
       decides  to head north in the hopes of starting a new community--an
       Earthseed community.  So we have a  post-holocaust,  coming-of-age,
       new-religion,  mutated-human  novel.   (Oh,  yes,  Olamina also has











       THE MT VOID                                                  Page 4



       "hyper-empathy," or the ability to  feel  other's  pain.   This  is
       apparently  the  result  of  a  drug  her  mother took when she was
       pregnant with Olamina.)  This is a lot of stuff to put in a  three-
       hundred-page  novel,  but  Butler  manages to do it by avoiding the
       padding that so many authors put in their novels these  days.   She
       writes  in a very direct style which lets her cover more ground and
       cover it well.

       This is better than at least two of the Hugo nominees for its  year
       (in my opinion), but didn't make the ballot or receive much notice.
       I suspect it's because it was  published  by  a  small  press,  and
       wonder  if  Butler purposely chose this route.  I can't imagine any
       of the major publishers rejecting it, but I suppose  in  publishing
       anything  is  possible.   (On the other hand, the level of typos is
       much higher here  than  would  be  usual  for  a  major  publisher,
       especially  in  the use of opening or closing quotation marks.  The
       result is that you may think you're reading narration and  suddenly
       hit a close quotation mark that had no opener, or conversely.)

       I _h_i_g_h_l_y recommend _P_a_r_a_b_l_e _o_f _t_h_e _S_o_w_e_r and I'm going to  go  on  a
       quest  for Butler's other nine novels.  (I've read some of them and
       thought they were good  also.)   If  your  bookstore  doesn't  have
       _P_a_r_a_b_l_e  _o_f  _t_h_e  _S_o_w_e_r,  you  can  order  it from Four Walls Eight
       Windows, 39 West 14th St. 3503, New York NY 10011.


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

       4. MY DEAR HOLMES by Gavin Brend (Otto Penzler, ISBN 1-883402-69-7,
       1994 (1951c), 183pp, $8) (a book review by Evelyn C. Leeper):

       There is clearly a Sherlock Holmes revival going  on--this  is  the
       tenth  Holmes-related  book  I've  reviewed  this  year.   Some are
       pastiches or  other  fictional  works,  and  some  are  non-fiction
       studies.  This one falls in the latter category and is a reprint of
       a classic 1951 study in the chronology of the Holmes stories.

       It's so classic, in fact,  that  when  I  started  reading  Baring-
       Gould's  annotations  in  parallel,  I  discovered that much of the
       analysis I had been attributing  to  Baring-Gould  was  in  fact  a
       compilation  of the works of others such as Brend.  (This is not to
       belittle Baring-Gould--collecting and organizing  all  the  various
       sources  is  no  mean  task.)  Brend also goes into the question of
       Watson's marriages (two, according to Brend) and Watson's  absences
       from  Baker  Street.   If  you've  enjoyed Baring-Gould's _A_n_n_o_t_a_t_e_d
       _S_h_e_r_l_o_c_k _H_o_l_m_e_s,  especially  the  chronological  parts,  you  will
       certainly  enjoy  this.   One  good  touch  is  that Brend tries to
       explain the various inconsistencies in Watson's chronology  without
       always  resorting  to  saying Watson's hand-writing was unreadable.
       No one could have hand-writing as bad as Baring-Gould leads one  to
       believe  Watson's  was--or  if he did, nothing he wrote would be at
       all readable, and we wouldn't have _a_n_y Sherlock Holmes  stories  at
       all.

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