@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
02/12/10 -- Vol. 28, No. 33, Whole Number 1584
Table of Contents
Science Fiction Discussion Groups:
February 11: TOTAL RECALL/"We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" by Philip K. Dick, Middletown (NJ) Public Library, film at 5:30PM, discussion of film and book after film February 25: STORIES OF YOUR LIFE AND OTHERS Old Bridge (NJ) Public Library, 7PM March 11: FLATLAND by Edwin Abbott, Middletown (NJ) Public Library, film (FLATLAND: THE FILM) at 5:30PM, discussion of film and book after film April 8: THE ILLUSTRATED MAN by Ray Bradbury, Middletown (NJ) Public Library, film at 5:30PM, discussion of film and book after film
Good News and Bad News (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
The good news is you don't have to worry that global warming is one day suddenly going to do serious damage without warning. That is just not going to happen. That is just not how most things happen nature. The bad news, of course, is that we've had our warning. [-mrl]
Good News and Bad Newsilliam Tenn (1920-2010) (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
Doing his best writing in the 1950s and 1960s Phillip Klass (who wrote under the name William Tenn) was considered to be one of the first rank science fiction authors. While some of his stories were serious, he more frequently unleashed an impish sense of humor in his writing. He was born in London, but at an early age moved to New York. Most of his youth was spent in Brooklyn. He was a combat engineer in WWII and then an engineer. He was later employed by Bell Laboratories. He published sixty stories, two of which he rewrote as novels, OF MEN AND MONSTERS and A LAMP FOR MEDUSA. He moved to Pennsylvania where he taught at Penn State. His collections of stories include OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS (1955), THE HUMAN ANGLE (1956), TIME IN ADVANCE (1958), THE SEVEN SEXES (1968), THE SQUARE ROOT OF MAN (1968), and THE WOODEN STAR (1968). NESFA Press collected all of his stories in two (beautiful) volumes IMMODEST PROPOSALS (2000) and HERE COMES CIVILIZATION (2001). One of his best-remembered stories is "On Venus, Have We Got a Rabbi!" An interview with Klass and his reading of this story can be found at:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/spinning/episodes/2002/11/22
(His reading of the story starts around 41 minutes into the recording.)
For more information see
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tenn>
William Tenn died February 7, 2010, three months shy of his 90th
birthday. He was respected and well-liked. William Tenn will be
missed. [-mrl]
Back to PONTYPOOL (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
There is an interesting sort of a zombie film with a really
different sort of premise. The film comes from Canada and is
called PONTYPOOL.
A shorter version of the same story was adapted as a radio play and
was played on the BBC. Now the BBC is not known for broadcasting a
lot of plays about zombies, but they apparently found the idea
interesting enough that they included it their series of Worldplays
about science. You cannot download the play, but you can hear it
on your computer at
I have seen (and reviewed, in the 01/08/10 issue of the MT VOID)
the film and it has the same cast as the radio play. I don't know
when or if the film will get a general release. But it is probably
best if you do not know where the story is going until you get into
it. [-mrl]
Why the Wolf Man Returns (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
The film industry, which recently has depended all too much on
remakes and what the filmmakers expect will be a built-in audience,
is releasing today their remake version of THE WOLF MAN. I have
not seen the re-do. The trailer seems to suggest that the new
version might be relatively faithful to the story of the original,
though changing the title to THE WOLFMAN is not a very good sign.
It seems likely that the diminishing ranks of horror fans that let
themselves enjoy classic monochrome, low-budget horror films will
still prefer the original version made in 1941. I will say having
the director be Joe Johnston (of THE ROCKETEER and OCTOBER SKY) is
a major incentive to see the film even if it is a remake.
The 1941 version is the classic. I think that came as a surprise
even to the Universal studio management. 1941 was no longer even
the golden age of the horror film at Universal. That ended with
the Laemmle family lost control of the studio and the new owners
wanted slicker but more soulless horror films that exploited the
monsters that were introduced in the early Thirties.
Now, back in the 1930s Universal had made THE WEREWOLF OF LONDON,
arguably even a better werewolf film than THE WOLF MAN would be.
But the character of Wilfred Glendon was a little stiff and formal
for audiences to really identify with much. Glendon was a
patrician stuffed shirt at the best of times and seemed more human
when he was in the form of the werewolf. The studio expected their
new werewolf film to serviceably fill the bottoms of double bills
for a few weeks and then fall into obscurity. What they did not
see was that the problems that the werewolf Lawrence Talbot had
were ironically in their own way very human problems. Lawrence
Talbot was his own enemy. He would at night lose control of
himself and do exactly the things he least would have wanted to do
if he were in control. Lon Chaney, Jr., may at this point had very
similar problems himself. Chaney was a heavy drinker and probably
would have had his own out-of-control spells that he later
regretted. I have not found it documented when Lon Chaney, Jr.,
starting having serious alcohol problems, but it was very likely by
1941 when he made this film.
The Wolf Man was really a different sort of monster for film. He
had identification value. This was not the daughter of a vampire.
It was not a scientist who travels to Tibet. Nor was he a mummy
several thousand years old or a scientist working with sinister
chemicals. Lawrence Talbot was just this casual guy who had left
home at an early age and went to work on the Mount Wilson
telescope, apparently as some sort of mechanic. Though he did have
roots in a wealthy British family, he left home too young to even
have British accent. If the American viewers passed him on the
street they might not even notice him. That made him seem much
more real.
Like few monsters seen on the screen before, Lawrence Talbot
suffered from remorse. Dracula was pure evil and never regretted a
bite or a moment of his doings. His daughter wanted more to escape
the vampire lifestyle, but showed little remorse for her killings.
The Frankenstein monster usually did not want to kill and did not
do it voluntarily unless heavily provoked. Im-ho-tep never
regretted any of his killings and Kharis was just of puppet of
others. Henry Jekyll had some remorse just as Wilfred Glendon did,
but was too much of a prig to show it much. But Lawrence Talbot
would do bad things when he was in wolf form, and when he realized
what he had done afterward he had overwhelming pangs of guilt. He
longed for death simply so that he could do no more damage. He was
as harsh on himself as his audience was on him. That sort of
tragedy really appealed to audiences perhaps as something new.
Perhaps no monster of the screen has ever so hated his own
monstrous self and his actions. The character was popular enough
that even as the other monsters in the Universal stable were
winding down their series, the Wolf Man was just getting started.
He would appear in four more Universal horror films: FRANKENSTEIN
MEETS THE WOLF MAN (1943), HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944), HOUSE OF
DRACULA (1945), and ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948).
Only the Frankenstein monster would appear in more Universal horror
films, eight to the Wolf Man's five.
In the hands of a Joe Johnston this film could well represent the
qualities one would want in a remake version of THE WOLF MAN.
(Some time soon I will set forward my attitude toward remaking
classic films. It may not be what you would expect.) [-mrl]
THE CLAN CORPORATE by Charles Stross (copyright 2006, Tor, $6.99, 310pp, ISBN-13 978-0-7653-4822-7) (book review by Joe Karpierz):
THE CLAN CORPORATE is the third book in Charles Stross's "Merchant
Princes" series. Stross has settled in to the series rather nicely
at this point, continuing a nice little yarn that doesn't
necessarily tax the mental capabilities (like some of his other
novels--GLASSHOUSE, SINGULARITY SKY, and IRON SUNRISE come to mind,
which were terrific books in their own way) but yet is a beautiful
piece of escapism that will occupy your thoughts for a little
while. I don't think the series will stick in your head twenty
years from now, but it's an enjoyable story to read.
So, our heroine, Miriam Beckstein, is more or less being held
prisoner on the other side by her family. She is deemed a
troublemaker, someone who is too independent and willing and able
to shake up the status quo. Check that, she is a *female* who is
too independent and will and able to shake up the status quo. And
females, especially those who have returned from "exile" in our
familiar reality and who end up being royalty, just don't do that
sort of thing. So, the Countess Helge voh Thorold d'Hjorth, er,
Miriam, is being trained in the ways of her family, royalty, and
world in general.
And she doesn't like it one bit.
So what does she do? Well, what she does best--she goes out and
causes trouble and gets mixed up in things that she shouldn't, and
finally gets caught doing something so stupid to get some
information about a breeding program that will produce more world-
walkers (those that can walk between our world and her family's and
others--more on that later), that she is essentially put under
house arrest until she learns her place and role, and learns how to
behave. And in the process, she learns about how things *really*
work over there in terms of marriage and political power--by
finding out that her mother, whom she trusted (and who lived on our
side for over 30 years) has sold her up the river. The upshot is
that she is to be the bride in an arranged marriage to the "Idiot",
the brain-damaged son of the king. The poor kid was apparently fed
aspartame when he was an infant, and that caused the damage.
Back on our side, we've captured one of the Clan's couriers,
Matthias, a guy that Helge, er, Miriam, met in one of the earlier
books of the series. our guys, the good guys, have formed an
organization to investigate Clan workings and find a way to travel
over to the other side to infiltrate the Clan. It seems that we
think that the Clan is a threat to us, given that they traffic in,
among other things illegal drugs. Matthias breaks out of his cell,
and in the process we find out that there are nuclear explosives
planted around our country, waiting to go off if Matthias isn't let
go. All sorts of fun stuff.
For those that have been following the series, you'll remember the
third world, which Miriam dubbed New Britain. Miriam started a
business over there to generate profit for the Clan. She manages
to go there before she gets in trouble, and finds that her business
is in a bit of shambles given that she hasn't been there to run it.
We find out that *that* world has nuclear weapons ("corpuscular
bombs"). Makes us wonder where Matthias got his. And there's some
other shady stuff going on there too. Heck, there's shady stuff
everywhere.
One of the interesting little tidbits that could be lost if the
reader is not paying attention is that there are indeed many worlds
to travel to. If you remember, Miriam got into this mess in the
first book by staring at a fancy pattern in a locket. Well, it
turns out that if you alter that pattern, you get a different
world. Kind of cool, and something I'd like to see Stross explore
in later books in the series.
I have mixed feelings about this series. The concept has been done
before in Zelazny's Amber series, but of course with a different
twist. Amber was definitely fantasy, while The Merchant Princes is
definitely science fiction in fantasy clothing. So, while the
world walking provides a plot device, it's nothing new. And it
seems that Stross has basically just written one big old novel and
broken it up into six parts, arbitrarily picking points to break it
up into marketable pieces. These books do not and cannot stand
alone, and at least in the case of THE CLAN CORPORATE, I don't
quite know what the overall story of this installment is supposed
to be. It's just like Stross thought, "Okay, this one will start
here, and end there, and we'll put a title on it, and my fans will
buy it."
Then again, it *is* a nice little read. It's enjoyable. I like
Miriam and some of the other characters. I dislike the characters
I'm supposed to dislike, and there's ample reason to do so. The
story itself is not anything that will win awards and like I said,
have people talking 20 years from now, but does that matter?
Probably not, since 95% of all books are that way, I think.
There are three more books in the series, and Stross may decide to
write more later on. It won't be a bad thing. It'll be okay.
Just like this book. [-jak]
[Joe will be appearing on a panel at Capricon in Chicago this
weekend, dealing with watching the TV series "Flashforward" and
comparing it to the Sawyer novel. -ecl]
PHYLLIS AND HAROLD (film review by Mark R. Leeper):
CAPSULE: Cindy Kline is a filmmaker fascinated by her parents'
dysfunctional marriage. In a previous film, TIL DEATH DO US PART
(1998, a 20-minute short), she interviewed her parents trying to
get to the core of what made their relationship so rocky. Later
following the death of her father she could get more from her
mother about their problems. Now she can tell a more complete
story in PHYLLIS AND HAROLD. Ironically, what she tells us of her
parents and what we can see are diametrically opposed. Cindy's
conclusions are directly at odds with the evidence on the screen,
and the entire story is surprisingly compelling for such a modest
effort. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Over the years when she was growing up, Cindy Kline and her sister
Ricky were caught in the battles between her parents. Outwardly
they seemed at one time an attractive couple. Harold's profession
as a dentist allowed them to live very comfortably and to travel
extensively throughout the world. They should have been an ideal
pairing. But secretly and not so secretly they were in a constant
state of conflict. Cindy interviews the two of them and tries to
put some meaning onto the discord. The two seem opposites. Harold
is quiet and at least in front of the camera is easy going.
Phyllis is talkative and acerbic. From early in the film a pattern
becomes clear. Phyllis's descriptions are punctuated with sharp
verbal jabs at Harold. Harold stoically takes the abuse and gives
none back.
For example, Phyllis will say Harold would send "what he considered
love letters." Apparently they did not meet her high standards for what
constitutes "love letters." Through the years she benefitted
from being married to Harold, but usually escaped from any
responsibilities as part of the relationship. In the early days
when Harold was struggling financially, Phyllis spent weeks looking
for a job and then quit the job she found after only one day. She
has children by Harold, but then does not want to raise them
herself and hires a nanny. For ten years Cindy was closer to the
nanny than she was to Phyllis.
In the interviews Phyllis complains about Harold's supposed bad
behavior and his faults. Harold says nothing about Phyllis that is
not sympathetic. He is proud of his accomplishments, his
investments, and how he can provide for his family. He is a simple
man and something of a romantic, supporting his wife and ignoring
the digs.
The film takes some twists. Apparently Phyllis had an affair with
a married man with whom she is still in love. The daughters tell
her she should have followed her love without much consideration to
what it would have done to their family, especially their father.
Little incidents boil up from the past. Cindy as a young girl sees
a baby and her mother has to tell her that babies do not stay cute
for long and they grow into ugly teenagers. Phyllis throughout is
domineering and self-obsessed. Even as Cindy makes the film she
seems unable to see how destructive Phyllis was. If Harold has a
similar negative side, we see little of it in the film. He may be
clumsy, but he is a romantic.
The film has the uneven style that might be expected of an
inexperience filmmaker. We get some makeshift animation that may
be intended to lighten the tone. It is mostly of the photographic
style that Terry Gilliam would use for the early Monty Python
episodes. Somehow it seems like it belongs in another, perhaps
lighter, film. Some of the sound recording is crudely done and a
little hard to understand. Some of the scenes go on too long
without giving us new information. The use of home movies intercut
with the scenes of the present are a familiar touch and the home
movies could have been better chosen, but they give a feel for the
time period of the narrative.
Cindy Klein give us a picture of herself as a woman who grew up in
a household that had the assumption that it is the husband's
responsibility to make the wife happy, but not the reverse. She
seems unaware that she maintains that prejudice throughout the
film, and it may reflect badly on her, but it gives the film its
interest. I rate PHYLLIS AND HAROLD a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or
6/10.
Film Credits:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1382323/
[-mrl]
Bears and THE BEAR (letter of comment by Al Stoops):
In response to Mark's 1989 review of THE BEAR, Al Stoops writes:
Just read your review of "The Bear" at
http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/06/0660.
I appreciated your honest comment: "The bear's voice was dubbed
after shooting and seems often to be unrealistically expressive,
though I do not have sufficient knowledge of bears to decide if
that is really true." My wife and I enjoyed watching the movie
(and especially enjoyed watching some of the filming of how the
movie was made). But we do have sufficient knowledge of bears to
find the depictions of the bears' voices to be distracting. Sort of
like as if we were watching a movie that had the dogs crowing like
roosters or mooing like cows! My wife (Sue Mansfield) studies
black bears with Dr. Lynn Rogers in Ely, MN. Bears (grizzlies as
well as black bears) never open their mouths to roar--if fact, they
don't really roar, or growl. The movie was made by getting the
(trained) bears to open their mouths, then dubbing in roaring
sounds (maybe a lion's roar?). One of the goals of Dr. Rogers'
work is to dispel many of the misconceptions people have about
bears. Recently they were able to set up a video camera looking
into a wild black bear's den, and thousands of people were able to
watch the birth (and subsequent maternal care) of a black bear
cub." [-as]
Mark replies:
That is a pity. I do like the film. But that is a cheap touch. I
guess they felt that giving the bears understandable emotions was
more important than accuracy. That is not defending them, but I
can see why they did it. [-mrl]
And Al says:
It is not the only place in movies and other media where I've seen
such things, but I don't remember the names of the others I've
seen. Actually, I can't remember any at all where bears were
depicted accurately. Bears get depicted with their mouths open and
teeth bared in taxidermy mounts, on the covers of Time and other
magazines, and elsewhere. Apparently people assume that bears must
do that (they don't) since cats, dogs, and their wild relatives do.
Since people expect it, the media continue to give people what they
expect, thus perpetuating the myth. That is only one of many
widely-believed bear myths. Another is that is it dangerous to get
between a mother bear and her cubs. True of grizzly bears, but not
black bears. Almost all the bears people see in populated areas of
North America are black bears.
Link:
http://tinyurl.com/training-bears-html
Hope I'm not writing too much, but I also am bothered that frogs in
the media always make the same "ribbit" sound. I couldn't find any
online links relating to this directly, but I have a book somewhere
(by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas) that explores this myth. Most of
the hundreds of kinds of frogs make non-ribbit sounds, but the
"generic" frog call comes from a species that happens to live in
southern California. I now live in northern Minnesota, recently
moved from New Hampshire. None of the ten species of frogs that
I've heard in those places make a sound remotely like "ribbit", but
most people living there seem to believe that frogs say "ribbit".
Go figure.... [-as]
AVATAR (letter of comment by Wendy Sheridan):
In response to Mark's comments on plot similarities between AVATAR
and DANCES WITH WOLVES and other films in the 02/05/10 issue of the
MT VOID, Wendy Sheridan writes, "Yes, those are all salient points.
It was the Magic Tree (the Mothertree--or whatever it was called--
in AVATAR, and Grandmother Willow in POCAHONTAS) that made the
story comparison even closer (and funnier). Nobody was communing
with trees in DUNE or DANCES WITH WOLVES." [-ws]
Thrillers and POCAHONTAS (letter of comment by Kip Williams):
In response to Mark's comments on thrillers in the 02/05/10 issue
of the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes:
I rather like TEN LITTLE INDIANS (the original title was rather
racist) by Agatha Christie. I first read the novel--over and over.
In 1977, I got to be in a production of that with a director who
was the best I'd worked with, and a tight cast, playing the judge.
It is, I think, debatable whether Christie played fair with the
audience, but I don't think there are any holes that will cause
them to see through everything too early. It has a nice way of
getting you to suspect someone and then removing them from
consideration. And by 'nice,' I mean 'neat,' not 'pleasant,' or
'kind.' [-kw]
And in response to comments on similarities between films, Kip
writes:
When I was watching POCAHONTAS in the theater, I kept thinking of
WEST SIDE STORY. Not just the plot, but the numbers. There was, for
instance the scene where Ms. Hontas is telling Captain Hunky about
the homespun virtues of her land, which could have gone something
like:
SPOILER: Naq yngre ba, bs pbhefr, gurer'f gur jubyr "n obl yvxr
gung / jub xrry lbhe oebgure..." ovg. [-kw]
[You can decode ROT13 at
http://www.degraeve.com/rot13.php. -ecl]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
REPLAY by Ken Grimwood (ISBN-13 978-0-688-16112-5) is one of those
books from which everyone remembers the plot but not the title or
author. From the rec.arts.sf.written FAQ (on frequent book
identification requests): "The protagonist of this novel lives
through a "time loop" wherein he would die, return to his youth
(only a little later each time), live a new life each time, but
always die and re-commence a cycle. In the course of one life he
encountered a woman who experiences the same phenomenon." I re-
read this because it was the companion work to the film GROUNDHOG
DAY for the Middletown film-book group (*not* the science fiction
group). (This was probably chosen because the regular meeting date
was, in fact, Groundhog Day.)
In one iteration, Jeff Winston (the protagonist) and another
"replayer" place an ad in 1964 or so to try to find more people
like them: "Do you remember Watergate? Lady Di? The shuttle
disaster? The Ayatollah? ROCKY? FLASHDANCE? If so, you're not
alone. Contact P.O. Box 1988, New York, N.Y. 10001"
I do like the fact that Grimwood gets it right in that there is a
ZIP code, but the state is still the old style abbreviation rather
than just a two-letter code. The ad itself reminds me of the ad
placed in Isaac Asimov's THE END OF ETERNITY in the 1930s in an
attempt to find people from the future, using a mushroom cloud
which would be meaningless to anyone not from the future.
One major difference between REPLAY and GROUNDHOG DAY is that in
REPLAY, Jeff Winston relives a much longer period of time (twenty-
five years the first time, then gradually decreasing) and so can
effect much more change. On the other hand, he only gets a dozen
or so iterations. In GROUNDHOG DAY, Phil gets thousands of
iterations (think about how long it would take him to learn to play
the piano that well), but only a day each time.
The group got into a discussion of 1) why Phil breaks out of the
loop, and 2) whether the worlds created by all the different days
continue. In REPLAY, the replayers postulate that each of the
timelines they create continue after they cycle back. This is
conceivable, because they die in one timeline before cycling back,
so there is no duplication of consciousness. And it makes it more
bearable for them to believe that their loved ones continue on
rather than flash into nothingness. But in GROUNDHOG DAY, Phil
does *not* die (at least in most of them) before cycling back. One
could accept parallel Phils, of course--all the other characters
have parallels. But the problem is tied into the first question:
why does Phil break out of the loop? If, as seems to be implied,
he breaks out because of some internal emotional change, then he
cannot continue in each of the thousands of timelines (and hence
have every copy of himself break out of the loop), because then
there is no change required of him, the change has no effect, and
in fact one could postulate that while we have seen Phil-38,427
(e.g.) break out, there is a Phil-38,428 who wakes up back at
6:00AM February 2 again, and a Phil-36,429, and so on. The film's
ending implies that when and only when Phil reforms, then he can
break out. To have multiple continuing timelines means that this
ending is a cheat.
Another similar work is "Shadow Play" (an episode of THE TWILIGHT
ZONE). In it, Dennis Weaver keeps looping through the same dream,
but in this version, there are variations each day--the same
people, but in different roles. And it is a dream, not a parallel
timeline. Similarly, the main character in DEAD OF NIGHT is not
really looping around in time, but merely having deja vu. [-ecl]
Go to my home page
"I like to be in A-mer-i-ca!
Everyone free in A-mer-i-ca!
We're all PC in A-mer-i-ca!
No PCB in A-mer-i-ca!"
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
If two men agree on everything, you may be sure
that one of them is doing the thinking.
-- Lyndon Baines Johnson