@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 12/12/25 -- Vol. 44, No. 24, Whole Number 2410
Table of Contents
What do Laos, Vietnam, Israel, Croatia, and possibly the United States have in common?
[If no one gets it, another hint next week.]
[-ecl]
Mini Reviews, Part 30 (film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper):
IN SEARCH OF TOMORROW (2022): IN SEARCH OF TOMORROW is a look at the science fiction films of the 1980s--all the science fiction films of the 1980s. Okay, that may be an exaggeration, but not much of one, and it is the reason that this documentary is over five hours long. (And I watched it on Tubi, where the commercials added another hour and fifteen minutes.
In addition to interviews about individual films with actors, directors, writers, crew, reviewers, and other people connected to the science fiction film scene, there are also thematic segments which talk about special effects, music, and other specific aspects of the films.
One unsettling aspect is how old some of the actors look now; if they didn't label them on screen, you might never figure out who they are. You expect this of those who were child actors forty years ago, but for those people who were adults then, such as Nancy Allen, or Dennis Quaid, or Craig Miller, it is a bit of a shock. (After all, I haven't changed much since then, right?)
One nice feature is that when they show you a film clip other than a specific film being discussed, they give you a small caption at the bottom left that tells you what film it is, and they caption the actors and others throughout the film. (Too many documentaries tell you who the person is the first time they are on screen, and then never again.)
Obviously, just as WOODLANDS DARK AND DAYS BEWITCHED is required viewing for fans of folk horror films, IN SEARCH OF TOMORROW is required viewing for fans of 1980s science fiction films. It is available free on Tubi, but Tubi does add 25% to the viewing time with its ads.
Released theatrically 10 March 2022; currently streaming on Tubi.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11341742/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/in_search_of_tomorrow
FRANKENSTEIN (2025): This is the latest in the long line of adaptations of Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN. It starts (as few of them do) with the Creature chasing Victor over the ice in the Arctic, and Victor telling his story to a ship's captain, just as Shelley described.
From there, though, writer/director Guillermo del Toro changes the story considerably. Victor's career, the introduction of Harlander, the roles of Elizabeth and William, ... all of these are changed.
A few random observations:
The first image of the tower and the light is reminiscent of images in THE NINTH GATE.
How does the Creature learn to read? There is no way for the blind man to teach him Or for that matter, for him to teach his granddaughter).
The Creature is very much a Christ figure here, first constructed on a cross as if crucified, and later not just driven from the old man's hut, but killed and then "born again", coming back to life on his own.
Jacob Elordi is 6'5" tall, and Oscar Isaac is 5'8". This makes showing the giant size of the Creature easier in scenes of just the two of them, though ultimately I expect some special effects were used as well.
Released streaming 07 November 2025; currently streaming on Netflix.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1312221/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/frankenstein_2025
HIDALGO (2004): HIDALGO is a film of doubtful historical accuracy, though largely based on Frank Hopkins's own accounts. But it is also based on David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, including having Omar Sharif star as the sheikh, having someone sitting watching over the desert waiting for riders, having many high-speed scenes (of horses rather than camels, and racing rather than a cavalry charge), having the competitors encounter quicksand, and having one of those races end at the sea. There is also a bit of DANCES WITH WOLVES.
The plot is complicated by there being a three-way conflict, rather than just two sides, and a lot of the scenes seem contrived and rushed. For example, someone tells him about locusts as a "gift from God" and later there is a swarm of them, and after it passes, he eats some and feeds some to his horse. The swarm and eating takes less than two minutes screen time; one wonders why it is included at all.
Released theatrically 05 March 2004.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317648/reference
What others are saying: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hidalgo
[-ecl]
Pronouns (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
I've been having problems with pronouns lately. No, not the third-person pronouns everyone talks about, but first-person pronouns.
For example, I want to say that Mark and I went to Second Time Books for many years and I still go there. Saying "I have gone to Second Time Books for many years" makes it sound as though it was just me, yet "Mark and I have gone to Second Time Books for many years" sounds like he is still going. So I'm stuck with the rather awkward-sounding "Mark and I went to Second Time Books for many years and I still go there."
And of course, I still keep referring to "our house", "our books", and "our DVDs", although somehow it's now "my car". Some things just seem like they're still both of ours. In particular, I think of our money as, well "our" money. (I know the government has a different theory.)
I suspect this is not uncommon, just as when I read something interesting, I find myself thinking, "I have to show this to Mark." (Someone said that five years after their mother died, they found themselves halfway through dialing her old number to tell her something they had read.
And that last paragraph shows where I stand on third-person pronouns. I didn't even think twice about typing "they" and "their". In this, I am a Janeite.
[I wish I could find the comment someone left on a pronoun article declaring emphatically that people shouldn't use "they" and "their" as singular pronouns--and did so themself when using pronouns to refer back to "someone" or something similar. On the other hand, this is apparently fairly common.]
[-ecl]
NASA's Asteroid Bennu Samples (comments by Greg Frederick):
Pristine samples of the asteroid Bennu was delivered to Earth by NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft which visited the asteroid a few years ago. It touched down briefly with a vacuum device to scoop up some material from Bennu. An amazing amount of material was gathered. All five nucleobases used to construct both DNA and RNA, along with phosphates, have been found in the Bennu samples brought to Earth by OSIRIS-REx. [Earth] life uses twenty amino acids to create the proteins we need. They found thirteen of them on Bennu. They also found dust from ancient supernova stellar explosions on Bennu. The following short You Tube video explains a complete summary of the findings from the Bennu samples:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/stbcn0QB6C0
[-gf]
Amusing Book-Lovers' Video (pointer from Kate Pott):
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1aFKV4yVkV/
Circumnavigating the Globe (letters of comment by Gary McGath, Keith F. Lynch, Peter Trei, and Hal Heydt):
In response to Evelyn's comments on circumnavigating the globe in the 12/05/25 issue of the MT VOID, Gary McGath writes:
[Evelyn wrote,] "Magellan was not the first to circumnavigate the globe, nor was Sebastian Elcano. That was Enrique of Malacca." [-ecl]
The Wikipedia article says this is open to dispute, and the explanation of how he might have been is confusing. Magellan, of course, died before completing the trip. It seems to me that the first to circumnavigate Earth would be an N-way tie among the survivors of the expedition. [-gmg]
Keith F. Lynch responds with further details on Evelyn's statement:
It's not clear where Enrique was originally from, but it's undisputed that he discovered he could speak the local language in the Philippines. So he had almost certainly circled the Earth. And done so before the survivors of the expedition made it back to Europe. [-kfl]
Peter Trei argues:
It's possible, but not proven.
He was enslaved in Malacca by Magellan on an earlier voyage east in 1511. He was on Magellan's later circumnavigation 1519-1522. He could speak Malay. He was understood in Cebu, but Malay was a common trade language in the area.
He left the expedition at Cebu. Cebu is about 20 degrees, or 2500 km NE of Malacca, which Mindanao is about 100 km south of Cebu.
So the question is: Was he actually from the Philippines, and learned Malay later, settling in Malacca, or was he Malay from Malacca? If the former case, he almost certainly circumnavigated. If the latter, he still had quite a long way to go, but not an impossible distance, and we just don't know if he did it. [-pt]
And Hal Heydt responds to Gary's claim of an N-way tie:
As I recall reading, if one claims the Magellan expedition as the first circumnavigation, the honors as "leader" for the whole trip would go to his First Mate.
On the other hand, I don't know if anyone disputes Joshua Slocum as being first to do a solo circumnavigation. [-hh]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
I have been reading, but Philcon weekend has been "one step forward, twenty steps back" in terms of clearing my "to-read" shelf, not to mention that the acquisition of another ten Great Courses is wreaking havoc with my "to-watch" list.
Most of my Second Time Books purchases (other than the Great Courses) were books about ancient Rome, with titles such as PUBLIC SPECTACLES IN ROME AND LATE ANTIQUE PALESTINE, and EMOTION, RESTRAINT, AND COMMUNITY IN ANCIENT ROME. (Emma Southon's ROME OF ONE'S OWN--THE FORGOTTEN WOEMN OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE may be a little less dry than these.)
Then came Philcon, which will be reported on in due course and much length. The overview is that I attended as an ordinary attendee, not as a program participant, and it was much more relaxing. I also decided I would not try to attend four panels in a row. And I managed to get rid of a lot of books and magazines on the freebie table--they had been accumulating for several years,
But I also picked up some freebie stuff, including C. S. Lewis's WHILE WE HAVE FACES, Simon Winchester's THE PROFESSOR AND THE MADMAN, and three graphic novels based on Ayn Ran's work: RED PAWN, ANTHEM (a science fiction work), and TOP SECRET (based on an unproduced script about Robert Oppenheimer and the Bomb).
After Philcon we went to Baldwin's Book Barn in West Chester, Pennsylvania, where I got another three books: JESUS AT THE MOVIES, Tom Holland's RUBICON, and Sir John Mandeville's BOOK OF MARVELS AND TRAVELS. Then home, and on Monday up to Massachusetts, with stops at Book Moon (nothing for me) and Gray Matter Books (HOW LANGUAGE WORKS, George Gamow's THIRTY YEARS THAT SHOOK PHYSICS, and a biography of Julian the Apostate). The Gamow is the perfect adjunct to the panel on "100 Years of Quantum Mechanics!"
I did manage to finish off several books I was partway through: THE ANGLO-SAXON AGE--A VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION, TIME IN HISTORY, and MADE TO ORDER. I also wanted to read PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. because I listened to the "classical Stuff You Should Know" podcast about it while I was stuck in several traffic jams returning from Massachusetts. (I also listened to two on logical fallacies, two on the poetic Edda, the House of Atreus, and "What Is Classical?".) And I read George Gamow's MR. TOMPKINS IN PAPERBACK.
I will add some comments about PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (and SENSE AND SENSIBILITY) here, since they occurred to me during the podcast and while reading the book. Everyone seems to talk about Darcy being prideful and Elizabeth being prejudiced (against him), but as I listened to the podcast, I realized that it applied the words "pride" and "proud" as much to her: she was prideful of her (supposed) ability to judge people quickly and correctly, for example. And Darcy was clearly prejudiced against anyone not of his class. So in fact, each of the two terms apply to both of them.
There is also a confusion of the words "sense" and "sensibility" in another of Austen's titles. Modern readers invariably apply the word "sense" (meaning pertaining to the senses) to Marianne and "sensibility" to Elinor. Apparently, however, the words as used in Austen's time meant that the associations were reversed: Elinor has the sense, and Marianne the sensibility (meaning relying on her emotions, or perhaps "sensitivity").
For example, of the death of Henry Dashwood, Austen writes, "Elinor saw, with concern, the excess of her sister's sensibility; but by Mrs. Dashwood it was valued and cherished. They encouraged each other now in the violence of their affliction."
Marianne complains of Colonel Brandon, "But it would have broke *my* heart, had I loved him, to hear him read with so little sensibility."
Austen writes, "Elinor had not needed this to be assured of the injustice to which her sister was often led in her opinion of others, by the irritable refinement of her own mind, and the too great importance placed by her on the delicacies of a strong sensibility."
Clearly, Marianne is associated with sensibility, so sense must refer to Elinor (as in having good sense).
And indeed, if one digs around, one finds that "sensibility" did have this different meaning back then. https://femalescriblerian.com/2023/07/04/making-sense-and-sensibility-the-truth-behind-the-title/ discusses this; it is by no means the only place I have read this, but this seems to explain it the best.
It's convenient, however, that with today's meanings the title *still* makes sense [no pun intended!], though completely reversed from its original intent.
At least the rest of Austen's titles have no ambiguities. [-ecl]
Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
Quote of the Week:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent
hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people,
and eat out their substance. ... He has kept among us,
in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent
of our legislatures. ... He has affected to render the
Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
... For protecting [armed troops] ... from punishment
for any Murders which they should commit on the
Inhabitants of these States: ... For cutting off our
Trade with all parts of the world: ... For imposing
Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in
many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: ... For
transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
offences: ... He has excited domestic insurrections
amongst us ...
--Thomas Jefferson
Go to our home page