@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 05/02/25 -- Vol. 43, No. 44, Whole Number 2378
Table of Contents
Mini Reviews, Part 10 (film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Three films about investigative journalism:
I recently went on a binge of movies about investigative journalism, and the one commonality is that all of them (so far) emphasize that it is not so much glamorous as tedious.
The first is ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976, covering 1972 through 1975). In this we see Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (occasionally called "Woodstein" by their editors) going through stacks of book requests at the Library of Congress to see if Howard Hunt had requested books about the Kennedys. Then they spend endless days visiting everyone who worked in a specific department; the list has about a hundred people on it.
(As an aside, we learn that among the other differences between Woodward and Bernstein, Woodward was a two-finger typist, while Bernstein was a fairly proficient touch typist. We see this, and producer Robert Redford confirms it in his commentary.)
Released theatrically 09 April 1976.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/reference
What others are saying: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/reference
Then comes SPOTLIGHT (2016, set in 2001 and 2002), which covers the exposure by the "Spotlight" section of the Boston Globe of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Here we see the reporters going through years of directories of priests and their assignments looking for those who were "on sick leave" or "unassigned". And there is also the attempts to speak to the victims, which involved going to dozens, if not hundreds, of houses in the hopes of finding someone who would speak on the record.
Released theatrically 20 November 2015.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/reference
What others are saying: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/reference
And finally we have THE POST (2017, set in 1971), which is about the Washington Post's decision to publish the leaked Pentagon papers. In an echo of current relations between the White House and the press, this got the Washington Post barred from the Nixon White house (although apparently they were already banned because one of their reporters "crashed" Tricia Nixon's wedding). In this film, we see reporters trying to sort out thousands of pages of the Pentagon papers that had had the page numbers cut off when the top secret classification was cut off.
THE POST also has a sub-plot of Kathryn Graham and her progress from being a socialite who left the running of the paper she inherited from her husband to the senior staff, to assertive decision-maker in her own right. (That the paper had been her father's, but he left it to her husband rather then to her, tells you all you need to know about the era.)
Released theatrically 12 January 2018.
Film Credits: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/reference
What others are saying: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/reference
[-ecl]
Training AIs (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Apparently several people have discovered that their papers in the AT&T or Bell System Technical Journals were used to train AIs. [-ecl]
Willy Ley's Ashes Found in a New York City Basement (link):
"The basement of the prewar co-op on the Upper West Side was so cluttered and dark in one area that the staff called it 'the Dungeon,' and last year, the building's new superintendent resolved to clear it out.
"For weeks, he hauled the junk left behind by former tenants--old air-conditioners, cans of paint, ancient elevator parts and rolled-up carpets--through the winding hallway with its low ceilings to the dumpster out back.
"About halfway through the job, he spied an old tin can on a shelf next to a leaf blower. He read the label:
'Remains of Willy Ley. Cremated June 26, 1969.'
"This was not the sort of thing you toss in a dumpster."
Evelyn here:
Apparently the co-op board president has since raised the money (from Celestis and others) to send the ashes into space. There is a GoFundMe at https://www.gofundme.com/f/honoring-willy-leys-space-legacy, but that is for a scholarship in his name from the AMNH, not the scattering.
Full article at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/nyregion/willy-ley-rocket-ashes.html
Non-paywalled (but good for only thirty days, I think):
WHEN THE MOON HITS YOUR EYE by John Scalzi (copyright 2025, Audible Studios, ASIN: B0DFMXM1DV, 10 hours and 5 minutes, narrated by Wil Wheaton) (audio book review by Joe Karpierz):
A lot of people ask me the questions "What are you reading right now, and what is it about?" These are usually fairly easy to answer. But answering the questions gets a bit tricky when it comes to John Scalzi's new novel WHEN THE MOON HITS YOUR EYE. I suspect anyone who is reading this review is already familiar with the event that sets off the entire story: the moon turns to cheese. If I were to lead off with that when describing this book to anyone on the street who asks, or to a casual reader, I'd most likely be greeted with derision--or at least the book would. So, I thought I'd say something like "A celestial event occurs that is so unusual and incredible that it affects the lives of every human on earth (and probably some of the non-human residents as well) in very different ways. The novel tells the story of how people on Earth from all walks of life are dealing with the event.". I would then wait for the inevitable "well, just what is that celestial event?", to which I would reply "the moon turns to cheese". You see, I figure if I lead with THAT statement, I'd lose the listener. I figure I'd try the other way and see if they were still interested in letting me continue.
So, yeah, the novel starts out when it is discovered that the moon rock sample in the Neil Armstrong museum in Ohio has changed. A small bit of investigation reveals that the lunar sample has turned into a cheese-like substance. That night, up in the sky, the moon is much larger in diameter and a very different color. And while it's larger in diameter, the lunar mass has not changed. And so the novel begins a tale that lasts a full 30-day lunar cycle.
Let me say right here that this novel is not *about* the moon turning to cheese. That event is simply the catalyst for what is to come, not unlike the moon exploding at the beginning of Neal Stephenson's SEVENEVES. What this story is really about is humanity's reaction to the altered moon. The vast majority of the story takes place over thirty days, with each day being its own chapter. Each chapter deals with one segment of society or another. How does a pastor react when one of his flock tells his son that the devil changed the moon, so its not God's moon any more. How does he deal with the effect it has on the children in Sunday school? Or, for that matter, how does he deal with a distraught parishioner who is losing his faith? How about the owners of two rival cheese shops literally almost across the street from each other who haven't spoken to each other for twenty years (oh yeah--they're brothers)? Then there's the privileged billionaire who tries to be the first human to walk on the moon decades after the Apollo program ended? Speaking of lunar landing, there are the team of astronauts who have trained for a new set of missions to the moon and now they can't go because it's turned to cheese and some billionaire is going to try to do it anyway? How do *they* feel? What about the scientists whose view of the solar system and celestial workings is now null and void and who have to throw up their hands because nothing makes sense?
And that's just the normal ho-hum every day stuff. Things really kick into gear when a huge chunk of the moon cheese breaks off and heads towards Earth with a trajectory that will cause the destruction of the planet--inevitably called "death by cheese--in about two years. (Side note here. The news that the chunk of cheese will hit the Earth in roughly two years is leaked from a Chinese science lab, and all I could think of was the theory that the COVID virus was leaked by a Chinese lab). Now we have governments trying to hold press conferences to ease the fears of their country's population. And the bankers who are trying to find a way to make money off the situation, even though they'll have no use for money in two years, just like everyone else. Or the divorced couple having something of a reunion, the man dying and trying to make things right before the end of the world. Or, how the U.S., Russia, and China try to work together to solve a problem that is probably unsolvable. The list goes on and on.
For such a weird premise, this is such a serious novel. Well, not always serious, of course. This is not a huge novel, but it is huge in terms of ideas, of humanity, of how we go on in the face of coming disaster. And that's what sets this novel apart from some other novels wherein the planet is facing a global catastrophe. In those other novels, the story centers around the people who are trying to solve the problem, trying to save humanity--the heroes. WHEN THE MOON HITS YOUR EYE is about everyone else, the every day people who are not in charge of trying to solve the world's problems--they're just trying to survive them.
In his afterward, Scalzi freely admits to the absurdity of the premise. He deliberately made all the science, such as it is, vague, gray, wibbly-wobbly (to borrow from a certain Doctor). He didn't want to give details about what kind of cheese the moon turned into, knowing that there would be people out there who would call him out on the color, consistency, and density of whatever kind of cheese he decided to use. He learned enough to make the moon the right size and density that its gravitational pull on the Earth would not affect the tides. He didn't want all those details to detract from the story, because the story wasn't about the moon. It was about its affect on us. Just like the moon has *always* affected us, sitting up there in the sky.
I don't know that there's much more that I can say about Wil Wheaton's narration. At this point, and I've probably said it in a previous review, I've heard both of them enough that I feel like when I hear Wheaton's voice I'm actually hearing Scalzi's. And this book is no exception to that rule. Wheaton does his usual terrific job, and I can't imagine anyone else narrating a John Scalzi novel.
WHEN THE MOON HITS YOUR EYE, despite its title and premise, may actually be one of the best books of 2025. It certainly is so far. I mean, who can go wrong with a story about a moon made of cheese? [-jak]
THE PURSUIT OF THE PANKERA vs. THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, both by Robert Heinlein (book reviews by Robert L. Mitchell):
Last year while on an out-of-state vacation, I dropped in to the local library just to look around. While there, I saw a book by Robert Heinlein that I'd never heard of, THE PURSUIT OF THE PANKERA. I consider myself a big Heinlein fan (back in the day, I was credited on the MTVoid masthead as the "Distinguished Heinlein Apologist"), so I bought the book as soon as I got home. I learned that this book had been submitted for publishing in Heinlein's lifetime, was rejected for unspecified reasons, and Heinlein rewrote large parts of it. He then submitted the new manuscript, which was published in 1980 as THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST. I read PANKERA only recently, and decided to reread BEAST for the first time in 45 years to see what the similarities and differences were.
As a stand-alone book PANKERA is a decent yarn, with strong-willed and highly intelligent/skilled/articulate men and women who really enjoy mostly heterosexual sex (same-sex kissing is as far as Heinlein goes). Classic Heinlein "competent men (and women)", although the four main characters push "competent" to its limits. Zeb is a jack-of-all-trades, a master pilot and a crack shot, and has a Spiderman-like danger sense; Jacob is a brilliant mathematical physicist and inventor; Deety is not only a brilliant computer scientist but she has savant-level mathematical skills and can track precise time in her head, and Hilda, although the only one without multiple doctorates, has social skills to rival anyone you could think of on top of an eidetic memory. So, the main characters are not just heroes, but low-level superheroes in a sense.
Jacob has invented a device that allows them to travel between and through universes, and when things go south at home (Earth-Zero), they flee to Mars. It's not the Mars from our universe, though - it's E.R. Burroughs' Barsoom. After some adventures there, the quartet travel and find themselves in Oz and get help from Glinda the Good Witch, and then proceed to a universe populated from characters out of E.E. Smith's LENSMEN series. After some side jaunts, the book ends with a cliffhanger and our heroes, with help, attempt to deal with the problem that caused them to flee Earth-Zero in the first place.
I rate this book a B-. It was clearly Heinlein indulging himself, tipping his hat to some of the favorite literature of his youth, and playing with the old idea "what if {fictional setting} was real?". Harmless, pleasant in spots, but nothing you can't live without.
PANKERA clearly shares a lot of DNA with BEAST. The first 150-odd pages are identical, then the plots diverge significantly, with a couple of minor sections where PANKERA is again duplicated in BEAST. Looking at the differences between the two books, I'm convinced the reason PANKERA didn't get published was because Heinlein extensively used characters from Burroughs and Smith, with pages and pages of action, dialogue, and "background" that were not in the original stories. I assume the respective estates for those authors didn't approve of how their property was used. In BEAST, the Barsoom storyline was replaced by an alternate history where Britain still had the American colonies, was using Mars as a prison planet, and had problems with the Russians who also claimed Mars. The Oz bit was almost word-for-word the same, and in BEAST the only mention of the LENSMEN was a few pages involving brief contact with a character not found in Smith's books. The extensive material from PANKERA that dealt with the Lensmen universe was mostly replaced by having our main characters dealing with Lazarus Long, a very different "Slipstick" Libby, and others from those and other Heinlein stories. In addition, layered through the stories our heroes had lots of issues with each other, with who's-in-charge shifting four times. Much more talking, and less action, in BEAST than in PANKERA.
Of the two, I recommend PANKERA more than BEAST, although neither are prime Heinlein. Although I've not read Burroughs, Baum, or Smith's Lensmen, I recognize the archetypes and character concepts, and could enjoy and respect Heinlein's homage in PANKERA. PANKERA's plot also seemed more plausible to me, with the emphasis on working to a way to alleviate the problem on Earth-Zero. BEAST had none of that, but instead had lots of bickering and self-indulgent bringing together of various Heinlein characters who didn't do anything but talk, and who really aren't that different from each other. I'd give BEAST a C, and don't recommend it other than for completists. [-rlm]
THE BIGGEST IDEAS IN THE UNIVERSE: QUANTA AND FIELDS by Sean Carroll (book review by Gregory Frederick):
This book is a part of the "Biggest Ideas in the Universe" series, which aims to explain complex scientific concepts in accessible and engaging ways. The two parts, Quanta and Fields, focus on different aspects of modern physics, specifically quantum mechanics and field theory.
Part 1: Quanta
If you're looking for a clear, engaging, and thought-provoking introduction to the most important concepts in modern physics, THE BIGGEST IDEAS IN THE UNIVERSE is an excellent choice. It provides a high-level overview of quantum mechanics and field theory in a way that anyone can follow, while still sparking interest in deeper study. Sean Carroll has a knack for making abstract scientific ideas feel accessible, and this book is a perfect entry point for anyone curious about the fundamental nature of reality. [-gf]
THE AMATEUR (film review by Art Stadlin):
THE AMATEUR is a revenge story of a CIA technical data analyst, with an IQ of 170, who is determined to find and kill the four international terrorists who killed his wife. She happened to be on a trip to London and by bad luck was in the wrong place at the wrong time. At the same time, our lead character, the data analyst (Rami Malek), uncovers rogue operations within the CIA that are being covered up. As it turns out, the terrorist bad guys are actually under a rogue contract with the analyst's boss at CIA.
Since a "computer nerd" data scientist is not adept at going on clandestine missions in the field, he needs to learn the ropes, quickly. He is assigned to an old hand, a crusty old but lovable Laurence Fishburne. In the end, they both conclude that our analyst does not have the personality to be a cold-blooded up-close-and-personal killer. But there are other, more technical ways to kill, which makes THE AMATEUR different than DEATH WISH or other revenge flicks that rely on firearms.
The movie takes place at CIA headquarters, and also lots of scenes in London, Paris, Madrid, and eastern Europe. My wife says some of the scenes were actually not filmed in the city we are told to believe in the story. By the way, I found the technical details to be realistic. Perhaps leading-edge, or even just on-the-edge (like the glass swimming pool scene). However, I did not find the need to suspend my training as an electrical engineer to appreciate the technical details and special effects.
Overall it's a swift ride. No long, dull sequences to fill time. I found it totally engaging. There is a very happy surprise at the end, which I won't spoil for you. I like revenge movies and this one is a good one. I'd score it a 5 out of 5. I will definitely want to watch it again when it comes on TV, as I'm sure there are some details I missed the first time.
Oh, we went to a weekday matinee showing at a multiplex in Orlando. Two tickets were $26. Parking was $12. With a bucket of popcorn and two drinks, our movie experience cost $64. That kind of cost will scare away lots of customers, which is probably why there was only one other viewer besides my wife and I. The recliner seating was clean and very comfortable. All that said, it was a fun experience while on vacation, but we'll look for a different movie house next time we visit Orlando. [-as]
Opera (letter of comment by Scott Dorsey):
In response to Gary McGath's comments on opera in the 04/11/25 issue of the MT VOID, Scott Dorsey writes:
[Gary writes,] "I recently heard of a production of FIDELIO where Leonore, who is a woman disguised as a man until the final scene, was played by a woman who was eight months' pregnant." [-gmg]
Opera is often very silly and is an abstract art form even by the standards of the theatre where animals are frequently performed by humans in costume and boys play womens' roles and vice-versa.
But ... I could easily see Falstaff played by a women who was eight months' pregnant. [-sd]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
As part of my latest haul of Roman history books, I read SICK CAESARS: MADNESS AND MALADY IN ANCIENT ROME by Michael Grant (Barnes & Noble, ISBN 978-0-7807-4136-8). The publisher should have been a clue; this is not exactly a scholarly work, even though Grant was a well-known classicist.
For starters, it is short--even shorter than it appears. It is 178 pages long. Sixteen pages are a double-spaced index, four are a double-spaced list of emperors (up to Constantine), and five are genealogical tables. There are twenty-two pages of photos of statues or busts of the emperors covered, with a brief precis for each, and ten pages of maps of questionable relevance. Of actual text, we are given only ninety-four pages, and much of that is repetitious, with Grant quoting various ancient sources (and modern historians, including much quoting from Grant's other works) who often say the same things about a given emperor's maladies.
And at the end of the day, Grant often concludes that we cannot determine what the maladies were, or whether some of the emperors were mad or just bad. Occasionally Grant will make a semi-definite statement, such as that smallpox probably didn't exist in the Roman Empire, since no descriptions or representations of the distinctive pockmarks exist.
And this is even talking about the fact that Grant considers a belief in astrology and in the predictive power of dreams as "maladies" or "sicknesses", not to mention that he also considered Elagabalus' "passive homosexuality" as a form of "ill-health". (Note: the book was written in 2000, so it's not as if it was from before Stonewall et al.) Apparently the astrology thing was a hobbyhorse of Grant's; one might presume the homosexuality thing was also. And in with the dreams he includes Constantine's dream before the battle of the Milvian Bridge so one could claim he has a touch of an anti-Christian bias as well.
The whole book seems more aimed at a high school audience, or adults not looking for tremendous depth. I keep thinking of how Isaac Asimov tended to write books popularizing science without requiring a lot of effort on the part of the reader, and this may be its analogue in the Classical world. But at least Asimov wrote his books rather than cobbled together a lot of repetitive quotes. And the anti-gay aspect makes it impossible for me to recommend at all. [-ecl]
Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
Quote of the Week:
More than one newspaper has been ruined by the brilliant
writer in the editor's chair.
--Lord Camrose
Go to our home page