MT VOID 06/19/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 51, Whole Number 2437

MT VOID 06/19/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 51, Whole Number 2437


@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
  @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
  @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
  @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
  @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 06/19/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 51, Whole Number 2437

Table of Contents

      Editor: Evelyn Leeper, evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted. All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for inclusion unless otherwise noted. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com The latest issue is at http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm. An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm.

Correction:

In the 05/15/26 issue of the MT VOID, I typed part of John Hertz's letter of comment as:

"Brother Wolansky's point of view is often valuable. He goes too far in saying Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR is 'about' Stalin. As Nabakov said, to call a story a true story is an insult to both art and truth." [-jh]

That should have been "Nabokov"--my typo, not John's/ [-ecl]


"Fiddler on the Moon" (film review by Evelyn C. Leeper):

There used to be a fairly common panel at science fiction conventions (at least the ones I went to): "Jews in Space". There were two versions: science fiction about Jews in space, and how Jewish laws and customs would be followed in space. Well, now there's a short film about the latter version: "Fiddler on the Moon". An example of this panel follows this review.

(Actually, "now" is not accurate. The film was made in 2005, but when it ran on PBS in New York this June, it was the first I had heard of it.)

Some of the topics had been discussed at length on the panels--mostly things like how to determine when sunrise and sunset were, particularly for the Sabbath. But the film had some topics we missed--for example, matzoh. Jews are supposed to eat matzoh for Passover, but the amount of crumbs matzoh produces is a big non-no in zero gravity. Also, dreidels don't fall over in zero gravity.

And while Jews on Mars will have sunrises and sunsets that are probably usable (though the Sabbath would be out of sync with Terra very quickly), but with the day being 40 minutes longer, or about 3%, the Jewish calendar would gradually get out of sync, by 11 or 12 days a year, and soon there would be no commonality to when a holiday was observed on Terra with when it was observed on Mars. (The proposed solution is to add a day to each Jewish month on Mars.)

[-ecl]


Jewish Time-Based Mitzvoth in a Lunar Colony (report on panel discussion at Noreascon 4, Worldcon 2004, by Evelyn C. Leeper):

Jewish Time-Based Mitzvoth in a Lunar Colony
Sun 4:00PM, H101
Nomi Burstein (m), Solomon Davidoff, Janice Gelb

Description: "Jews have found ways to adapt ancient laws to modern and future ideas, from time travel (across the International Dateline, at least) to vampirism (yes, you are permitted to swallow some blood). So, nu? How does someone observe a time-based commandment when "day" and "night" are artificial concepts. Where will a naturally-flowing spring come from for a mikvah on Mars? Our panel of mavens will engage in pilpul on halachic and non-halachic issues."

Estimated attendance: 60 people

Daidoff said that one of his hobbies was collecting science-fictional kippot (yarmulkes, skullcaps). Burstein, talking about the need for translating terms, "I was trying to find an English word for 'minyan'." "Minyan," several audience members responded.

Gelb talked about the difficulties of working on a convention while observing Shabbos. "I've trained the staff to answer the phone," she said.

Regarding the question of time-based mitzvoth. Davidoff said that there are two possibilities: use Jerusalem time, or calculate equivalent times locally. (I would think that using Jerusalem time would fail at great enough distances that the question of simultaneity would arise.)

Burstein said that in general there are three standard answers when you ask a rabbi a question:

  1. Use Jerusalem time.
  2. No, it's trefe.
  3. Dip it in the mikveh.

Gelb also recommended a web site for this, then later apologized--she had forgotten that it was in Hebrew! (For those who can read Hebrew, it was .) She said that the Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem had in fact ruled that time-based mitzvoth cannot be performed on the moon, but this seemed to be a minority opinion based on the phrase "your days on the earth", which appears in the commandments. As a matter of practice, the astronauts follow "home time," which she said for the shuttle astronauts is Houston time. Someone later asked about Mir with half from Florida and half from Russia, and Gelb said that the "home-time" ruling may apply only to individuals or groups all of whom come from the same place.

Burstein said that a further complication was that for mitzvoth which refer to "an hour", this is not a sixty-minute hour, but one-twelfth of the daylight hours at that time. So what if there is no sunrise or sunset? Burstein said that this problem occurs north of the Arctic Circle (and near the South Pole), and people there go by their home town time if they are there sort-term, while for longer periods, they draw a vertical line to the first Jewish community directly south (north) of them and use their time. (This seems to be the majority opinion).

Gelb suggested that the new halachic day starts when the sun is lowest (or rather, closest to the horizon).

Burstein said that there are a lot of questions about traveling across time zones even on earth. The firs answer is that if you are planning at traveling at such a time that you will be affecting your perception of fast days or holidays, don't do it if you can avoid it. But after that there are many opinions (go by your watch, use Jerusalem time, etc.). As Burstein summarized, "We can be practical, we can be goofy, and we can be goofily practical." The basic rule seems to be, "If you can avoid doing it, don't do it."

(As an example of the goofy part, she said that one is allowed to filter water on Shabbos only if you would drink it unfiltered! That is because if you would drink only filtered water, you consider the filtering as separating things, which is prohibited, but if you would drink unfiltered water you don't consider it as separating.)

She raised another question. Because one is not allowed to board a vessel on Shabbos, if you land on the moon on Shabbos, can you get off the LEM and then get back on?

Burstein asked about Mars--does one use a Martian day or a 24-hour day? (Based on her earlier statement about the definition of hour, I would assume one would use a Martian day.) Davidoff said that in general one should use the local day. However, since one is forbidden from fasting so as to injure oneself, if the day were too long, the fasting problem would be self-correcting.

On the moon, one also certainly has the question how one would determine the new moon or the full moon. On Mars, which moon would one use? I asked this, and Burstein said this was a question from someone who "was really ingrained in halachah or had too much time on their hands." The answer would be to use Deimos--Phobos goes too fast.

Burstein said that they have a rabbi "who is sympathetic to questions like these," so her husband Michael can get informed opinions for his fiction. For example, one could build a mikveh (ritual bath) on Mars by melting the polar ice, and could use a twenty-five-hour day.

Burstein pointed out that a colony (or even a longtime temporary settlement) on Mars that did this would get out of sync with Earth fairly quickly.

Someone asked about a seder in space--should you open the door for Elijah? Davidoff immediately said, "I've got an answer." First, you are forbidden to do anything endangering your health. But you could certainly open the outer hatch, wait, then close that and open the inner hatch.

Someone asked about "gravity-based mitzvoth". Burstein thought that shaking the lulav might be a problem in space. Davidoff said that you could build a sukkah, but Burstein pointed out that you are not allowed to fasten the top down, and it would end up drifting off.

Gelb said that it is amazing that the answers to a lot of these questions are "This has actually been dealt with." For example, there are rulings regarding androgynous creatures (since that occurs here), and there is a six-hundred-year-old book that says that space creatures cannot be converted.

Other bits and pieces:

If you are on a spaceship, you don't have to light Chanukah candles because you are alone and no one outside would see them. (Someone in the audience asked, "How do you know you're alone?")

You must hear "Amen" directly for it to count, so you cannot assemble a minyan over the radio. (What about ten Jewish men standing in a circle on the moon, but in spacesuits so that they can only hear each other through radios?)

Regarding whether one is allowed to teleport using a stable wormhole on Shabbos or whether that violates the prohibition on traveling more than a certain distance, someone said their rabbi told them it was alright because, "You're not traveling; you're just going."

Someone in the audience suggested tat since women don not need to observe time-based mitzvoth, the solution is to have only women as astronauts. (This is not quite true--they must fast on fast days, and observe Shabbos, for example.)

Gelb closed by saying, "The coolest thing is that people are actually thinking about this stuff."

[-ecl]


Notes on MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS by Pope Leo XIV (comments by Paul S. R. Chisholm):

MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS (Magnificent Humanity): ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is a statement of values. Extreme concentration of wealth is bad. Massive unemployment is very bad, and guaranteed income is no substitute for meaningful work. People should be treated as human beings with inherent dignity, not resources to be managed with maximum efficiency. "Just war" rarely is. War waged by human beings is bad enough, but at least in theory humans are capable of morality; war waged by machines is worse.

Pope Leo constantly references the "Social Doctrine of the Church." This is surprisingly liberal (when sex isn't involved): Labor unions are good. Unrestrained capitalism is bad. Wealth and income should be distributed justly. Private property is not an absolute right. These doctrines constantly inform the values supported here.

The encyclical makes no specific policy recommendations. Some people are sad about that.

"We can embrace the technological progress that alleviates suffering and unlocks new possibilities, provided that we do not abandon the very essence of our humanity, namely the capacity for relationship and love." A YouGov poll found 22% of respondents disagreed with that; presumably they're pessimistic about AI in general. 61% of respondents agreed with Pope Leo that AI can be used for good. The question remains: Will it? [-psrc]


Martial Arts Robot Kicks Child (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):

Yahoo!News reports:

"This Clown-Wigged Martial Arts Robot Was Supposed to Entertain-- Then It Brutally Kicked a Child, Video Goes Viral"

"When you talk about robots being trained in combat and martial arts, people instantly think about the worst possible scenarios, such as a robot takeover of the world and a war of the machines.

"While many believe that such scenarios are too extreme to come true, spectators who watched a clown-wigged robot kick a child in the chest have already been filled with fear in China, likely changing the way they perceive the two-legged mechanical device."

...

[Bobbie Sellers noted that "brutally" implies some emotion on the part of the robot. Others have observed that having a barrier between a martial arts robot and a group of children might have been a good idea.]

Full story at https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/articles/clown-wigged-martial-arts-robot-103002092.html.

[-ecl]


Astronaut Mark Kelly's Top Three Space Movies:

See https://www.facebook.com/reel/1291344886316267 for his full comments, and responses from others.


THE SILVER STALLION (letter of comment by John Hertz):

In an addition to his comments on THE SILVER STALLION in the 05/08/26 issue of the MT VOID, John Hertz writes:

I cited Goodreads as a courtesy to those in Electronicland.

It isn't Mr. Cabell's fault that for many of us 'the Silver Stallion' brings to mind the Lone Ranger." [-jh]

Evelyn adds:

Perhaps, but not nearly for as many of us as the finale of Gioachino Rossini's "William Tell Overture".

Or for that matter Pyotr Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" brings to mind Quaker Puffed Wheat and Puffed Rice, although this is less well-known than Rossini's work, and may be a generational thing. [-ecl]


THE LORD OF THE RINGS and THE HOBBIT Films (letter of comment by Gary McGath):

In respone to Evelyn's comments on THE LORD OF THE RINGS and THE HOBBIT films in the 06/12/26 issue of the MT VOID, Gary McGath writes:

[Evelyn wrote:] "... there is one really annoying flaw: they made Gimli the comic relief. Perhaps my objection will be clearer if I say that they made the dwarf the comic relief."

Agreed. I admit to laughing at the line "Nobody tosses a dwarf," but it was a severe anachronism (if that's the right word for a work of fantasy fiction). [-gmg]

[Evelyn wrote:] "... And it's not just THE LORD OF THE RINGS; in THE HOBBIT ..., Jackson also makes the dwarves comic figures. And they are *not* comic figures in the books."

To some extent, some of them are. Certainly there's more humor in THE HOBBIT than in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. [-gmg]

Evelyn responds:

If we want to talk about anachronisms, what about the potatoes, the tobacco, the umbrellas, and the mantelpiece clocks?

In THE HOBBIT Bilbo is also a comic figure. I think THE HOBBIT, aimed at a younger audience (so far as I can judge), is more prone to humor, but at least spreads it around a bit. [-ecl]


This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):

An essay by Katy Waldman in the June 10, 2026, issue of The New Yorker asks, "Did a Chatbot Write a Prize-Winning Story? Does It Matter?" But read closely, the story actually has a different complaint: the author doesn't like the stylistic techniques used in the story, which she claims are very common in AI-written stories. In other words, she is arguing with the judges of the Commonwealth Foundation in their choice of this story as being the best of its category.

Jamir Nazir was accused of AI-assisted cheating in his story "The Serpent in the Grove" by people not involved in the judging because of "his story's synthetic tics, glitchy metaphors, and general unreadability."

The A.I.-detection program Pangram claimed it was one hundred per cent A.I.-generated.

Yashvi Jain fed an excerpt from PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (written by the very human Jane Austen in 1813) into three AI detectors. ZeroGPT claimed it was 100% AI-generated. Gpt zero claimed it was 17% AI-generated. Only Copyleaks labeled it as a human text.

[ https://medium.com/@jyashvi/did-you-know-that-jane-austen-wrote-pride-and-prejudice-using-ai-3ad75c342068]

So much for trusting AI detectors.

As Waldman notes, "Epistemically, there is something a bit wobbly about using chatbots to determine whether a piece of prose was written by chatbots." And never mind that a Stanford study found that "AI-detecting algorithms tend to be biased against non-native English speakers." But one professor, Ethan Mollick, insisted, "Come on, if you know you know." And Sam Kriss in the Times magazine in 2025 claimed a list of "give-a-ways": anaphora, epistrophe, zeugma, and negative parallelism, which is "all over 'The Serpent in the Grove'".

[I personally love zeugma. Noel Coward used it often (e.g., "She broke his heart and his bank." in PRIVATE LIVES, and arguably, the title "Mad Dogs and Englishmen"), and I doubt anyone would claim his works were AI-written. Well, an AI detector might.]

Waldman goes on to say, "The story has its share of glaringly nonsensical phrases that should have tipped off anyone paying an iota of attention--for instance, when Vishnu spies a sexy visitor, we learn that the woman 'had the kind of walking that made benches become men.'" But most of its failures are subtler, more insidious. Sita's survival is a fact 'that felt like a small warm animal in her hands'; the problem isn't that a reader can't picture a fact being cradled like an animal--it's that the image and the thought behind it is maudlin." And she goes on to list several more.

She then compares Nazir's story to "A House for Mr. Biswas" by V. S. Naipaul, claiming the latter is much better written. (One wonders if anyone has run *it* through an AI-detector.) But her complaint is not that one is *AI*-written and one *human*-written; it's that she doesn't think Nazir's story is *well*-written.

She does address this somewhat, saying that the "banalities" in Nazir's story "are less offensive than the fact that a group of cultural gatekeepers rubber-stamped the story." She writes that some blame "the tendency of M.F.A. programs to promote a kind of stylistic polish at the expense of substance." Others see a "DEI" element in the selection of a story from the Global South.

And she closes with a variation on authorial intentionalism: "An A.I. can't mean what it says, and indeed no human writer can mean what an A.I. writes on her behalf--she can agree with it, she can aspire to it, she can hide behind it, but she can't mean it. The sloptimists are betting that writing devoid of an inner purpose can rival the stuff ripped out of an author's chest with a claw grapple. Any serious reader knows that it can't."

Apparently, she doesn't feel that the judges of the Commonwealth Foundation prizes are serious readers, or more specifically, that their tastes don't match hers. [-ecl]



                                    Evelyn C. Leeper
                                    evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com

Quote of the Week:

          The irony for mankind is that a computer program is 
          asking humans to prove that they are not a robot.
                                          --Russ Archer

Go to our home page