THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/11/09 -- Vol. 28, No. 24, Whole Number 1575

C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@...
R2D2: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@...
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.

To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Topics:
	 Potato Paradox (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 Casio and the Fabulous Logarithm (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 FANTASTIC MR. FOX (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
	 BRIGHT STAR (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
	 The MT VOID and Mt. Holz (letters of comment by Dan Kimmel,
		 Jerry Ryan, Rob Mitchell, and Rick Koehler)
	 Steeplechases (letter of comment by Kathy Robinson)
	 Motel of the Mysteries (letters of comment by David vun
		 Kannon and Kip Williams)
	 This Week's Reading (THE MANUAL OF DETECTION) (book comments
		 by Evelyn C. Leeper)

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

TOPIC: Potato Paradox (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

Context is everything.  Chanukah is coming up and people will be
trying to make their very best recipe for latkes.  If people
thought about it they would realize that the ideal latkes are
indistinguishable from the mediocre hash browns they half-finish at
Burger King.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: Casio and the Fabulous Logarithm (comments by Mark R.
Leeper)

(This is a fairly interesting result.  If you do not remember the
basic rules for manipulating logarithms, just gloss over those
parts.)

Back in the early days of electronic calculators I had an
inexpensive Casio.  It was very limited by today's standards.  It
told the time, it had alarms, and it had a calculator.  It also
would figure the number of days between two dates.  I actually
found it had an unadvertised feature.  It would figure you
biorhythms for a given date.  Just give it your birth date and take
a square root and it would return with the three biorhythm values
for the date.  I will not go into biorhythms here.  It was a sort
of silly superstition that was popular in the 1970s that suggested
that some days were more dangerous than others.  The Japanese
actually improved their safety statistics by telling people there
were specific days to be particularly careful.  Of course, if you
just chose "dangerous" days at random and were careful those days
you would be safer.

The calculator was a very basic one.  It added, subtracted,
multiplied, divided, took square roots, and would square numbers.
It also would remember a single number.  The instructions said it
would also roughly do exponents.

They gave the following process.  Type the base; hit the square
root key twelve times; subtract 1; multiply by the exponent; add 1;
and square the number twelve times.

Okay, I tried it.  Suppose I wanted to take 4.7 to the power 3.9.
I start with 4.7 and take its square root twelve times and get
1.0003778943.

I subtract 1 and, of course, get 0.0003778943.

I multiply by 3.9 and get 0.0014737876.

I add one to get 1.0014737876.

I square that twelve times and I get 416.6264883.

So what is the real value?  I get that it is 418.00516295.

That is off by about 0.33%.  That is less than a third of a
percent.  Not so great by the standards of today's calculators, but
not bad as a seat-of-the-pants estimate.

But the first thing that strikes me is that the process is a lot
like taking a logarithm of the base, multiplying by the exponent,
and then taking the anti-logarithm.  That would give you a more
exact answer, of course.  The function I am using is not a
logarithm.  But for the process to work it must be a lot like a
logarithm.  But the question is what logarithm is it like?  What is
the base of the logarithm it is like?  Let us say it is the log
with base B and get an estimate what B is.

We have x^((1/2)^12) - 1 roughly equal to log to the base B of x
which is equal to log(x)/log(B).  Let us make things easy on
ourselves and let x=10.  We could choose a different x, but it
would not give us a very different B.

10^((1/2)^12) - 1 = 1/log(B)

1/(10^((1/2)^12) - 1) = log(B)

10^(1/(10^((1/2)^12) - 1)) = B

This looks like a complicated expression, but it is not hard to
plug into a calculator... a modern calculator.  It is ten raised to
the power (1/(10^((1/2)^12) - 1)).  That exponent is about
1778.3702447.  It is a one with 1778 zeroes.

I just recently wrote an article saying that no number the human
mind can conceive of is a large number.  However compared to
numbers we actually deal with on a daily basis, it is comparatively
large.  It is 1779 digits long.  For those interested it starts
234,555,... and goes on for 1773 more digits.

So Casio was saying that rather than put on their calculator an
exponent they have you do your work with this rather fabulous
logarithm.  Luckily the square root key does it all for you.  Who
knew you were dragging around such huge numbers when playing with
the square root key?

Now I know right now that there are some of you asking doesn't this
nerd have anything better to do.  But I am gambling that a few of
you out there are saying "Wow!"  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: FANTASTIC MR. FOX (film review by Mark R. Leeper)

CAPSULE: Wes Anderson brings us a thoroughly delightful animated
film.  With wit, grace, and charm we get the story of a fox trying
to evade three nasty farmers who are trying to kill him.  But the
animal characters are written very human and at the same time very
funny, and they are made real by an all-star cast of familiar
voices.  Add a bunch of clever film references and we get a lot of
film for the price of a ticket.  Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10

I cannot say that I am terribly fond of the Wes Anderson comedies,
films he both writes and directs.  His quirky and disjointed sense
of humor is selective in its appeal and it rarely selects me.
BOTTLE ROCKET and THE ROYAL TANENBAUMS have their moments, but
RUSHMORE, THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU, and THE DARJEELING
LIMITED just seem disjointed and misaimed.  His characters do not
seem to be real people, but more writing exercises.  I expected
little from his animated film FANTASTIC MR. FOX.  Ironically
animated film is just the sub-medium to make his writing sing.
Perhaps real people do not talk in the Anderson style, but animated
animals are not real people and you expect them to be a little
quirky.  It works well.

FANTASTIC MR. FOX is a film in which even the errors work in its
favor.  For example, the animation seems to be done in stop-motion
with fur-covered models.  In KING KONG the models were covered with
real fur and it showed in the animation.  As the models were
repositioned the fur was accidentally re-arranged.  That was
considered a mistake for KING KONG, which was supposed to be
happening in the real world.  The foxes and other animals in
FANTASTIC MR. FOX do not have seemed real, perhaps.  Instead they
come off a little like charming dolls, and that works for the film
better than it would have if they were photo-realistic.  This is a
world that is about at the same level of reality as THE WIND IN THE
WILLOWS or perhaps Pogo.  Further Anderson's film is made more
winning by taking a step backward in technology by being three-
dimensional models built on armatures.  The characters have an
organic feel to them; they seem tactile or even pettable.  They are
not made up of vectors in a computer; they feel like there is
something touchable and solid in front of the viewer.  I will not
talk down Pixar, the animation studio that makes so many good
films, but FANTASTIC MR. FOX shows the tactile feel that is missing
in their films.  It is the same phenomenon that makes the fans
prefer Ray Harryhausen's creations to purely CGI effects.

Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney) and Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) are
happily married.  Okay, hold it right there.  This is not a film
about young 20-somethings.  In fox years they are probably 40-
somethings.  This is a film aimed at adults as much as it is at
children and the whole spectrum should find this film rewarding.
It is not clear that younger viewers will get some of the allusions
like the opening with "The Ballad of Davy Crocket" or a sound
effect borrowed from THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT or a line borrowed
from REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE.  But everybody should appreciate the
characters.  And the film has its share of serious issues and of
laugh out loud moments.

Mr. Fox is (incredibly) suave like a George Clooney or a Cary
Grant.  Mrs. Fox is warm and wise and even when the couple has a
falling out, you can feel the love these characters have for each
other.  Perhaps it required good actors to bring that off with
foxes.  I frequently ask why have highly paid stars doing voices in
animated films when the producers could be giving talented unknowns
a shot.  But this film needed good actors, and the acting talent
was there in Clooney and Streep and about eight other familiar
actors.  I will not list the lot of them because that would spoil
the fun of reading the closing credits.

Okay, the plot.  This is an adaptation of the book by Roald Dahl.
It is the story of a turf war between Mr. Fox and three nasty
farmers who are trying to rid their land of the chicken-stealing
fox.  Mr. Fox is actually no longer a chicken-thief and now writes
for a newspaper, but the farmers have long memories and do not
forgive.  The story is a battle of wits between the three farmers
and Mr. Fox.  Frankly the story could have been stronger, but the
viewer cares more for the characters and style more than the plot.

"Wit, grace, and charm" is a lyric for one of the songs in the
film, but it could have been describing the film itself.  Told with
its breezy style, this could be the most charming film of the year.
I rate FANTASTIC MR. FOX a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.

Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0432283/>

What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1197696-fantastic_mr_fox/>

[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: BRIGHT STAR (film review by Mark R. Leeper)

CAPSULE: Director and writer Jane Campion gives us the story of the
ill-fated love of Fanny Brawne for the impoverished poet John
Keats, one of England's greatest.  Were it not for the tragic tone
the story, set in the early 1800s, it would fit nicely into Jane
Austen territory.  We have a story of love doomed by poverty.
Keats has the dilemma of having neither the time nor money to have
a relationship with Brawne, as he is trying desperately to be a
great poet.  BRIGHT STAR bogs down in the middle and only moves
again when things become even worse for Keats.  Rating: high +1 (-4
to +4) or 6/10

One of my more controversial film reviews was that of Jane
Campion's THE PIANO, a film well-liked and highly rated by the
critics, but which I found to be no more than an over-wrought soap
opera.  Years later I was still getting mail from people who also
did not like the film.  I think that Campion's talent has improved
over the years, but I am still not keen on her choice of story.
And like that film she is still telling tragic tales of the great
and under-appreciated destroyed by convention.

BRIGHT STAR is the story of a doomed romance.  Fanny Brawne (played
by Abbie Cornish) is attracted to John Keats (Ben Whishaw), her
neighbor and her mother's tenant who is an aspiring poet.  She is,
however, frustrated that Keats does not reciprocate her interests.
Keats is mired in the depths of poverty, and he is practicing for a
profession, poet, that pays very little and that pay goes only to a
very select few.  The poet has enough to do to stay alive and, in
spite of his romantic profession, cannot himself give in to
romance.  Keats slowly relents and reveals some affection for
Brawne, but only in the most stifled manner.  Nor does he feel he
can bridge the difference of social class between his and Brawne's.

The main characters of this film form an unconventional triangle,
though not exactly a love triangle.  Keats has affection for
Brawne, but he also has loyalty to his mentor, one Charles Brown
(Paul Schneider), a crude and rude vulgarian and a co-tenant of
Brawne's mother.  Brown and Brawne detest each other almost
immediately and Brown baits and patronizes Brawne.  They both vie
for Keats's time and attention.

The first twenty minutes of BRIGHT STAR are enjoyable in a sort of
Jane Austen-y sort of manner.  We have a view of early 19th century
life filmed darkly and coldly by Greig Fraser.  Eventually Brawne
wins Keats over so that he does show his affection, but he still is
not solvent enough to give her much hope.  It is a stalemate and
the film remains stuck in this impasse for most of the rest of the
film.  Things happen, but the plot takes its time in progressing.

We see a great deal of Keats sitting around and thinking about
poetry and talking to his mentor, but the film really gives us very
little insight into the poet himself or his craft.  We are told his
poetry is special, but we do not know how it gets that way.
Campion does not know how Keats gets his inspiration and is not
willing to speculate for the viewer.  He apparently just sits in
concentration and makes it up.  We get a little better impression
of the fashion-conscious Brawne.  Her interest in Keats comes
naturally, but she has to force herself to be interested in poetry
and it seems only because she knows a poet.  Most frustrating is
Charles Brown, who hardly seems to be of a poetic nature at all and
who taunts Brawne.  Like the Billy Zane character in TITANIC, he
has almost no lines in the script not intended to make him seem
more detestable.  Each time he speaks we like him less.  When we
first see him he is smoking a cigar, a cliché for selfish,
inconsiderate male.  And he lives up to that assessment in his
every scene.  He is written less as a character than as a slow-
motion natural disaster.  Campion is good as a filmmaker, but her
stories have a touch of polemic.  She is a better director than a
writer.

This is a worthwhile story told with lukewarm emotion.  The doomed
love comes off as less a tragedy than a pity.  The background makes
this story more interesting than the foreground does.  I rate
BRIGHT STAR a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.

Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/>

What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bright_star/>

[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: The MT VOID and Mt. Holz (letters of comment by Dan Kimmel,
Jerry Ryan, Rob Mitchell, and Rick Koehler)

In response to Mark's comments on the history of the MT VOID in the
11/04/09 issue ("We were in the science fiction club at the
University of Massachusetts from before school started freshman
year until we graduated. The last six months I was the president of
the club. Evelyn preferred to be the club librarian and did about
six times the work anyone else in the club did."), Dan Kimmel
writes:

This explains *so* much.  [From] your coming to a panel with a list
of appropriate films to Evelyn studiously taking notes in the
audience, it seems you were a perfect match right from the start.
:-)  [-dk]

Regarding the use of LZ rather than LC for Lincroft, Jerry Ryan
writes:

Those of us that used to work in Liberty Corner always assumed that
Lincroft was LZ because we were LC. I believe Lincroft may have
existed first, though, so it is a bit of a mystery. I was one of
the first tenants in Liberty Corner and I think we moved there in
late 1986 or early 1987, however I think it had been on the drawing
board for a long while, maybe even pre-divestiture. Maybe they put
dubs on the "LC" location code? Do you know when Lincroft was
built?

By the way neither LC or LZ are buildings that are part of the Bell
System or any of its descendants. I believe that LC was emptied out
and sold, and all the AT&T people there are now Lucent people in
Murray Hill (MH). Avaya collapsed all NJ locations into Basking
Ridge. I believe LZ is empty, or almost empty, and about to be
sold. Holmdel is empty and Lucent is trying to sell it.

Were you guys ever connected up with Red Hill or the Crawford Hill
labs building? And why was Red Hill known as HR?  [-gwr]

Rob Mitchell and Rich Koehler also reminded us of Liberty Corner.

[When I said we never found out why they didn't call Lincroft LC,
that was the "exclusive we."  You apparently did know.  Actually I
may have known at one point and should have used the "exclusive I."
--mrl]

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

TOPIC: Steeplechases (letter of comment by Kathy Robinson)

In response to Mark's comments on banning steeplechases in the
12/04/09 issue of the MT VOID, Kathy Robinson writes:

The problem with the steeplechase ban is not so much the actual
banning of steeplechase races (truly, if the horse doesn't want to
do it, you can't make him do it--personal experience tells me
this).  The problem is with a minority legislating morality.  It is
a slippery slope and sooner or later, not only will flat racing be
banned, but ownership of animals will eventually be legislated
away....  I don't know whether HSUS (Humane Society of the United
States) and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had
anything to do with the Australia ban but in the United States they
have a very well thought out plan to make all animal interactions
with people go away and they are starting by pushing legislations
that seem to be for the animals but will lend themselves down the
line to draconian revisions abridging or eliminating people's
rights.  I watched a HSUS commercial last night begging for money
by showing sad pictures of abused animals ... the truth is that HSUS
does not run or fund a single shelter, and all the money they
receive goes to administration and PAC contributions to push their
brand of legislation.  They are hand in hand with PETA which placed
less than 3% of the animals surrendered to it and killed the rest
<sigh>.

I could go on, but that's the gist of it...  [-kr]

Mark responds:


I will have to take your word that you cannot make a horse do
something that the horse does not want to do.  I take it you do not
believe that that quality might not vary from horse to horse.  But
even accepting that I believe you might be able to make a horse
want to do something that is, in fact, dangerous for the horse
and/or the rider.

You know I cannot think of one piece of legislation that is not
somebody's "slippery slope."  Any piece of good legislation can be
exaggerated by the opposition into being the first step of a
nightmare conspiracy.  Some years ago I saw Arizona vote down what
I considered to be a good piece of legislation to ban leg-hold
trapping.  The argument given was that this was just the first step
by extremists who would have rats running in the hallways of
schools.  I have seen far a lot of propositions voted down due to
scare tactics from the opposition.  I have never seen a "slippery
slope" issue turn into a bad trend that became a juggernaut that
could not be stopped.  The proper answer to a "slippery slope"
argument is that generally the voting populace will get involved at
some point and vote against a trend that is getting out of hand.
But you are correct that where steeplechase races are banned,
people might start looking at whether other horse racing is cruel
or dangerous to animals.  I do not see that concern as a bad thing.

I have to admit my personal bias here.  Whenever the issue of
animal welfare vs. the interests of a sport, I personally will be
on the side of animal welfare.  So no, I cannot be sure that flat
racing would not be banned eventually.  But I think I can assure
you that the ban on steeplechases will not mutate into a ban on all
animal ownership.  I think we have to look at the ban on
steeplechases for itself and not what we fear it will become.
-mrl]

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

TOPIC: Motel of the Mysteries (letters of comment by David vun
Kannon and Kip Williams)

In response to Evelyn's comments on MOTEL OF THE MYSTERIES in the
12/04/09 issue of the MT VOID, David vun Kannon writes:

I think Evelyn Leeper and Gary Westfahl have missed the point of
Macaulay's book.

David Macaulay first became famous for a series of books about
architecture and the construction of buildings in the pre-modern
era that were illustrated with beautiful line drawings--e.g.
CATHEDRAL and PYRAMID.  He is also responsible for the incredibly
informative and funny "The Way Things Work".  In "Unbuilding", he
changes his traditional format to show how skyscrapers work by
taking one down rather than building one up.  (The one taken down
is the Empire State Building.)  All of his books have a fictional
narrative framework, a certain gentle humor and are intended for
bright children and adults.  All highly recommended.

MOTEL OF THE MYSTERIES is badly misclassified as science fiction by
Westfahl merely because it chooses to mix up Macaulay's formula yet
again to keep the author and reader from getting bored. Motel is a
gentle education in the methods of archaeology.  Being set 1000
years in the future does not make it science fiction.

Archaeology and SF is an interesting topic, for example
"Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper.  Similar issues are raised in part
V of FOUNDATION AND EARTH by Isaac Asimov.  [-dvk]

And Kip Williams writes:

"The Weans" is available as a broadcast from the CBS Radio Project
(I'm probably muffing the name, but I'm anxious to knock off and go
to bed, having finally bullied my system into showing me newsgroups
again) at archive.org. I heard it about 36 years ago, and was able
to resist the temptation to listen to the ponderous whimsy of it
again when I discovered it there.  [-kw]

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

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

THE MANUAL OF DETECTION by Jedediah Berry (ISBN-13
978-1-59420-211-7) is described as Borgesian, but is more
Kafka-esque in its portrayal of the Agency as the all-seeing,
never-sleeping watchdog of society.  But there is also a heavy
layer of noir, the question of what is reality and what is dream,
and a use of carnivals--one carnival owner is named Caligari, and
there are similarities to Ray Bradbury's carnivals as well.  If I
had to pick the strongest similarity, though, it would be to Alex
Proyer's film DARK CITY, even to the significance of the beach.

Berry's protagonist is a clerk in the Agency, and the case names he
has chosen for his files--the Oldest Murdered Man, the Three Deaths
of Colonel Baker, and the Man Who Stole November 12th--give the
reader a feel for the strangeness, while also evoking the
traditional detective story.  (The name "The Three Deaths of
Colonel Baker" sounds like something from Arthur Conan Doyle, but
the explanation is more Agatha Christie.)  And Berry's character
names are always notable, perhaps too much so.  From the detective

Charles Unwin, to his predecessor Travis T. Sivart (a palindrome
*and* a pun), to his secretary Emily Doppel, to Hoffman and
Caligari and all the rest of them, Berry has tried to make his
characters' names meaningful, but there are times that he seems to
be pushing too hard.  Still, the novel is captivating, and almost
hypnotic at times, and so I recommend it.  [-ecl]

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



                                            Mark Leeper
                                            mleeper@...



             Although to penetrate into the intimate mysteries
             of nature and thence to learn the true causes of
             phenomena is not allowed to us, nevertheless it
             can happen that a certain fictive hypothesis may
             suffice for explaining many phenomena.
                                             -- Leonhard Euler, 1748

THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/04/09 -- Vol. 28, No. 23, Whole Number 1574

C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@...
R2D2: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@...
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.

To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Topics:
	 Atlantic Provinces Trip Logs
	 Sad News (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 Protests Over Australia Banning Steeplechases (comments
		 by Mark R. Leeper)
	 A Brief History of the MT VOID and the Mt. Holz Science
		 Fiction Society (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
	 THE SECOND BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE EVER MADE (film review
		 by Mark R. Leeper)
	 PAUL OF DUNE by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson
		 (book review by Joe Karpierz)
	 Kiva (letter of comment by Tim McDaniel)
	 Ravens (letter of comment by Pete Rubinstein)
	 Ode to Joy (letters of comment by Kip Williams, Paul Dormer,
		 and Doug Wickstrom)
	 This Week's Reading (THE MARRIAGE BUREAU FOR RICH PEOPLE and
		 THE MOTEL OF THE MYSTERIES) (book comments
		 by Evelyn C. Leeper)

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

TOPIC: Atlantic Provinces Trip Logs

Our logs of our recent trip to the Atlantic Provinces in Canada
can be found at:
	 http://leepers.us/atlantic.html (Mark's)
	 http://leepers.us/evelyn/trips/atlantic.htm (Evelyn's)

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

TOPIC: Sad News (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

Once again the Large Hadron Collider has to be shut down, this time
probably for good.  It turns out--and it is embarrassing that
nobody thought to check this before now--that there really are no
large hadrons.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: Protests Over Australia Banning Steeplechases (comments by
Mark R. Leeper)

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8382072.stm>

One commenter points out, "There is an element of risk in many
sports--without this it would become too sanitized and boring."

Hello, horse.  Let's put a heavy human on your back and then have
you jump over hedges with him there.  If you break a leg, you die.
That is just the risk you face.  But if you jump well, you'll get a
feedbag of tasty oats tonight.  Is it a deal, horse?  Oh, I forgot.
You don't get a vote, do you?  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: A Brief History of the MT VOID and the Mt. Holz Science
Fiction Society (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

We have had some questions about the Mt. Holz Science Fiction
Society and the MT Void.  Let me try to answer all the questions in
one very short history.

Since we first met Evelyn and I have always mixed out interest
science fiction with our socializing.  We were in the science
fiction club at the University of Massachusetts from before school
started freshman year until we graduated.  The last six months I
was the president of the club.  Evelyn preferred to be the club
librarian and did about six times the work anyone else in the club
did.

When we graduated we married, and while I was getting my Masters
from Stanford we filled the need for a science fiction club by
joining PenSFA, the Peninsula Science Fiction Association, which
included such members as artists George Barr and Jim Thomas.

When I graduated Stanford I went to work for Burroughs Computer
Corporation in Detroit.  Wednesday evenings we would go over to
Wayne State University and attend the science fiction meetings of
the Wayne Third Foundation.  We liked the people of that area, but
Detroit was depressing and cold.  Also, Burroughs was a rather
unpleasant place to work.  After three and a half years, at the end
of 1977, we left and went to work for Bell Laboratories, the
research arm of the telephone company.

Bell Laboratories was one of the primary scientific research
environments in the world, and they treated their employees well.
They even funded social clubs for their staff.  But nobody had
started a science fiction club.  This seemed peculiar for a cutting
edge research facility.  There was a little science fiction
activity, but it consisted of one group what shared the cost of a
subscription to the Science Fiction Book Club and then they passed
the books around by inter-office mail.  This was not entirely
satisfying.  We did go to the Empiricon science fiction convention
in November, 1978.  On the way home I told Evelyn that we really
ought to found a science fiction discussion group at Bell
Laboratories.  Things were never the same again.  By the end of
1978 we had a working science fiction club.

Bell would give some minimal funding to the club and we could use
company facilities if we could get ten people to say they would
join it.  At first we thought finding ten people interested would
be difficult.  That fear was quickly disposed of.  We should have
been able to call ourselves the "Bell Labs Science Fiction Club",
but that was not allowed by the company so we were just the
"Science Fiction Club".

We met every other week and discussed one book and picked another
for the following meeting.  So two notices had to go out through
inter-office mail for each meeting, one to remind people of the
coming meeting and one to tell people what book had been chosen for
the next meeting.  That was a notice a week, and they started hand-
written and photocopied, then typed, and eventually e-mailed.  A
year or so later the meetings were changed for once every three
weeks so we would send out two notices every three weeks, but we
soon returned to weekly publication.  It seemed pointless to just
have one item per notice so I started commenting on films and
making jokes.  Evelyn would write book reviews and other comments
and announcements.

We at first were based at Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, New Jersey,
but members would come to meetings from other nearby Bell
Laboratories locations, particularly Lincroft and Middletown.  Each
of these locations had a two-letter code to make addressing in
interoffice mail quick.  Holmdel was HO; Middletown was MT;
Lincroft was LZ.  Why Lincroft was not LC we never found out.  The
meetings were at whichever facility Evelyn and I were at the time.
We were moved around.  At a time when we were in Middletown we
decided that the club and the notice needed a better name.  We
could have called ourselves the Middletown-Holmdel-Lincroft Science
Fiction Club, but we shortened that using the mail codes to the MT
HOLZ.  That is not an abbreviation for a mountain's name, and there
appears to be no Mount Holz.  Instead it is pronounced as if it
were "empty holes."  The weekly notice has was similarly named the
MT VOID or pronounced "empty void."  These names were proposed by
member Paul S. R. Chisholm.

There are still something like 215 real members of the MT HOLZ
Science Fiction Society.  Activities have become increasingly rare.
For a long time there was a video film festival that went along
with the club showing pairings of related films like THE POWER and
SCANNERS, WHO? and THE RETURN OF MARTIN GUERRE, or Z and ELENI.  As
participation dropped off the festival died and was reborn once or
twice.  These days we do not even announce showings to the whole
club, but this activity goes on.  The one activity that still goes
strong is a weekly publication of surprising length, the MT VOID.
It may well be the science fiction fanzine that has had the
greatest number of issues.  The notice/fanzine has had 1574 issues
going back to 1978.  The members get the MT VOID emailed to them,
but it is reprinted on numerous web locations and my reviews appear
separately on sites like the Internet Movie Database and Rotten
Tomatoes.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS (film review by Mark R. Leeper)

CAPSULE: This is the most bizarre look at how mad the military can
be since CATCH 22.  The United States military maintains a core of
people who claim to have psychic powers.  The trappings are fun:
men who can run through walls, stare goats to death, and can give
deadly forehead taps.  But there is not much plot or story here to
hang them on.  Through the whole film one has the feeling that the
real story is just about to begin, but like the original military
project, we go nowhere and nothing ever comes of anything.  Rating:
high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10

"More of this is true than you would believe."  This is the
statement that starts the film.  Perhaps it is true, and it might
not take a lot to convince me.  Back when I was working for a major
telecommunications corporation the management invested heavily in
pseudo-scientific pop-psychology exercises and the medical
department touted the value of magnetic bracelets.  The moral is
that people in positions of responsibility are easily fooled by
others and by themselves.

There was a time that both the Americans and the Soviets believed
that there might actually be some truth to psychic claims and both
sides did what in retrospect were absurd experiments in
parapsychology.  Perhaps to some degree it made sense.  There may
be a very low probability that anybody could prove and exploit
mystic powers, but if there was truth to the claims neither side
could afford to allow the other to gain a large psychic advantage.
THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS is a fiction film based on the
supposedly non-fiction book of the same title by Jon Ronson.  It is
about the bizarre cadre of men who claimed to have psychic powers
who were paid by the government to see if they could find a
strategic use of these mystical powers.

Bob Wilton (played by Ewan McGregor) is a Michigan newspaperman
sent to interview a local man who claims to have the power to kill
hamsters by just staring at them.  He claims to have used this
power in the military and to have known a very gifted psychic at
that time.  That was Lyn Cassady.  Later Wilton coincidentally
meets Cassady (George Clooney, looking like J. Jonah Jameson from
SPIDER-MAN) and travels with him to Iraq to see him use his claimed
powers.  The story follows their current adventures in Iraq and in
flashback tell Cassady's story in the experimental "New Earth
Army."  This elite group, led by the Timothy Leary wannabe Bill
Django (Jeff Bridges) who trains his people to read minds, pass
through solid walls, and to kill with a stare or a tap on the
forehead.  Meanwhile another bizarre psychic, Larry Hooper (Kevin
Spacey), tries to use the situation for his own advancement.

The problem with Peter Straughan's adaptation of the book by Jon
Ronson is that in spite of its shocking view, and its eccentric
characters and situations, the promised story never forms itself.
The viewer (and the main character) just spends some time among
some strange people.  We see a few short segments that tell some of
what happens in the training, but it is all kept at arm's distance.
Rather than moving toward any sort of conclusion about all that has
happened, the film builds to an uninteresting episode of group LSD
in the Iraqi desert and then suddenly the film is over.

This film could have been a very sharp attack on the credulity of
the leaders of the United States military, a sort of latter-day DR.
STRANGELOVE.  But it ends up squishy-soft and undirected.  Where it
should be saying this was a waste of taxpayer money, THE MEN WHO
STARE AT GOATS just says that there are some real wackos in the
world.  But you probably knew that already.  I rate it a high +1 on
the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10.

Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1234548>

What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/men_who_stare_at_goats/>

[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: THE SECOND BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE EVER MADE (film review
by Mark R. Leeper)

CAPSULE: This ultra-low budget attempt at a science fiction film is
lacking in just about every aspect.  Humans kidnapped by aliens and
turned into super-being by aliens return to Earth to battle for
control of the alien world.  What sounds like the premise of an
"Outer Limits" episode never engages the viewer.  Mysterious film
is probably a first time effort by David M. Epstein.  It mostly
just seems to be people running around and fighting (not very
convincingly).  By the time there is any character development, the
viewer probably no longer cares.  Rating: -1 (-4 to +4) or 3/10

Even as I am reviewing THE SECOND BEST SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE EVER
MADE I cannot say very much about the origins of this film or the
person behind it.  As of this writing it is not listed in the
Internet Movie Database or any of the standard movie review sites.
The film has a website, http://www.secondbestscifimovie.com.  But
even that website is surprisingly uninformative.  The film was
written, produced, and directed by David Michael Epstein for the
film company David Michael Epstein.  It will be released directly
to video on January 5, 2010, and it was a selection for the Long
Island Film Festival.  But a web search turns up nothing about
Epstein even in conjunction with the film festival.  Even a Google
search does not find any Internet references to the film.

The premise is convoluted.  At some time several years ago eight
astronauts disappeared.  It seems they had been kidnapped by aliens
and taken to the aliens' home planet.  They found it a paradise,
but breathing the atmosphere had a very bad effect on their
thinking processes.  The astronauts formed two conflicting camps,
four humans each, bringing war to the alien world.  The astronauts
have been sent back to Earth, taking their quarrel back to their
home planet.  They have two hours to war with each other, and
whoever wins will also be the lords of the alien world.  This is
all revealed in one large expository lump at the beginning of the
story.  They will fight it out with new super-powers but only
minimal special effects.  One, for example, has "unremitting
musculoskeletal activity in legs."  Presumably that means that he
is compelled to run without stopping.  Most of the astronauts look
human, but one has an oversize head that looks like a fugitive from
a Marti Gras parade.

There are a lot of good films by one auteur who wrote and directed
(and usually produced).  Certainly in these days of video,
production costs are not high and there are a lot of amateur films
being made.  I was however intrigued by the title of the film and
so decided to give it a try.  In some ways the circumstances were a
lot like those for another film by a first timer who wrote,
produced, and directed.  That film was the aptly-titled BAD TASTE
(1987) created by Peter Jackson.  I would not have expected great
things from this Peter Jackson after seeing that first film.
Similarly David Michael Epstein is starting with a somewhat less
than auspicious attempt.  This is a film that seems to be mostly
about people running around a suburban neighborhood.  It has a few
very simple computer special effects, but nothing that makes the
visuals of interest.

This mystery film appears to be a practice effort for a fledgling
filmmaker.  It cannot be recommended, but it does have a moment or
two here and there.  I rate the inaccurately titled THE SECOND BEST
SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE EVER MADE a -1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 3/10.
[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: PAUL OF DUNE by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson
(copyright 2008 Herbert Properties LLC, Tor, $27.95, 512pp,
ISBN-13: 978-0-7653-1294-5, ISBN-10:  0-7653-1294-8) (book review
by Joe Karpierz)

So, I've been sitting here for several minutes in an attempt to
figure out just how to begin a review of the not-quite-latest
"Dune" novel, PAUL OF DUNE--and the best I could do was just tell
you that I was trying to come up with something. I guess that says
something about the novel.

I thought--well, I was hoping anyway--that after Herbert and
Anderson finished the original story, finished what Frank started
in the mid-1960s--we would be done with the "Dune" universe.
Foolish me.  Where there's money to be made, books will be written.
But let me talk about the book first, then on to the "Dune" world
(not the word I'm looking for, but it will come to me eventually).

PAUL OF DUNE takes place between DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH--well, part
of it takes place between DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH, anyway.  There is
a fairly large gap in time between the end of DUNE and the
beginning of DUNE MESSIAH, when Paul's jihad is in full force,
billions have been killed in his name, and he's no longer the hero
that we liked in DUNE.  So, PAUL OF DUNE sets out to tell us what
happened in that period of time, both with the jihad and how he
became such an unlikeable character.

The authors tell the story on two fronts--the actual time period
between DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH, and a period before DUNE takes
place, when Paul was twelve or thirteen years old, learning what it
means to be a Duke from his father Leto.  Most of the action from
Paul's earlier days centers around the War of Assassins, a conflict
that House Atreides was involved in that saw one (or two, depending
on how you look at it) of Leto's prospective brides killed by a
rival house because of perceived wrong doings.  Whether or not
there were any hints whatsoever in the original "Dune" novels
themselves of a War of Assassins and potential politics-based wives
for Leto is irrelevant; they are told about here to bring home the
point that Paul is realizing that certain things must be done in
order to make other things correct.  In the case of the War of
Assassins, it's the retribution that is taken out on the rival
house's planet for the death of the bride.  Paul learns that
violence is necessary to protect your people and your ideals.

In the present day, Paul's jihad is going gangbusters.  We see Paul
agonize over the choices he has made to put this war in motion,
agonize over the violence that he witnesses on a daily basis.  We
watch him survive several assassination attempts on his life (as
you might expect when you've become the despised ruler of an empire
ruled by bloodletting), including one by the daughter of Count
Hasimir Fenring, who planted her there in attempt to get her on the
throne.  We also watch his sterilize a planet when he discovers
that its rulers are plotting to wipe out his home planet of
Caladan.

But I guess the question I have is "so what?" to both counts.
Frank Herbert skipped all that time between DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH
for a reason--there was nothing interesting to say about it--at
all.  PAUL OF DUNE didn't do anything to change my opinion--nothing
interesting happened worth talking about.  The assassination
attempts are to be expected, the planet killings to be expected;
well, what did anyone expect?  The guy takes over as Emperor of the
Known Universe and starts killing anyone opposed to him.  Well,
that's not quite true--his followers are doing the killing, and he
does nothing to stop them.  Neither is there anything very
interesting about Paul's younger days.  I wasn't bored, I was
disinterested.

So, why do I think this is true?  It's something I hinted at in my
review of WHIPPING STAR, when I said  "...see my upcoming review of
PAUL OF DUNE, wherein I finally realize what the problem *really*
is with all the "Dune" sequels--not just the Anderson/Herbert
editions, but the other ones by Frank Herbert himself."  A few
weeks ago, I was chatting with the fellow who was Best Man at my
wedding.  He's a big "Dune" fan--he gave me a first edition
hardcover of DUNE as a wedding present.  Yeah, the dust jacket is
gone, and yes, the flyleaf is a bit torn, but it is still an
original Chilton edition of DUNE.  But I digress.  We were talking
about "Dune" (as is usually the case when we chat) and he said "...
you only read DUNE for the first time once."  And therein lies the
issue with not only the Brian Herbert/Kevin J. Anderson "Dune"
novels, but with everything after GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE (although it
could be argued that this will apply to DUNE MESSIAH and CHILDREN
OF DUNE as well). In DUNE, Frank did what comes along once in a
lifetime for many authors, if at all--he created a story,
characters, and universe so different and unique, and yet one that
resonated with readers of the day in some of its ecological topics
(and I'm pretty sure that's still happening today for new readers
of DUNE), that it became one of the greatest sf novels of all time.
One of the great appeals was that newness, something that is
*missing from all the rest of the 'Dune' novels".  Frank says that
the original three books were intended to be one story, and I
believe him, so I have less of a problem with DUNE MESSIAH and
CHILDREN OF DUNE than the rest of them all.  The point is that
there's nothing new to discover--it's all filler.  I'll have to
admit that HERETICS OF DUNE and CHAPTERHOUSE: DUNE did try to break
some new ground, and thus they were better than GOD EMPEROR OF
DUNE, but for the most part all the authors are doing is playing in
the sandbox (pardon the pun), moving things around here and there,
trying to fill in some spots *that most of us don't really care to
have filled in*.  It's like reading 2010 and finding out what
screwed HAL up; I liked it better as a mystery for the reader to
solve.  Here's the bottom line, in my opinion: DUNE is a novel--the
Brian Herbert/Kevin J. Anderson stuff is *product*, turned out at
regular intervals to generate cash, and is pretty much
uninteresting.  HUNTERS OF DUNE and SANDWORMS OF DUNE were less of
this ilk than the rest as they were interesting in that they
finished the story that Frank was telling. But that's about it.

One of these days I'm going to give up on these things, but after
some fifteen or so novels it's hard to stop now.  I have WINDS OF
DUNE on my bookshelf, and it will be read at some point.  But not
now.  [-jak]

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

TOPIC: Kiva (letter of comment by Tim McDaniel)

[This arrived a while ago, but got lost in the shuffle.  -ecl]

In response to Mark's comments on Kiva in the 11/13/09 issue of the
MT VOID, Tim McDaniel writes:

That refers to
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/global/09kiva.html>,
about Kiva.

Lenders go to Kiva Web site to find microfinance loans.  For each
loan, Kiva shows pictures and descriptions of the borrower(s), the
purpose of the loan, and its conditions.  Lenders loan money (part
or all of a total loan) to the borrower, who eventually repays to
their lender(s).  Kiva lenders get no interest.  It's touted as a
way to make a connection between individual lenders in the rich
world and individual borrowers usually in the Third World.

Kiva doesn't operate loan offices; it actually partners with
MicroFinance Institutions (MFIs), who do all the lending work in
the locations.  Some people realized something that was implicit
but not emphasized: in most cases, MFIs believe that Kiva will fund
its loans, and will disburse the loans before posting the loan to
Kiva.  The controversy is because the author of the article says
that that means there's no real connection between the borrower and
the lender.

I've just been reading kivafriends.org.  That's a forum for fans of
Kiva, and "fans" in the SF sense of, say, Babylon 5 or Stargate
fans--devoted, but ready to shout "wunce again ... fale us!!!" at
the smallest incident.  They're generally supporting Kiva on this.

- Some MFIs do wait for Kiva to raise the money before disbursing
    the loan.  When that's so, the criticism is incorrect.

- Heifer Int'l, for example, talks all about buying a poor
    third-worlder a cow, or a pig, or some chickens or rabbits.  They
    have stories from recipients about how their cow &c changed their
    lvies.  They now have a disclaimer on each page that the money
    will actually be given to missions, which will decide how to
    spend the money.

- Kiva has changed the docs to be more accurate.  It's a
    not-for-profit, and docs tend to get out of date.  The
    information (disbursement date for the loan) has been shown for
    some time.

- The Kiva lender does get the loan.  If the borrower defaults or
    the currency shifts a lot in value, unless the MFI guarantees the
    loan, the Kiva lender is the one who gets hit.

- A few analogies were offered.

    - Suppose you buy something for the office and get reimbursed.
      Who do you think of as the buyer, you or the employer?

    - You can fund a Kiva loan with a credit card.  (I think PayPal
      eats the fee.)  You might even get the first repayment from the
      loan before you even have to pay money for the loan.  Does that
      arrangement, symmetric with the controversial one, mean that
      you broke the connection yourself, and that Visa, MasterCard,
      or PayPal is the real lender?

In lend-then-post-to-Kiva, what's really happening is that the MFI
is making loans, then selling them.  The lenders on Kiva are
assuming slices of the loan from the MFI.  (It's a derivative!)
The MFI has unloaded the risk (in most cases).  The Kiva lender
capital allows them to loan again.  There's still a connection--
just as a second owner.  If the loan expires before being funded
(q.v.), though, the MFI has its own capital at risk, and is
therefore not as able to lend to the next.

Another factor is something I pointed out on kivafriends years ago
and didn't seem to worry anyone, and the article writer didn't
notice. If a Kiva loan doesn't fund fully in 30 days, it's expired,
and all the lenders get their money back.  No loan had ever timed
out like this until recently.  Even now, very few have done so, and
it may well be due to a Web site design mis-feature.

If no loans expire--if every loan eventually accumulates enough
people to fund it--then it doesn't matter which loans you select.
OK, it matters on objective criteria: the duration of the loan, and
the probability of default by either the borrower or the MFI.  What
doesn't matter is the purpose.

Say you have a choice between Sister Cecilia's Home for Sick
Orphaned Kittens, and Larry's Liquor and Ladies, I posited that
both are going to get funded fully.  If you're revolted by liquor,
Larry will still get all his money: your loan to Cecilia just
displaces some other lenders who, after a cascade, will fund Larry.
You might as well ignore all scruples and fund Larry; it doesn't
make one whit of difference.

After I realized that, I still refused to loan for products that I
didn't want to support.

(C.f. state lottery proceeds being "reserved for funding
education", or people earmarking United Way contributions.)  [-tm]

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

TOPIC: Ravens (letter of comment by Pete Rubinstein)

In response to Evelyn's comments on the use of the nickname "Raven"
in FOUNDATION in the 11/27/09 issue of the MT VOID, Pete Rubinstein
writes:

I think that ravens and crows were ill omens long before Poe.

"white-winged crow bird of evil omen" [Chinese Folklore: Jobes,
388]

"Wotan's ravens of misfortune, usually fatal" [Ger. Opera: Wagner,
Götterdämmerung, Westerman, 245]

On land, the themes of ominousness and transmigration are attached
to corvids, specifically crows and ravens, which were not always
distinguished.  From classical times to the present day, the raven
(Corvus corax) and crow (Corvus corone) have been thought birds of
ill omen.  A document written in England between 680 and 714 C.E.
reported that once, when King Edwin (585-633 C.E. ) was on his way
to church, a crow "sang with an evil omen." The king stopped to
listen until Bishop Paulinus had a servant shoot the bird. He later
showed it to the catechumens (converts before baptism) in the
church to prove that heathen superstitions were worthless, since
the bird did not know it was its own death that it was prophesying.

Read more: Soul Birds - world, body, beliefs, time, human
<http://www.deathreference.com/Sh-Sy/Soul-Birds.html#ixzz0YM0hZ3Vo>

[-pir]

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

TOPIC: Ode to Joy (letters of comment by Kip Williams, Paul
Dormer, and Doug Wickstrom)

In response to Mark's comments on Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" in the
11/27/09 issue of the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes, "Mark, have you
checked the words for 'Ode to Joy'?  It's not just 'be happy...
happy is good... happy happy joy joy.'  It's specific. It may be
called 'Ode to Joy,' but it might better be called 'Ode to
Brotherhood.'  All men are brothers--that's what I take away from
this. Beethoven underscores it by going into a Turkish march,
despite the history of bloodshed between Austria and Turkey.
Revolutionary stuff.  'Embrace each other now, you millions!  This
kiss is for the whole wide world!'  [-kw]

Mark replies, "Ah, so he mislabeled it.  He was giving joy credit
that should have brotherhood.  Shame on you, Ludvig.  Brotherhood
gets little enough credit without you misdirecting your ode to it.
:-)  Actually it reminds me of the original BUFFY THE VAMPIRE
SLAYER movie.  It was overall not much of a film, but I did like
the theme of their prom which was 'Hug the Earth'."

Paul Dormer points out, "Schiller wrote the ode.  Beethoven
*merely* set it to music."  [-pd]

And Doug Wickstrom adds, "And Schiller used 'Freude' (joy) as code
for 'Freiheit' (freedom), which van Beethoven knew very well.  I
was taught this both as a student of music and a student of German,
in music history and German literature courses."  [-dw]

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

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

THE MARRIAGE BUREAU FOR RICH PEOPLE by Farahad Zama (ISBN-13
978-0-399-15558-1) was recommended by the speaker at a pot-luck
dinner for local book discussion groups.  It sounded promising, but
it had several major flaws.  To start with, it was full of info-
dumps--even more than all those science fiction books that everyone
complains about.  There are is a long description of a Muslim
wedding, a long description of a Hindu wedding, a long description
of cooking dinner, and long descriptions of just about everything
else.  With good editing it might work, but the editing is, well,
peculiar.  For example, "It was a crisp winter morning and some of
the motorists and pedestrians were wrapped up in watch caps and
woolen clothes.  He opened the gate and stepped outside.  Mr. Ali
loved the garden he had created in the modest yard, about twenty
feet wide and ten feet long.  He rubbed his hands to warm them up--
sure that the temperature was less than seventy degrees."

What's wrong?  Well, first of all, when I'm reading from the point
of view of an Indian, I expect to read metric units--and especially
if the book's author is English.  I can only conclude that the
American publisher decided that American readers are slow.  But in
addition, if it's cold enough that people are wearing watch caps
and woolen clothes on a "crisp" morning, then Mr. Ali should be
thinking that it is under *fifty* degrees (or even forty), not
seventy.

The book is very episodic.  There is an arc, but most of the book
is individual stories that last a paragraph or two, and seem
designed to convey some particular homily that Zama is promoting:
be good to your daughter-in-law, look for a good wife rather than a
beautiful one, compromise is important, etc.

The one point in its favor is that it is a fast read, but this is
hardly enough to recommend it.

THE MOTEL OF THE MYSTERIES by David Macaulay (ISBN-10
0-395-28424-4) is perhaps the best-known of what might be called
"future archaeology" books.  A thousand years from now, after
civilization was destroyed by being buried under a flood of junk
mail and solid pollutants, which apparently destroyed all knowledge
of our era without driving everyone back into the Dark Ages.
Howard Carson, a future archaeologist discovers and excavates a
motel.  The story seems like a cross between Howard Carter's
discovery of King Tut's tomb, and Heinrich Schliemann's discovery
of Troy.  For example, Carson says he sees "wonderful things," and
one of the illustrations shows Carson's wife wearing the "jewelry"
and "ornaments" that he found in the motel.  The fact that one of
the pieces of jewelry is an old-fashioned bathtub plug on a chain,
and one of the ornaments is a toilet seat gives you some idea of
both Carson's accuracy and the nature of the book.  (The motel is
called the "Motel Toot'n'C'mon".)

Gary Westfahl wrote an article about this genre: "The Addled
Archaeology of the Future".  As he says, "there is a sporadic
tradition of science fiction stories about future archaeology which
endeavor to argue, albeit in a humorous manner, that this
[misinterpreting of artifacts] is a genuine danger; however, these
texts are rare, they are written by people who are not considered
science fiction authors; and they are generally unsuccessful, both
financially and aesthetically."  He discusses four of these: Edgar
Allan Poe's "Mellonta Tauta" (1849), John Ames Mitchell's THE LAST
AMERICAN (1889), Robert Nathan's THE WEANS (1960), and Macaulay's
MOTEL OF THE MYSTERIES (1979).  [-ecl]

[One recent example of the "addled history" genre is this look at
the Beatles from the year 3000:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z2vU8M6CYI>.  -mrl]

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



                                            Mark Leeper
                                            mleeper@...


             The sole cause of all human misery is the inability
             of people to sit quietly in their rooms.
                                            -- Blaise Pascal, 1670

THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/27/09 -- Vol. 28, No. 22, Whole Number 1573

C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@...
R2D2: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@...
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.

To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Topics:
	 An Explanation Is Ode (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 An Open Letter to an India-born Friend (comments
		 by Mark R. Leeper)
	 WHIPPING STAR by Frank Herbert (audiobook review
		 by Joe Karpierz)
	 OUTRAGE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
	 A Simple Mathematics Problem (letter of comment
		 by Tim Bateman)
	 This Week's Reading (FOUNDATION) (book comments
		 by Evelyn C. Leeper)

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

TOPIC: An Explanation Is Ode (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

I was listening to the radio and they play Beethoven's "Ode to
Joy".  Now you may just stop there and listen to the music.  It is
nice music.  But, I mean, what is the point?  You can write an Ode
to a Grecian Urn.  There is some point there.  I mean it is not
everybody who knows what is so great about a Grecian urn.  A
Grecian urn is not what you call one of your most highly prized
commodities, even if you can see them in museums.  Most people
think of them as fancy ash trays.  Grecian urns could stand some
odes.  But what is the bit with writing an Ode to Joy?  I mean, I
know of people who are not that keen on apple pie or Motherhood.
But who needs to be reminded that joy is a good thing?  I myself
will take all the joy I can get.  I am a regular Joy Boy.  But who
doesn't en-joy joy?  Who has to be convinced that joy is a good
thing?  I mean what a waste of a nice tune.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: An Open Letter to an India-born Friend (comments by Mark R.
Leeper)

I want to thank you for pointing me to the lecture by Guru
H. G. Radha Gopinath Prabhu giving his proofs of the existence of
God.  As you might know, proofs or purported proofs of the
existence of God are a particular of mine.  I think that there are
certain propositions that the Universe does not give us sufficient
tools to determine the truth or falsity of.  For example there is
the proposition that some sets are too big to be put in a one-to-
one correspondence with the integers but too small to be put in a
one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers.  Paul Cohen, one
of my professors at Stanford, proved that determining that
proposition is true is impossible, but proving it is false is
equally impossible.  The proposition that such sets exist is
forever undecided.  That is what I consider the proposition "God
exists" now and forever undecided.  Of course if He shows up and
reveals himself, I will be proven wrong.

In 12th grade English we read Thomas Aquinas's proof of the
existence of God.   He would make statements like if something is
infinite there is no room for anything else.  I immediately
responded to my teacher that the set of even integers is infinite,
but they leave room for the set of odd integers, which is also
infinite.  I suspect most of the people who read Aquinas,
particularly in his own day, came to him with a predisposition to
like the proposition that God exists, and they were not
sufficiently critical of his arguments.  Probably few people of
Aquinas's day had much knowledge of infinity in any case.

Similarly I think that most people who come to Guru Prabhu do so
assuming he is a very wise man.  He is after all a guru.  They may
be assuming that he has thought out everything he says very clearly
and carefully.  If it does not make sense the fault is with them
and they should reconsider very carefully.  It is a form of proof
by intimidation.  I, on the other hand, approach anybody's proof of
the existence of God with a strong expectation of finding heavy
logic flaws, perhaps obscured by logical obfuscation.  I would
suggest that you yourself should look at his arguments with the
same degree of criticality that you would if you were the teacher
and he was the student.

Guru Prabhu begins by defining God as the cause of causes, what I
think we would call the first cause.  Certainly some people say,
without proof, that the God they worship was the first cause.  But
this is already assuming that some cause was first rather than
there being an infinite chain of causes.  Further if the first
cause of our universe turns out to be a hole in the multiverse, I
am not sure that would meet any acceptable criteria for being a
God.  Who would want to worship a hole?

Guru Prabhu's first argument is that for every urge there is a
satisfaction in nature.  Since some have an urge to know God, there
must be a satisfaction of that urge in nature.  But it is most
certainly true that some urges have no satisfaction in nature.  One
example is the urge to find a set that is too big to be put in a
one-to-one correspondence with the integers but too small to be put
in a one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers.  We will
never find a fulfillment of the urge to find such a set in nature,
as I said above.

One might expect from a Guru some new insights from a substantially
different mindset and from a different culture.  In fact, Guru
Prabhu mostly just echoes standard Creationist arguments that one
could get from the radio in the US.  He uses a semantic argument:
The world is creation and how can you have creation without a
creator, he asks?  This is a circular argument.  The people who
first called the world a creation assumed that God created it
rather than it coming together from natural forces.  This does not
prove the existence of God, it simply says that someone believed in
God when they were making up new words.

Guru Prabhu gives us the arguments that the evolution of something
as complex as man is impossible by chance.  Well, no it is not.  It
is just highly improbable on a given planet.  It is made much more
probable by the immensity of the universe.  Where Guru Prabhu is
not too obscure and mystical to follow, he falls back on very
familiar arguments that have long since been disproven.

The surprise is that Guru Prabhu's arguments are very much the
arguments of Western Creationists. I doubt that is even a
coincidence.  There may or may not be a God, I do not know myself.
But the attempts to give a logical proof of the existence of God
have in my experience invariably shown up ignorance of the nature
of proof.  Independently of whether there is a God or not, attempts
to "prove" the existence of God are traps for gurus and sages and
foolish people to show where their wisdom is lacking.  I think it
is probable that Guru Pradhu is sincere and probably believes that
his arguments are as wise here as in other spheres of his
knowledge.  I do not find his arguments as convincing of his
conclusions.

But as I say I do appreciate your pointing me to his lectures.

[It should be noted that my friend does not agree with the Guru and
was not trying to convert me to the Guru's views.  He presented the
arguments as a logical curiosity.  People interested in hearing
this lecture will find it playable and downloadable online at
<http://tinyurl.com/Prabhu-God>.  Also see a good article on this
subject at <http://tinyurl.com/ygsa7gu>.]

[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: WHIPPING STAR by Frank Herbert (copyright 1970, Herbert
Properties LLC; copyright 2008 Tantor, narrated by Scott Brick,
6 hrs 52 mins) (audiobook review by Joe Karpierz)

WHIPPING STAR is the first Frank Herbert book I've "read" that
wasn't a Dune novel since THE DOSADI EXPERIMENT, which I believe
was originally serialized in GALAXY magazine a long time ago, and
which is also in the same universe as WHIPPING STAR.  So, I came at
this from a couple of different angles (quite unintentionally at
first, and then quite consciously after awhile): I listened to it
from the perspective of the book on its own, and I listened to it
with DUNE hanging around in the back of my head.  Let's talk about
the book all on its own first.

The time is sometime in the far future.  Humanity has made contact
with a bunch of alien races: the Calebans, the Pan Spechi, the
Gowachin, the Taprisiots, and a whole bunch of others.  They've all
joined forces to form the ConSentiency, an organization that
governs affairs between the lot of them.  Our hero is one Jorj X.
Mckie, a Saboteur Extraordinary and a member of the Bureau of
Sabotage (BuSab).  BuSab was formed, if you can believe this, as an
organization to slow down the progress of government.  In one of
Herberts more ingenious ideas in the novel, this government was
acting so fast on things that they weren't taking the time to
consider the ramifications of what they were doing, and they were
turning into a tyrannical sort of government.  BuSab was formed to
slow them down.  Now how about that?  The idea of a government
working too fast is nearly unbelievable in itself, which would make
this novel one of fantasy, not SF.

So, the story is that our friends the Calebans have been slowly
disappearing; when each one disappears, there is a calamity:  folks
either die or become insane.  Nice.  The thing is, we want the
Calebans around, as they have given members of the ConSentiency
jump door technology, which provides the ability to travel from one
place to the next almost instantly (see folding space in the "Dune"
universe for something similar, but definitely not the same.  I
guess Frank likes the ability to travel instantaneously in his
stories, so he comes up with some reasonably interesting devices to
make it happen).

As our story opens, there is one Caleban left, whose name, we
learn, is Fannie May.  She has entered into something of a very
strange contract with one Mliss Abnethe (it's interesting to listen
to the reader, Scott Brick, pronounce some of the names in this
story--Mliss is one of them).  It seems that she's undergone some
mental treatment that causes her mental anguish when someone
suffers.  Since she can no longer inflict pain on someone else, she
has someone do it for her.  In fact, the contract allows her to
have Fannie May whipped to death, and when death occurs, every one
who has ever used a jump door will die.

So, what we have is a very traditional detective story--our
detective is Mckie, of course--trying to find out why this is all
going on, and oh, by the way, he's trying to stop it, too.  What
makes it especially difficult is communication with the Calebans--
they are difficult to see and speak in ways that are difficult to
understand.

This book is traditional SF fare for its day but at the same time
is full of the kinds of things we like to see in today's books--
imaginative settings, races, civilizations, and ideas.  It's also
kind of frustrating, as with today's novels we're used to a bit
more plausible aliens.  This is the kind of stuff that would have
wowed me back in 1970 when it came out (and I was eleven), and the
kind of stuff I think I'm missing today.  It would be interesting
to see what kind of things Frank would be writing today (if he
weren't still writing "Dune" novels), and in particular what this
story would turn out to be like if he were writing it today.  I
don't want to forget to mention the reader, Scott Brick.  I think
he does a serviceable job voicing all the characters, including the
aliens.  Since he really has nothing to go on when trying to give
voice to any of these aliens, he comes up with an interpretation
that's pretty good in my book.

Ah, now to the second part--DUNE in the back of my head.  It's
tough to be a writer who has penned what is arguably one of the
greatest science fiction novels of all time.  (I say arguably
because someone will argue with me.  I mean, that's why we have
these discussions, and that's why fandom is so interesting.  But
for those of you who disagree with me--well, you're wrong. :-))
Anything else you come up with will invariably be compared to that
great novel, that one time shot that sent you skyrocketing to fame.
compared to DUNE, the writing here falls flat--it just doesn't
compare to the grand prose and storytelling of DUNE.  It's not
necessarily a fair comparison, of course, but it's going to be made
whether it's fair or not (for additional thoughts about DUNE and
its successors, see my upcoming review of PAUL OF DUNE, wherein I
finally realize what the problem *really* is with all the "Dune"
sequels--not just the Anderson/Herbert editions, but the other ones
by Frank Herbert himself).  [-jak]


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

TOPIC: OUTRAGE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)

CAPSULE: Kirby Dick who wrote and directed THIS FILM IS NOT RATED,
an angry examination of the American film ratings board, brings us
an exposé of congressmen who repeatedly vote against gay rights but
who are secretly gay themselves.  Dick looks at the damage they
have done to the lesbian and gay community and gives the evidence
that they themselves are gay.  While the film is full of some very
cogent arguments, there are major flaws in his case.  Dick is
missing a vital link: the fact that someone who is privately gay
should necessarily determine how that person votes on legislation.
And by not making that case the film frequently comes off as a
piece of malicious vengeance against politicians who do not vote
the way he would like.  Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 5/10

Kirby Dick makes angry documentaries.  He made TWIST OF FAITH about
the hypocrisy in the Roman Catholic Church over the sexual abuse
scandal.  He made THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED about the American
MPAA system for rating films and the inaccuracy of their ratings.
The current film OUTRAGE is about Congressmen who, under a "family
values" stance, vote repeatedly against gay civil rights, yet who
are purportedly gay themselves.  This documentary gives the names
of right-wing lawmakers who are gay yet repeatedly oppose pro-gay
legislation.

Dick methodically presents police recordings, interviews, and shows
documentary data that his targets really are gay.  I will not
repeat names of people he is "outing" here, and that limits what I
can say about this film.  But it is not my place to "out" them in
my writing.  People who do speak cogently that I will list include
James McGreevy and Barney Frank, both publicly gay.

The problem with this film is that there is a gap in its logic.
And that gap is very hard to fill, but is central.  Kirby Dick had
not really made a case that closeted gay politicians who vote
against pro-gay (or anti-anti-gay) legislation are guilty of
wrongdoing.  He has shown they are not voting their sexual
preference, but not that they are not voting their conscience.  The
gap is that Dick does not show that anti-gay legislation is
materially wrong.  I may feel that it is wrong--and I generally
do--but if he overtly says that it is wrong it very much changes
the focus of the film.  The burden of proof is on Dick, and OUTRAGE
becomes a film taking a side on legislation.  That may seem like a
small gap, but it is central.

The film makes the assumption that gay politicians have a
responsibility to be in favor of pro-gay legislation, regardless of
their opinion of it.  Saying that gay legislators have a
responsibility to vote some particular way just because they happen
to be gay is really an unintentional attack on gays.  It is saying
they should be voting their sexual preference rather than voting on
the merits of the issue.  And it is telling the American people
that they feel that gay politicians, openly or not, have a
responsibility to be biased.  It is looking at gay politicians who
keep their sexual preference private and criticizing them for not
being biased in the way that the way the filmmakers say they should
be.  And at the same time it is spitefully "outing" gay politicians
who are not joining the cause of gay civil rights.

Perhaps not surprisingly this work has the same weaknesses of Kirby
Dick's THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED.  Both films are giant ad hominem
arguments.  His assumption is that people who vote in ways he does
not like, in congress or in the MPAA, have unproven ulterior
motives.  He does make a case for why he believes that, but he does
not show that these people are voting in bad faith.  OUTRAGE
documents Kirby Dick's own rage at the men he outs.  There is no
attempt to make it balanced.  And his film, while engaging is the
weaker for that fault.  I rate OUTRAGE a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or
5/10.

Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1049400/>

What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10011262-outrage/>

[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: A Simple Mathematics Problem and 42 (letter of comment by
Tim Bateman)

In response to Mark's simple mathematics problem in the 11/20/09
issue of the MT VOID ("There have over the years been a lot of
predictions that the world coming to an end.  Figure out to three
decimal places what percentage of these predictions have proven
true."), Tim Bateman writes, "Is it cheating to factor in that the
world has never come to an end yet?  Unless I'm imagining that I'm
still here."  [-tb]

[You may assume that you exist and are still here.  In fact, I am
not sure how else you could do the problem. -mrl]

Tim also points out that 4 is 2+2, 2*2, and 2^2.  [-tb]

[Yes, 2 and 4 have the closest relationship of any two different
integers. -mrl]

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

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

In preparation for my panel on Philcon on Isaac Asimov's
FOUNDATION, I re-read it, and made a few notes. The page numbers
refer to the Science Fiction Book Club omnibus volume containing
the "Foundation Trilogy".

(page 3) "Born to middle-class parents": Tens of thousands of years
in the future, will people still have the same concept of middle
class as we do now? I know that some will say that having them
speak and write in English is inaccurate, and that such terms as
"middle-class" is merely a rendering of their concept into
something we can understand. But it still jars.

(page 3) "tobacco grower": As I had said earlier, the amount of
smoking here is indicative of the 1940 and 1950s, and has not aged
well. See also pages 29, 45, 56, 70, 73, 79, 81, 85, 90, 109, 136,
137, 181, 200, 220, and 226.

(page 4) "hyper-space": Clearly, Asimov needs some faster-than-
light travel, and so uses the classic hyper-space. However, he
wrote so long ago that he apparently felt that he needed a
paragraph of expository lump to explain it.

(page 6) "ship's gravity": Well, they obviously also have
artificial gravity, though one wonders how they determine what
setting to use, because on page 6, we discover that (for example)
the gravity of Trantor is a bit greater than that of Synnax.

(page 9) Trantor has 75,000,000 square miles of land surface.
First, they seem not to be using metric units. Yes, it is a
translation from Standard Galactic, but on page 110, temperature is
given in "centigrade". This area is about 25% more than Earth has,
but there is no indication how much of Trantor is ocean. The
population is 40 billion, six times Earth's current population of
6.8 billion, but sixteen times what it was when Asimov was writing
(2.5 billion).

(page 10) "The rate of planetary turnings differed": Having said
this, Asimov then drops the subject. There is no indication later
than any of the many planets with people living on the surface have
a day's length markedly different from any other.

(page 11) Apparently the hundred square miles of the Emperor's
palace grounds is the only green on the planet. One wonders where
the oxygen comes from (or the soil, when it reverts to agriculture
in a later book).

(page 12) Trantorians seem to suffer from agoraphobia (fear of the
outdoors) the same way Earthers do in THE CAVES OF STEEL and THE
NAKED SUN.

(page 13) Seldon is referred to as "Raven" because he is always
predicting disaster. I'm assuming this is a reference to Edgar
Allan Poe's poem, but isn't that a rather unlikely allusion to have
survived tens of thousands of years?

[Do you think that the poem will be read for a century or two and
then nevermore? -mrl]

(page 14) Seldon says that the conglomerate must be unaware of
psychohistory's predictions or the predictions will fail. Donald
Kingsbury picked up on the in his novel PSYCHOHISTORICAL CRISIS,
noting this means that the rulers must therefore keep the
population in ignorance. But Asimov, or rather Seldon, breaks his
own rules when he tells the government his predictions. Now that
they have this knowledge, won't they disturb the predictions?

(page 15) Seldon has a "calculator"; I guess the term pre-dates the
"four-bangers" of the 1970s.

[Definitely "computer" and probably also "calculator" are words
that used to be applied to people.  I have heard accounts of people
in the pre-electronic days putting spreadsheets on blackboards.
They might change a value and the "computers" would re-calculate
the values by formula for the other boxes.  The computers were
young college-educated women who would do the mathematics. -mrl]

(page 17) Seldon claims psychohistory cannot predict the fate of
individuals, but then sets a probability of 1.7% that he will be
executed. On page 21, he gives Dornick a probability of 77.2% of
being freed, and on page 31 he assigns probabilities to Chen being
alive at the end of the year.

(page 19) Dornick has a "right to a lawyer". This sounds very
twentieth century American to me.

(page 22) I had earlier said that all the names were European, and
there were no names that might have been Japanese, or Indian, or
African. There was, however, one Chinese name I missed, Linge Chen.
Also, Joseph Patrouch notes contradictory reports of the press
coverage of Seldon's trial on pages 22 and 30.

(page 27) The Empire is 12,000 years old. By comparison, the
Egyptian Dynasties lasted about 3500 years.

(page 35) "Most will leave for Trantor, but some will stay. It will
be easy to arrange." It sounds as though Asimov had plotted out the
whole series at the beginning. However, the other five parts of
FOUNDATION were written between 1942 and 1944, and the stories in
the other two books in the trilogy between 1945 and 1949, while
this section ("The Psychohistorians") was written in 1951--after
all of them. So inserting this "clue" was, to quote Asimov, "easy
to arrange."

In fact, if one reads "The Psychohistorians" without knowing that
it was written as an introductory section to a story cycle, one may
well end up thinking, "What kind of a story is this? There's no
real resolution or ending to it."

(page 40) Pirenne is using a "stylus" and "paper". These seem
inconsistent. A stylus uses pressure, not graphite or ink. Also,
everyone is still using coins, which we are pretty much phasing out
now.   (I suppose one might argue that the Empire is reverting to
earlier technology, but I am not convinced.)

(page 42) "freedom of the press": Again, a very twentieth century
American concept.

(page 44) "peasantry" and "nobility": One might argue about whether
this is the model that people would revert to. Also, Patrouch
points out that Rodric is already apparently interested in
acquiring land on page 44, while on pages 48-49 it is presented as
something that just occurred to him then.

(page 50) "Back to oil and coal, are they?": This seems unlikely.
If the Empire has been expanding for 12,000 years and has had
atomic power for 50,000 years (according to Alexei Panshin), why
would people even know about coal and oil. And if they did,
wouldn't those resources have already be depleted?

(page 65) "a thing no so-called gentleman would do": This seems
even odder than the other anachronistic phrases. Even today, we
have abandoned this notion, at least expressed this way.

(page 74) "Terminus and its companion Foundation at the other end
of the Galaxy": Although "The Psychohistorians" was written last,
this makes it seem as though Asimov always had a Second Foundation
in mind.  (Of course, this may have been inserted later as well.)

(page 75) "You see, then, that you are faced by hard necessity, and
that action is forced on you. The nature of that action--that is,
the solution to you dilemma--is, of course, obvious!" If Seldon
were not just a hologram, someone would surely have reached out and
strangled him. If it is so obvious, why does Seldon not just say
what it is?!

(page 80) "comic-opera": Even now, this art-form is fairly obscure.
In 12,000 years ....

(page 85) "Insulin will bring a diabetic to normal without the
faintest need of a knife, but appendicitis needs an operation."
Contrast this with STAR TREK's premise that invasive surgery is
pretty much gone in just three centuries from now. In any case, it
seems reasonable to believe that by the technological peak of the
Empire, they would have found a cure (perhaps some sort of gene
therapy) for diabetes rather than relying on insulin.

(page 88) "Thou, too, Brutus": Like the Poe reference, this seems
unlikely to survive 12,000 years, especially since no one even
remembers on which planet humanity originated.

(page 92) The entire course of history seems to depend on the
finding of a derelict ship--surely a random, unpredictable event.

(page 94) They apparently still have printed newspapers, which
should re-assure all the current newspaper that are dropping like
flies.

(page 96) Again, there is a long discussion of how the masses must
be unaware of the predictions of psychohistory, yet the government
(or the Foundation) seems to think that their knowledge will not be
disruptive.
(Admittedly, they do not know the full plan, but it is not clear
why they cannot train psychohistorians to figure it out.)

(page 100) "I remember the time ... when the cities of Anacreon
were warmed by the burning of coal and oil." See note on page 52
above.

(page 101) "By Seldon[!]": I'm not convinced a regent on Anacreon
would use this oath.

(page 111) "thirty pieces of silver": Again, an anachronistic
reference. This is like someone in modern Chicago making a casual
reference to someone having their soul weighed against a feather.

(page 112) "March 14th": I *really* find it hard to believe that
they are still using the same Earth-based solar calendar. If they
are, they should certainly be able to figure out the origin planet.
Also, it is not clear how soon after the events of March 14 Seldon
re-appears. Is it possible that he appears on the Ides of March?

(page 122) The "ultra-wave relay" is the first of many dei ex
machinis, including the microfilm-recorder on page 154 and the
Visual Record receiver on page 211.

(page 141 in the Ace edition) Asimov gets a bit carried away at
times; there are four exclamation points in just fifteen sentences.

(page 160) "Atomic power can be conquered only by more atomic
power": Is this necessarily true? Vietnam, and other recent
conflicts seem to indicate that this need not be the case. Indeed,
later Hober Mallow uses a boycott to defeat a world with atomic
power.

(page 181) An oven that can cook the toughest roast in two minutes
sounds like a microwave oven to me. Also, there is yet another
mention of coal.

(page 183) Many people have said that Asimov doesn't do very well
with women in the original "Foundation" books. This page is an
example.

[-ecl]

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



                                            Mark Leeper
                                            mleeper@...


             The hardest thing in the world to understand
             is income tax.
                                            -- Albert Einstein

THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/20/09 -- Vol. 28, No. 21, Whole Number 1572

C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@...
R2D2: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@...
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.

To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Topics:
	 Heinlein Timelines (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
	 Wired Magazine's Readers' Favorite Science Fiction Films
		 (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
	 Simple Math Problem (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 Sad Joke (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 42! Excellent, Excellent! (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 Belated Happy 50th Birthday, TZ (letter of comment
		 by Pete Brady)
	 The Continental Op (letters of comment by Kip Williams,
		 Alan Winston, and Tim McDaniel)
	 This Week's Reading (THE WAY OF CHUANG TZU, THE GUERNSEY
		 LITERARY AND POTATO PEEL SOCIETY, SCAT, and
		 THE HITCH HIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY)
		 (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

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

TOPIC: Heinlein Timelines (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

There is a timeline for Robert A. Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps" at
<http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/Bootstraps.gif> and another
one for "All You Zombies" at
<http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/Zombies.gif>.  Not
surprisingly, they contain spoilers.   These are complex time
travel stories involving someone moving forward and backward in
time.  It is tough to keep it straight without a timeline.  [-ecl]

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

TOPIC: Wired Magazine's Readers' Favorite Science Fiction Films
(comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

A list of Wired Magazine's readers' favorite science fiction films
can be found (complete with great illustrations) at:
<http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/11/reader-sci-fi-flicks/>
<http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/11/gallery-reader-sci-fi-2/>

(The first is through the 1950s; the second is for the 1970s and
1980s.  I have no idea why the URLs differ that much.)

This list was in response to Wired's own lists, which can be seen
At:
<http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/sci-fi-flicks/>
<http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/09/scifi-flicks-2/>

(Again, I have no idea why the URLs differ that much.)  [-ecl]

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

TOPIC: Simple Math Problem (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

We have a movie coming out with making the inaccurate claim that
the Mayans predicted the world will end.  Actually the Mayans
predicted no such thing.  But here is a nice little math problem
for you.  There have over the years been a lot of predictions that
the world coming to an end.  Figure out to three decimal places
what percentage of these predictions have proven true.  [-mrl]


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

TOPIC: Sad Joke (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

An article in the New York Daily News says that students are
getting to college without basic algebra skills.  "During their
first math class at one of CUNY's four-year colleges, 90% of 200
students tested couldn't solve a simple algebra problem, the report
by the CUNY Council of Math Chairs found."  The author declined to
say how many students that was.

Note: Yes, I made a joke, but I consider it no less a serious
problem.

<http://tinyurl.com/CUNY-math>

[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: 42! Excellent, Excellent! (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

Our library discussion group is reading THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO
THE GALAXY.  As a whole it is a lot like sitting down and reading
JOE MILLER'S JOKE BOOK, page by page.  But it turns out that there
is something that makes this book important and vital reading for
everyone.  When characters in the book find the answer to the
ultimate question they are apparently correct that it is 42.  It
now seems mind-numbingly improbably that 42 is not the ultimate
number and hence the answer to the ultimate question.  The reason
is that the constructor fleet that built the entire universe left
us signs in pi that

-- 42 is really the Ultimate Answer,
-- that they like us had ten fingers,
-- and that hidden somewhere on every planet are tickets that we
can use to go to JAI{space}.

JAI{space} being the real center of what is happening in the
universe.  The cards unfortunately say "Go directly to JAI{space}.
Do not pass Go; do not collect $200."  Sadly the cards whenever
found have been assumed to be just printing errors on cards from
some sort of board game.

But as for the sign of the 42, realize that 4=2^2.  And two and
four have been given the magical relationship that 2^4=4^2, that
now other two integers have.  But if you take two twos and two 42s
and arrange them as 242422 and go that many places past the decimal
point of pi, the universe construction people left a little sign to
reward you much like dropping a piece of cheese to a mouse in a
maze.  There you will find in the decimal expansion of pi the
string "42424242".  Now you may at this point be unimpressed and say
it really was really not worth the journey to find "42424242."  And
the fact that you are so disappointingly disappointed is the reason
why you will probably spend the rest of your life earth-bound on a
planet that is slowly exchanging its environment for a different
and nastier one and you will tick off the rest of your life in
seconds from your digital watch.

If you want confirmation of this sign, and are not particularly
quick with numbers, you can find the same observation about pi and
42 made buried in

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)>

Like you, the Wikipedia people had no idea what to make of this odd
observation.

For those of you who are unimpressed about the super-colossal fact
that the universe constructors left the clue about 42 just lying
around where anyone with a ginormous super computer to find it,
class is dismissed and you may go out to the playground and I ask
you to play nicely.  But for the rest of you realize that the sum
of 4 and 2 is 6.  And it happens that 42 is the sixth cake number.
Mathematicians are very fond of cake.  I know I am.  42 is the
maximum number of pieces of cake you could get by taking a cake in
one piece and cutting it with six cuts.

If you really want to get technical, 42 is also the smallest number
that is abundant and odious and tiresome.  What does that mean?
The number n is abundant if the sum of all its positive divisors
except itself is more than n.  21, 14, and 7, all divisors of 42,
sum to 42 all by themselves.  And that still leaves 1, 2, 3, and 6.
The sum of its divisors is 54.  I am sure there is some
significance to 54 that will become more apparent with time,
assuming there is time before the environment changes.

The number n is odious if it has an odd number of 1's in its binary
expansion.  The binary expansion of 42 is 101010.  There are three
zeros and three ones alternating, in perfect balance.

42 is the first abundant number that is odious and the first odious
number that is abundant.

42 is tiresome because I am sick of talking about it.  [-mrl]

[See also <http://www.angio.net/pi/bigpi.cgi> to search pi for
other strings.  -ecl]

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

TOPIC: Belated Happy 50th Birthday, TZ (letter of comment by Pete
Brady)

In response to Mark's comments on "Belated Happy 50th Birthday, TZ"
in the 11/06/09 issue of the MT VOID, Pete Brady writes, "When I
read that, I thought at first you meant the Tappan Zee Bridge!
(Which just passed its 50th also.)  [-ptb]

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

TOPIC: The Continental Op (letters of comment by Kip Williams,
Alan Winston, and Tim McDaniel)

In response to Evelyn's comments on THE GASLIGHT GRIMOIRE in the
11/13/09 issue of the MT VOID (in which she referred to the
Continental Op as a Raymond Chandler character), Kip Williams
wrote:

The Continental Op was Hammett, not Chandler.  Chandler was the one
whose character would say how he was feeling about something.
Hammett chose instead to describe the actions of characters in a
way that told you how they were feeling.  It's a little like
mistaking Ravel and Debussy.  [-kw]

To which Alan Winston replied:

Hadn't thought about it that way, but you're right.

Other differences: Chandler is self-consciously poetic; Hammett
(despite a short story with a detective who actually *is* poet) not
so much.  Hammett's plots generally make sense (partly because he
wrote his novels of a piece, rather than as cut-and-paste jobs,
partly because he was more of a craftsman).  [-aw]

And then Kip responded:

Hm.  I know you aren't setting it up as art versus craft, but
sometimes it seems a little like it, with Chandler consciously
going for the art side, and Hammett crafting every detail.  I have
a tough time choosing between them, because Hammett finds the
emotional peaks as memorably when he chooses to, as in the ending
of "The Gutting of Couffignal" or the blood-simple nightmare of RED
HARVEST.

Chandler's plots may sometimes show the stress of having been short
stories stitched together, but for me that's only in retrospect and
when compared with the original stories.  I'm glad he was unable to
bury those stories.  They're a wonderful body of work, and make a
very entertaining and readable apocrypha alongside the canon
enshrined in the stories selected for the Library of America
collection.  The fact that things come out differently in them
helps keep things fresh, even in repeated reading.  [-kw]

And Tim McDaniel wrote:

YASID [Yet Another Story Identification]: I think it was a
Continental Op story where the dick was trying to get to an
offshore casino boat, and found a guy named Red to ferry him out
surreptitiously.   As I remember, Red was one of the few all-around
good guys that the C.O. encounters ... but I also thought, when I
read it, that the text implied that C.O. was rather attracted to
Red.   What story was it, and did anyone else get that impression?
[-tm]

Kip said:

It was Chandler.  I think the situation occurs in "The Man Who
Liked Dogs," which was a Carmady story later cannibalized into the
Marlowe novel FAREWELL, MY LOVELY.  I'm hedging, because all of a
sudden, neither one of my precious copies of KILLER IN THE RAIN can
be found, so though I have the novel at hand to verify, I can't be
100% on the details of the short story, which I've only read a
couple of dozen times.

As far as being attracted to Red, it's one of those manly things,
where somebody who is sufficiently noble recognizes someone else of
similar nobility.  Red seems like someone who would be a lead
character in some other book and somehow is only a player in this
one.  He encounters Anne Riordan in the same book, who's one of the
few all-around good women Marlowe ever met, but the chemistry
wasn't there, or he was saving himself.

I suppose after I hit send, I'll poke around and try to find the
book again.  Damn irritating, this.  It was always kept in my
bedside bookshelf, as befits one of my favorite and most re-
readable volumes.  [-kw]

And after someone sent him a copy of the story
(<http://tinyurl.com/ykh3mrz>), Kip added:

This confirms that it was Carmady and that other details I
remembered were accurate.  This is comforting, in contrast to the
fact that I can't find one of my favorite books, of which I have
two copies.

The novel is right here, in the Library of America collection,
which honors Chandler's wish to suppress the stories he
"cannibalized" to construct his novels.  With all due respect, I
like these stories too much not to keep them around, and wish the L
of A had gone ahead and fit them in somehow.

[SPOILERS for Raymond Chandler's "The Man Who Liked Dogs" and
FAREWELL MY LOVELY]:  On the subject of being manly and butch,
Chandler paints dismissive portraits of effeminate men in both the
story and the novel.  In the story, it's the veterinarian ("pretty
little man"), and in the novel, it's Lindsey Marriot.  He doesn't
like either of them, and neither one has a nice end--the vet gets
his throat torn out, and the gigolo gets his brains smashed out.
Not every death in fiction is indicative of an author's views
toward the victim, of course, but these seem to me the results of
something other than impersonal Fate at work.  [END SPOILERS]
[-kw]

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

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

THE WAY OF CHUANG TZU (translated by Thomas Merton) (ISBN-13 978-0-
87733-676-9, ISBN-10 0-87733-676-6) is one of those "Shambhala
Pocket Classics".  (Unlike convention "pocket programs", these
truly are pocket-sized.  There is something odd about the fact that
one can fit the wisdom of Chuang Tzu in a pocket, but not the
schedule of a science fiction convention.)

A sample: "To organize is to destroy."

Or: "Of safeguarding property Chuang Tzu wrote: 'For security
against robbers that snatch purses and rifle bags, people stow
their possessions in trunks and bind them with ropes and bolts and
strong locks.  This is what the world calls wit.  But in reality it
is only saving up for the strong thief, who hoists the trunk on his
back and runs--fearing only that the ropes and bolts will not hold
or that the lock will break.  Isn't everything we do to secure
ourselves against future loss a little like this?  ...
      The invention of weights and measures
      Makes robbery easier.
      Signing contracts, settings seals,
      Makes robbery more sure.
      Teaching love and duty
      Provides a fitting language
      With which to prove that robbery
      Is really for the general good.
      A poor man must swing
      For stealing a belt buckle
      But if a rich man steals a whole state
      He is acclaimed
      As statesman of the year."

The "high concept" description for THE GUERNSEY LITERARY AND POTATO
PEEL SOCIETY by Mary Ann Shaffer and Annie Barrows (ISBN-13 978-0-
385-34100-4) would be "84 CHARING CROSS ROAD meets FOYLE'S WAR".
It is an epistolary novel between a writer in England and the
members of a literary society on Guernsey shortly after World War
II, with the Guernesias in the Helene Hanff role, talking about the
books they have read and loved (or not), and asking her to send
books they have been unable to get, and writer Juliet Ashton in the
role of book dealer Frank Doel.

Shaffer and Barrows have combined all this with the Guernesias'
stories of the German occupation of Guernsey during the war, as
related to Ashton, and later as re-told by Ashton to her publisher
and her friends.  There is also a romantic sub-plot which I though
completely unnecessary--aren't books *and* the German occupation
enough?

But more of a problem with the book was that while it was good, I
kept hitting spots where I found myself thinking, "This character
is writing something that sounds great.  In fact, it sounds just
like Helene Hanff might write."  And then I realized that it was
reading too much like a copy of Helene Hanff.  It all made me think
of Hanff's comment (after reading Chaucer's CANTERBURY TALES) about
how she prefers non-fiction to fiction: "Wasn't anything else that
intrigued me much, it was just stories.  I don't like stories.  ...
I'm a great lover of i-was-there books." (11/09/63)  It's not that
any of the characters say it--it's how I felt reading this.  Unlike
Hanff, I do like stories, but when I was reading 84 CHARING CROSS
ROAD, I felt like 'i-was-there', while with THE GUERNSEY LITERARY
AND POTATO PEEL SOCIETY I was reading a character's made-up
feelings.  I wanted to like this, and I did like parts of it, but I
also felt I was being manipulated into it.

For those who like Carl Hiassen's writing but find many of his
novels too strong, I recommend his young adult novels.  SCAT by
Carl Hiassen (ISBN-13 978-0-375-83486-8), for example, has the same
themes of preserving the environment against those who would
despoil it for commercial gain, and also has a typical Hiassen cast
of wacky characters, such as a substitute teacher who always
teaches from the same page of whatever textbook the class is using,
only depending on what day of the week it is, and a pyromaniac
student who ate the teacher's pencil in class.

THE HITCH HIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY by Douglas Adams (ISBN-13
978-0-345-41891-3, ISBN-10 0-345-41891-3) was the choice for the
joint meeting of the general book discussion group and the science
fiction book discussion group this month.  (The science fiction
book discussion group normally meets the fourth Thursday of each
month, a problem in November.)  This time through I noted all the
cultural and literary references.  For example, Chapter 10 ends
with Arthur Dent saying, "Ford!  There's an infinite number of
monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for
'Hamlet' they've worked out."  Or in Chapter 5: "He was
experiencing the aural equivalent of looking at a picture of two
black silhouetted faces and suddenly seeing it as a picture of a
white candlestick."  [-ecl]

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



                                            Mark Leeper
                                            mleeper@...


             Common sense is the collection of prejudices
             acquired by age eighteen.
                                            -- Albert Einstein

THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/13/09 -- Vol. 28, No. 20, Whole Number 1571

C3PO: Mark Leeper, mleeper@...
R2D2: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@...
All material is copyrighted by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.

To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Topics:
	 Correction 1 (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
	 Correction 2 (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 Science Fiction Discussion Groups
	 Who Me?  Celebrity of the Month? (comments
		 by Mark R. Leeper)
	 Was I Too Subtle? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 The Impossible Dream (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 The Roquefort Files (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
	 Time-Travel Books (letter of comment by Dan Kimmel)
	 Digital Conventions (letter of comment by Morris Keesan)
	 The Twilight Zone (letter of comment by Kip Williams)
	 This Week's Reading (GASLIGHT GRIMOIRE) (book comments
		 by Evelyn C. Leeper)

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

TOPIC: Correction 1 (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

The emailed version of the MT VOID that went out last week was not
a draft version (as the Subject line indicated), but the actual
issue.  [-ecl]

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

TOPIC: Correction 2 (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

In the 02/15/08 issue of the MT VOID I talked about Kiva as a way
to lend (not contribute but lend) money to small businesses in the
developing countries.  Kiva promoted itself as being contributors
giving low-interest loans to deserving small businesses.

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mtvoid/message/356>

It recently it has come to light that there is a middle man that is
a microfinance company.  Kiva is still a very good institution, but
it is not exactly how it promoted itself.

The New York Times published the story November 8.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/global/09kiva.html>

In the interest of honesty I just wanted you to know.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: Science Fiction Discussion Groups

November 19: THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, Old Bridge (NJ)
	 Public Library, 7PM (note that this is the *third* Thursday
	 This month, rather than the fourth)
December 10: TBD, Middletown (NJ) Public Library, film at 5:30PM,
	 discussion of film and book after film

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

TOPIC: Who Me?  Celebrity of the Month? (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)

Occasionally one is really surprised by the reach of the Internet.
I review films and post the reviews in public, but rarely think
about just how public that is.  A website from Puna in Gujarat,
India has a monthly Celebrity of the Month.  I had never heard of
the Okiedoks site when they approached me and asked me to be a
Celebrity of the Month.  Well, November is my month and I am its
celebrity.  I am still honored and shocked.  You can see the site
at
<http://okiedoks.com/viewarticleslist.aspx?catid=4>.

Aw, shucks.  Just my luck that November has only 30 days.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: Was I Too Subtle? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

I think my joke may have been overly subtle a couple of issues
back.  I got a question from a reader who did not recognize that it
was a joke.  After claiming that I slept only four hours a night
and saying my mathematics abilities were returning, I listed a
schedule of four two-hour naps per day.  That would not be four
hours of sleep but eight.  Oh, well.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: The Impossible Dream (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

They were asking on the Planet Money Podcast if you could have
anybody's healthcare system anywhere in the world, whose would
you choose.  The answer that comes to mind for me is that of
Shangri-La.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: The Roquefort Files (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

People really do not learn from the past.  They make the same
mistakes over and over.

I understand that people from the Champagne region in the northeast
of France have a complaint.  They sell Champagne sparkling white
wine.  Their white wine is world-famous as the right wine for
celebrating all sorts of occasions like weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, the
birth of children, winning pennants, etc. etc. etc.  This creates a
real demand for Champagne, the wine.  And what you get is other
places that make their own sparkling white wines also call their
wines Champagne.  Now that makes the grape growers of Champagne
region angry.  It is cutting into their sales.  They insist that
Champagne is not a generic name for sparkling white wine, it is
their own wine and no other.  No I don't have a strong feeling
about this.  As Dracula says in the movie, "I never drink... wine."
But still this complaint has a familiar ring.

I was ordering lunch in a restaurant.

The waitress asked, "What kind dressing on the salad?"

"Do you have Roquefort?"

"No.  I never heard of it."

"Do you have blue cheese dressing?"

"Sure, that we have."

"Roquefort is blue cheese dressing."

"Never heard that."

"Do you know where Roquefort is?"

"It's a place?  Canada, I guess."

There was a time that when you wanted blue cheese dressing you
called it "Roquefort".  That was what you called blue cheese
dressing.  The only really authentic Roquefort dressing was made
with blue cheese from Roquefort-sur-Soulzon in the South of France.
Other people made Roquefort dressing, but it was not made with real
Roquefort blue cheese.  The people who made Roquefort blue cheese
protested.  The only true Roquefort salad dressing uses real blue
cheese from Roquefort.  The others are frauds.  So people stopped
calling Blue Cheese Dressing by the name Roquefort dressing and
instead just called it "blue cheese dressing".  It was a more
descriptive name, anyway.  Roquefort-sur-Soulzon still makes a blue
cheese that has some recognition among cheese connoisseurs.  But if
you are under twenty-five you probably have never heard of
Roquefort, the place.  It is not a good thing when your product's
name becomes the generic name for all things similar to your
product.  But it is probably even worse to claim you own the name
and no one else can use it.  That is betting that you can keep your
name in front of the public and that they will remember it.

It may not seem like the same thing could ever happen to Champagne.
After all Champagne is famous.  It is the name that people look for
in a sparkling white wine.  But there was also a time that a lot of
people knew the name Roquefort.

The cheese makers of Roquefort-sur-Soulzon might have done well to
remember that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  It also
can be good business.  The Champagne grape growers might do better
to let some other wines be called Champagne and take it as a
compliment.  After all, imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery.

Incidentally, Roquefort cheese's problems are not entirely of their
own making.  The cheese was the center or perhaps victim of a
diplomatic crisis the first half of this year that might have
nearly removed the cheese from this country altogether.  In recent
years all of the United States purchased only about 45% of the
Roquefort cheese Spain alone was purchasing.  Here Roquefort cheese
just has a tiny market, in part because of poor name recognition.
Part of this is not the fault of the Roquefort-sur-Soulzon cheese
industry.

Inspired by the fears of Mad Cow disease and hormone treated cattle
the French government put restrictions on American beef.  The Bush
administration favored the cattle interests (always), and early
this year that Administration announced that the tariff on
Roquefort cheese would be raised to a whopping 300%.  This is way
out of line with other United States tariffs on French goods.  That
would probably have raised the price of the cheese to $100 a pound,
but it was a visible sign of the government's displeasure with the
French restrictions on beef.  Why the Roquefort cheese was selected
out by the Bush administration I don't know, but perhaps they
thought it was still respected by the French and most Americans had
forgotten about it so it was vulnerable.  Imposing the tariff was
basically the administration saying that the United States would no
longer be a market for Roquefort cheese.  In May the new Obama
administration removed the new punitive tariff.  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: Time-Travel Books (letter of comment by Dan Kimmel)

In response to Linda Buckley-Archer's list of favorite time-travel
books in the 11/06/09 issue of the MT VOID, Dan Kimmel writes:

As with any list, it's the personal picks at a given time, and not
the final word on the subject.

That said, I see several serious oversights.  I'll mention three.
In terms of novels, Jack Finney's TIME AND AGAIN is one of the
great time travel stories.  As for short stories, there are two
that are on opposite ends of the spectrum but are absolutely
crucial to understanding the sub-genre.  One is Ray Bradbury's "The
Sound of Thunder", where stepping on a butterfly in prehistoric
times can completely change the world of the future.  The other is
Alfred Bester's "The Men Who Murdered Mohammad", where mass murder
in the past doesn't change the present--except for the narrator--at
all.

I'd say these are among the essential time travel stories, and
wonder if Ms. Buckley-Archer had a different agenda in making her
selections.
[-dk]

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

TOPIC: Digital Conventions (letter of comment by Morris Keesan)

In response to Mark's comments on digital science fiction
conventions in the 10/16/09 issue of the MT VOID, Morris Keesan
writes, "Regarding the recent suggestion for holding conventions on
line: the mystery fans have gotten there before us:
<http://ppwebcon.com/>.  I found out about this (after the fact,
alas) from the website of mystery (and occasional SF) writer Laurie
R. King.  I was amused to see her quoting fellow panel member Lee
Child's assertion that "crime fiction is the boat, and literary
writers are but the barnacles on the boat's sides, along for the
ride," because of similar claims I've heard about SF."  [-mk]

Mark replies, "But that is always the way.  Mass appeal brings in
more money than art.  Too often the boat decides that the barnacles
are too much of a drag."  [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: The Twilight Zone (letter of comment by Kip Williams)

In response to Mark's comments on "The Twilight Zone" in the
11/06/09 issue of the MT VOID, Kip Williams writes:

For me, "Twilight Zone" was less of a media program than written
fiction, because at the time I was interested in it, the show just
wasn't available, and I learned many of the stories from reading
the paperback versions.  Then a local station started showing a
somewhat limited (it seems in retrospect) subset of episodes in
rotation.

I don't know how I'd feel now--I do see some episodes from time to
time, but not regularly--but I may have preferred the text versions
at that point, though I was glad to see at least some of my
favorites on the screen at last.

I wouldn't mind if those book versions were made available again.

For that matter, another "book version of a TV show" I'd like to
see again would be the stories Robert Arthur wrote on behalf of
Alfred Hitchcock in the collections intended for somewhat
intermediate audiences, not quite young adult.  They were of a
whimsical fantasy bent and were often standouts in their volumes.
Arthur's work on the "Three Investigators" also stood out over
later hands who continued the series after the first few books.
[-kw]

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

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

GASLIGHT GRIMOIRE: FANTASTIC TALES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES edited by
J. R. Campbell and Charles Prepolec (ISBN-13 978-1-894063-17-3,
ISBN-10 1-894063-17-1) is yet another collection of supernatural
Sherlock Holmes stories.  I have to admit that I was put off by the
Foreword, in which David Stuart Davies lists several earlier
volumes of this sort, such as SHADOWS OVER BAKER STREET, GHOSTS OF
BAKER STREET, and THE ITALIAN SECRETARY (by Caleb Carr).  But then
he pooh-poohs these, by saying, "However in general these stories
were penned by writers who, for want of a better expression, were
having a go at a Holmes tale unlike the authors featured in this
volume who are very well-versed in the world of Sherlock Holmes and
Doctor Watson and so can effectively blend the world of Baker
Street with the world of the unknown."  Well, la-di-dah.

Well-versed in Holmsiana they may be (and I am not convinced of
that), but the fact is that the stories in SHADOWS OVER BAKER
STREET and GHOSTS OF BAKER STREET are better (or at least more
enjoyable) stories.  Interestingly, Smith does not mention that the
majority of the stories in GHOSTS OF BAKER STREET actually have
rational explanations.

One problem with this volume is that so many of the stories depend
on familiarity with other works of fiction.  In GASLIGHT GRIMOIRE
we have "The Lost Boy" by Barbara Hambly, which is somewhat
dependent on a familiarity with (and interest in) "Peter Pan".
"The Things That Shall Come upon Them" by Barbara Roden depends on
M. R. James's "Casting the Runes" as well as a whole raft of works
with other famous detectives.  (And though Roden may be well-versed
in Sherlock Holmes she seems to confuse Baroness Orczy's "Man in
the Corner" with Ernest Bramah's blind detective Max Carrados.)
"Sherlock Holmes in the Lost World" by Martin Powell draws on
another series by Doyle.  "The Grantchester Grimoire" by Chico Kidd
and Rick Kennett involves Carnacki.  And "Red Sunset" by Bob
Madison assumes knowledge of Raymond Chandler works, both Philip
Marlowe and the Continental Op.  While it is true that other
supernatural Holmes stories draw on other literary characters, they
are usually better-known ones such as Dracula.  (He shows up here
too.)

One reference I did enjoy (but again, was a bit obscure) was one to
Jorge Luis Borges's "Funes, His Memory" (a.k.a. "Funes, the
Memorious") in "Merridew of Abominable Memory" by Chris Roberson.
This pastiche centers around the idea of memory, and in it, Watson
tells Holmes of an obituary notice: "It is an obituary notice of an
Argentinean who, if the story is to be believed, was rather
remarkable.  Ireneo Funes, dead at the age of twenty-one, is said
to have had a memory of such singular character that he could
recall anything to which it was exposed.  Witnesses are quoted as
saying that he could recall each day of his life in such detail
that the recollection itself took an entre day simply to process."

My recommendation: the earlier "supernatural Holmes" anthologies
are better; stick with them.  [-ecl]

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



                                            Mark Leeper
                                            mleeper@...


             Old friends, like old wines, don't lose their flavor.
                                            -- Yiddish proverb