@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
12/30/05 -- Vol. 24, No. 27, Whole Number 1315
Table of Contents
NJ Science Fiction Book Group (schedule):
The Old Bridge (NJ) Library's science fiction group meets at the library 7PM the fourth Thursday of every month (third Thursday in November). The upcoming schedule is:
01/19/06: THE FUTUROLOGICAL CONGRESS (Stanislaw Lem)
02/23/06: DYING INSIDE (Robert Silverberg)
03/23/06: DARWINIA (Robert Charles Wilson)
04/27/06: THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE (Philip K. Dick)
All are welcome; you do not have to be an Old Bridge resident. (If anyone cares, Mark and I are regular attendees.) [-ecl]
We Have Lost a Good Egg (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
On December 19 we lost one of the acting greats. Yu Fujiki was an actor who gravitated toward comic roles. He was in many films but will probably be remembered mostly for one great role. Remember in GODZILLA VS. THE THING Mothra's return to Japan in the form of an egg? One reporter who finds relevance in because he himself is eating his own egg (apparently in the news office)? This was the guy. In the right quarters he will be greatly missed. He was the Egg Man. He was not, however, the Walrus. That was Haruo Nakajima in the Japanese versions of GORATH. I believe he is still with us.
[-mrl]
Big Up (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
In my log of my trip to Japan, I talked about the weird word
combinations you see in Japan. I commented that the Japanese
loved the English language but had not gotten quite the hang of
it. We would pass a restaurant called "Café, Isn't It." Then
there was a department store called "Big Up." What the heck does
Big Up mean? Well to my chagrin and embarrassment I was
listening to a BBC radio program and somebody liked what someone
else says and said "Big up to Julie." So the expression which
sound so weird really does exist. I owe the Japanese an apology.
It is the British who have not gotten the hang of the English
language. [-mrl]
Why Do the Homeless Feed Birds? (comments by Mark R. Leeper):
A while back (in the 02/11/05 issue of the MT VOID) I reviewed the
documentary THE WILD PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL. That is about a
man with no visible means of support who tends to the feral
parakeets on Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. I posted my review
to Usenet. These days doing even that is asking for trouble as
there are a lot of people with large chips on their shoulders who
look for opportunities to say something provocative and
anti-social. Freedom of expression will always have people who
exploit it for less than noble ends. And then there are the
people who are out-and-out jerks.
One such self-styled curmudgeon, call him Dufus, responded to my
review and asked, "Why is it every welfare bum or senile old bag
become enamoured to the exclusion of all else, with animals?"
I responded, "That is an easy one. They know what it means to be
marginalized and ignored by society, so they have sympathy for
others in a similar situation. And they have the time to do
something about it." I stand by that, but I think that it goes
further than that. I think that there are several other reasons.
These are generally people who do not have a lot of positive
impact on other people's lives. At least they don't
individually. Yet this is something they can do that is
appreciated by the animals they feed. The animals may not really
be grateful, but they are appreciative. So I suppose there is
some egotistical reason for this charity. Further when you feed
birds and you get a crowd coming around, you are important in
their lives. If you are feeding pigeons in the park you are a VIP
to them. If you change bench, they will undoubtedly follow you.
The people who do the feeding may generally feel powerless and
here they have a power of a sort.
Dufus might ask, what is the point of helping animals? Animals
are not humans. There is the feeling that making animals happy
is unimportant. For a long time the attitude of science was that
animals did not even have emotions and hence appreciated nothing.
They were treated as furry or feathered machines. Some people
have to take that attitude. If a farmer were to worry excessively
about what his animals were feeling he could not go about his
business. Whether it is moral to eat animals or not is a more
difficult issue and one I will not go into here. But certainly if
you slaughter animals as part of your living, it is comforting to
believe that animals do not have a capacity to suffer.
It seems, however, that giving free food to wild animals makes
them happier. There are other issues to take into account.
There may actually be good reasons to not want to feed pigeons
and squirrels. One is that feeding animals sends the message
implicitly that this is an environment in which food is
plentiful. The result is that animals have larger families--
families that expect food to remain plentiful. Similarly feeding
wild birds may actually change their migration plans. They may
stick to an area where someone is feeding them well now, but will
not be in this future. This means that feeding animals has got to
be a longer-term responsibility than the people who feed do not
want to commit to. The animals may be happy now, but in the end
feeding them may be doing more harm than good.
The animals come to associate handouts with humans, and that may
be dangerous to them if not every human is so kind to them. All
of this is very relevant to Timothy Treadwell who has been
discussed in the 12/02/05 issue of the MT VOID. He was the man
who thought he was protecting grizzly bears in Alaska. (Though he
wasn't really protecting them and they weren't really grizzly
bears.)
But people who feed wild animals, even squirrels and pigeons, are
doing it for multiple reasons. They do it because they feel they
are helping the animals. In the long run this may or may not be
true. But they are also doing it for some sort of nurturing
instinct. It makes some people feel good to feed animals. I
like to see my back porch thronged with squirrels and birds
eating the seed I put out. Humans may have an instinctive need
to see something that moves in ways not absolutely unpredictable.
That is one level of companionship, the need to not be alone.
When I put out seed I cannot imagine I am doing any more harm than
someone who puts up a bird feeder is. But I am mostly feeding
animals in my yard because it does something good for me. I do it
year round, but I suppose this is the season for giving. [-mrl]
Google Scans (letter of comment by Dan Cox):
In response to Mark's article on Google scans in the 12/23/05
issue of the MT VOID, Dan Cox writes:
Many publishers have already opted out of Google's program, even
before Google asked. Let's see what some have to say:
(I'm by the Theology, Philosophy, and Mythology books, so here
goes.)
HOW CAN WE KNOW? by A. N. Wilson (uncorrected proof dated 1985).
The copyright is 1985, and says "All rights reserved". No
specific mention of scanning into a search engine, but it's
probably included in "All rights".
Let's try the next book: HONEST TO GOD by John A. T. Robinson.
No title page and no copyright page. Looks like they fell out,
as the book is priced $1.65.
OUR FATHER ABRAHAM by Marvin R. Wilson (c. 1989, "All rights
reserved").
ANTI-SEMITE AND JEW, by Jean-Paul Sartre, translated by George J.
Becker (c. 1948, c. renewed 1976, "All rights reserved under
International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions.")
Here it is spelled out, in THE NAME OF THE ROSE by Umberto Eco,
translated by William Weaver (c. 1980, English translation c.
1983): "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher".
Sounds like they already opted out. [-dtc]
Mark responds, "True. Those statements were made prior to
knowledge of the Google plan. I think they will decide the Google
plan is in their overall best interest. For those cases I suspect
the publishers will eventually give permission." [-mrl]
Narnia Books (letter of comment by Rich Horton):
Rich Horton responded in rec.arts.sf.fandom to Evelyn's comments
on the "Narnia" books in the 12/23/05 issue, saying:
"I am surprised in your review that you suggest that THE LION, THE
WITCH AND THE WARDROBE is the best and most popular of the books.
Idon't actually know what the general view is, but I certainly
preferred all the next four, THE HORSE AND HIS BOY in particular,
but also THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER. It is my sense that LION
is perhaps the weakest as pure story.
I think the subsequent films have a chance to be much better.
Also, while I don't really want to get into the "book order"
controversy -- we've had that discussion on [rec.arts.sf.written]!
--again I think it is widely accepted that tthe proper order
remains publication order, and I have to believe even new readers
are aware of this." [-rh]
Evelyn responded, "Almost everything I had heard about the series
(at least until recently) seemed to focus on LION, though that is
possibly because it was the first (for some definition of "first"
:-) ). It is quite possible that other books are better, but I
think many people have read only LION. This may be because
they read it when it was considered the first book and didn't like
it very much, and so stopped. [Regarding the order], the BBC
Boxing Day broadcast [was] of the first four books in the new
(internal chronological) order, in that order. 'There are nine
and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, And every single one
of them is right!' (In this case, of course, there are 5040 ways
of ordering the books and many of them are clearly wrong, but the
basic philosophy applies. :-) )" [-ecl]
DUNE MESSIAH by Frank Herbert (copyright 1969 by Frank
Herbert, Putnam, SFBC, 221pp) (book review by Joe Karpierz):
I think I figured out why DUNE MESSIAH is so reviled, or at least
not well liked, by many folks in SF circles. It's not DUNE--at
least not the DUNE they were used to.
DUNE was a novel on a grand scale; politics, intrigue, unique
world building, and a dash of ecological commentary all rolled
into a really nice adventure story that has become one of the
most revered SF novels in history. DUNE MESSIAH, on the other
hand, is none of these.
When Herbert wrote DUNE, I believe that he had a vision of where
things could be headed if he continued to write novels in the
"Dune" universe. In the original, he set up a path for Paul
Atreides, Maud'dib, that could be anything but good. Paul was a
messianic figure to the Fremen and all the people of Dune. He
unseated the tyrannical Harkonnens as masters of the planet, and
got rid of Emperor Shaddam IV to boot. He was the prophecy come
true, the outworlder that would lead the people of Arrakis to
freedom. As a result, they would go to the ends of the universe
for him. There's really no good that can come of that. Which is
why DUNE MESSIAH is perceived as a failure, compared to DUNE, by
many people.
The story starts out twelve years after the end of DUNE. The
Jihad that Muad'dib had seen in his visions had come to pass. He
is Emperor now, and through his bloody holy war that has killed
untold countless people, all in his name, he appears to have
united the universe under one rule. However, people with power
and vision--and in his case, it was true, prescient vision
brought on by his genetic breeding which resulted in him being
the Kwisatz Haderach as well as the spice melange which
heightened his awareness--need to be careful, as eventually there
will be plots against them.
There were plots against him, from all sectors, including the
Fremen, the Bene Gesserit, the Spacing Guild, and his own
religious leaders. Paul saw them all coming, and realized that
the only thing to do was to follow the path as set up for him,
follow the path that leads to his downfall.
And herein, I think, lies the perceived problem with DUNE
MESSIAH. In DUNE, Paul is a hero, a prophet, a messiah that has
come to save the people of Dune. In DUNE MESSIAH, Paul is not
the person we met in the first book. He can be and is
tyrannical, seemingly caught up in the trappings of his position
as leader of the known universe. He never seems to be a kind,
gentle ruler. He is almost the antihero. Readers don't
necessarily care for antiheroes, and certainly not ones that were
seemingly set up for great things.
DUNE MESSIAH is an interesting investigation into the trappings
of power and the consequences for those who wield it. Herbert
also explores the question of whether prescience affects the
future--that is, did Paul head down the path he did because he
saw it in his visions, and therefore felt that he had to make it
true, or did he head down that path because the vision was true.
It's a chicken and egg question. Really, no one comes out of
this novel smelling like a rose--it's all bad, for Alia, the
ghola Duncan Idaho, for Chani, for the Fremen, for the Guild, for
the Bene Gesserit, for the Princess Irulan (who so desperately
wants to bear Paul's heir). Bad, bad, bad.
Is it as good a novel as DUNE? No. Is it a great novel. No.
But looking back at it from thirty-six years after its
publication, it's a pretty good one--one that's not deserving of
its reputation. And certainly, if Dune was not written with a
sequel in mind, this one had to be, setting up the stage for
CHILDREN OF DUNE. [-jak]
THE WARRIOR (film review by Mark R. Leeper):
CAPSULE: The plot could have been a thoughtful Clint Eastwood
anti-violence Western, but it is set in feudal India. The chief
enforcer for an evil ruler resigns to live a life of peace, only
to find his bloody past cannot be so easily shaken. As his
former friend pursues him he learns the meaning of the brutality
that he had formerly lived by. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
With a misleading title like THE WARRIOR, viewers might expect a
martial arts action film, even if it does come from the unlikely
source of India. This film, shot in 2001 but released by Miramax
in the United States only in 2005, is more the South Asian
equivalent of a stylish Western. The title person is not so much
a warrior--he does not war--but an enforcer and killer for an
evil tyrant. If the people from a village do not pay their
taxes, these so-called "warriors" come to burn the village and
kill. This story could have made an interesting Western or
gangster film, but as an historical film from India it is rather
unique. Writer-director Asif Kapadia appears to be using a
Western style rather than Bollywood conventions for the film. It
is too short for Bollywood, only about 86 minutes.
Irfan Khan plays Lafcadia, one of his ruler's chief enforcers.
This ruler is something of a stereotype, the evil sovereign who
overtaxes his people and makes few exceptions for bad crops. One
day Lafcadia realizes that he and his horse warriors are killing
people not for crime but for the simple bad luck of being poor.
That puts his work and his past in an entirely different light.
He resigns from his now unsavory occupation and decides to take
his son Katiba with him and return to his birth home in the high
mountains to the north. He must go to the high country to escape
past in the starkly different climate, a very different world,
and to find some value in his life. But resigning is not allowed
and his former partner is sent to hunt him down and kill him,
starting a new cycle of violence.
Lafcadia finds his journey to be a time to look inward and see
the evil that violence does around him to come to terms with evil
that marks his past. The evil he has done follows him, making
his mere presence a danger to those he meets.
There are long stretches of this film with no dialog, but it is
never dull. Roman Osin films the Indian landscapes from the sun-
drenched landscapes dominated by yellows in the lowlands, to the
cooler greens, blues, and whites of the snowy high country.
Along the way we pass the majestic hill forts. Osin is a Western
cinematographer, not an Indian, and he went on to do the current
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. This was his only Indian movie and his eye
for color and composition made a major contribution to the film.
While there is actually a good deal of violence here, we see
little of it first hand. Much is just a foot or two outside the
camera's view. The film is very nearly bloodless.
Irfan Khan, who previously played in SALAAM BOMBAY! and more
recently played an Indian Macbeth in MAQBOOL, has very
characteristic looks. His bulging eyes can make him look tearful
or wise or dumfounded. Considering that this is a film set in
feudal India of an indefinite era, the film should be
surprisingly thoughtful and engaging for American audience. I
would rate it a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. [-mrl]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
As Adam Roberts, he was a finalist for the Arthur C. Clarke
Award. As A3R, he wrote STAR WARPED. As A. R. R. R. Roberts, he
wrote THE SODDIT and THE SELLAMILLION. As the Robertski
Brothers, he wrote THE MCATRIX DERIDED. And now as Don Brine, he
has written THE DA VINCI COD (ISBN 0-06-084807-3, or
978-0-06-084807-3). I haven't read the others (though THE SODDIT
is on my shelf), but I suspect they are of similar style and
quality to THE DA VINCI COD. Two things I'll say about that
book--it's much shorter than THE DA VINCI CODE, and the
conspiracy in it is almost as convincing. (The one problem is
that it ultimately relies on a hitherto-unknown painting, while
THE DA VINCI CODE relies on existing works of art, albeit often
mis-described.) Brine/Roberts carries the parody through to
every part of the book, including the disclaimer, the prologue,
and so on. (I was reminded of Robert Sobel's alternate history
FOR WANT OF A NAIL, which had a supporting bibliography and even
a copyright page maintaining the alternate world.) I suspect
people who found THE DA VINCI CODE convincing won't find this as
amusing as I did.
(Apparently they are running out of ISBN numbers and they are
being expanded from ten digits to thirteen, with the final
transition on 1 January 2007. It appears that all existing
numbers will have a prefix of "978" prepended, but the final
digit [the check digit] will also change in most cases. The rule
for calculating the check digit will change as well. See
http://www.bisg.org/isbn-13/ISBN13_For_Dummies.pdf for all the
gory details.)
THE ANNOTATED BROTHERS GRIMM with notes by Maria Tater (ISBN
0-7394-5173-1) is a much more academic approach to annotations
than some of Norton's other works, with more notes about the
variations on the tales, the psychology of the tales, and the
ways that the tales were modified in various editions. The last
is actually perhaps of the most general interest, proving that
even back then authors were concerned about catering to the
public. If the public wanted tales stressing the importance of
obedience to parents, then the Brothers Grimm would oblige. If
the public wanted negative stereotypes of Jews, it would get
those too, as one of the stories in the appendix of currently
"suppressed" tales indicates. What may surprise most people are
the tales themselves, which almost all end with some very
unpleasant and graphic punishment for the evil-doers (e.g., being
sealed in a nail-studded barrel and rolled down the hill). Most
collections of fairy tales these days have much milder endings--
the good are rewarded, but the bad are not punished except by
*not* being rewarded: Cinderella marries the Prince, and the
stepsisters have to stay where they are.
Our science fiction discussion group read UBIK by Philip K. Dick
(ISBN 0-679-73664-6), a novel that we all agreed was fairly
incomprehensible the first time through. At Philcon, the Philip
K. Dick panel mentioned that John Carpenter's film DARK STAR
seemed heavily inspired by this novel, and indeed the film does
have the consultations with the dead (who seem to be in some sort
of suspended animation even though they are dead), and the
talking elevator (and bomb) in the film are similar to the voice
of Joe Chip's apartment. Dick is an author we will be
re-visiting; THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE was chosen for April.
(See the listing earlier in this issue for the upcoming
schedule.) [-ecl]
Go to my home page
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
Fame is proof that people are gullible.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson