THE MT VOID
06/14/24 -- Vol. 42, No. 50, Whole Number 2332
Co-Editor: Mark Leeper,
mleeper@optonline.netCo-Editor: Evelyn Leeper,
eleeper@optonline.netSending Address:
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.comAll material is the opinion of the author and is copyrighted by
the
author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to
eleeper@optonline.netThe latest issue is at <
http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm>.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at
<
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm>.
Topics:
Mini Reviews, Part 26 (MOEBIUS, S1M0NE,
STRAWBERRY MANSION) (film reviews
by Mark R. Leeper and Evelyn C. Leeper)
Word Use and Mis-Use (letters of comment by Jim Susky
and Larry Kaniut)
This Week's Reading (FAMILIAR LETTERS OF JOHN ADAMS AND
HIS WIFE ABIGAIL ADAMS) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Mini Reviews, Part 26 (film reviews by Mark R. Leeper and
Evelyn C. Leeper)
This is the twenty-sixth batch of mini-reviews, all films of the
fantastic.
MOEBIUS (1996): I watched MOEBIUS the other day, albeit under less
than ideal conditions. First of all, it was on YouTube, so was
interrupted for commercials every fifteen minutes or so. And
second, it was in Spanish. It did have subtitles (well, closed
captions), but they were also in Spanish and apparently
auto-generated, since some words were missing, particularly proper
names which were not always recognized as words. The also seemed
to be strange abbreviations, such as "hbe" (if I remember
correctly) for "hombre". Let's just say if I didn't already know
the story, I probably still would not know the story.
The story is, of course, "A Subway Named Mobius" by A. J. Deutsch.
This may have achieved its greatest fame when it was included in
Martin Gardner's FANTASIA MATHEMATICA, although Groff Conklin's
OMNIBUS OF SCIENCE FICTION was also widely read.
The original story was set on the Boston MTA; the film MOEBIUS,
being an Argentinian film, is set on the Buenos Aires Underground
(Subterraneo). (In 2014, murals commemorating the film were
installed on the wall of the San Jose Station.)
The film is fairly accurate for most of the time, but in order to
make it feature length, the screenwriters added a long
mathematical/philosophical discussion between two topologists.
Somehow the subway is outside of time, and travels at the speed of
thought, and so on. I cannot claim to have understood everything
said, but what I did understand seemed like the usual cliches.
There are six screenwriters; this was a film made by a group of
film students and their professor. This also explains the cheap
budget--US$250,000. The budget necessitating filming in the
actual tunnels, which ended up giving the film a great atmosphere.
The Catedral station was renamed "Borges" in honor of Jorge Luis
Borges, the famous writer from Buenos Aires whose works included
many references to mazes and labyrinths.
One language note: "sin fin" sounds a whole lot cooler (to me,
anyway) than just plain "endless".
I would recommend this to anyone who likes mathematical science
fiction and can at least somewhat follow the Spanish. It was
shown in New York at one point with English subtitles, but I have
no idea if that is available anywhere.
Released theatrically in Argentina 17 October 1996.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117069/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/moebius_1996>
S1M0NE (2002): S1M0NE is even more topical now than when it came
out in 2002. Then the idea of a computer-generated actor who
passed as human was science fiction; now it is more like one of
those "day-after-tomorrow" stories (if even that far in the
future). Actually, the visual technology of S1m0ne is what is
today's technology; her conversation is all produced by someone
else speaking in her voice. Today, Viktor would have used A.I. to
have S1m0ne carry on her own conversations.
But Viktor nailed the current situation in a single line: "Our
ability to manufacture fraud now exceeds our ability to detect it."
Released theatrically 23 August 2002.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/simone_2002>
STRAWBERRY MANSION (2021): STRAWBERRY MANSION could have been
written by Frederik Pohl or Cyril M. Kornbluth, posibly with a
dash of Philip K. Dick. In the future, dreams are taxed, but
also, ads are inserted in dreams. (This is not a spoiler--you
realize this early on.) But Bella and her husband(?) have
invented ... well ... AdBlocker. This is revealed to the taxman
who comes to collect the back taxes on Bella's dreams.
Because so much of the film shows the dreams of Preble and Bella,
there are a lot of surrealistic video effects and situations, and
the whole is frequently disorienting (with what appear to be nods
to THE FLY and RESURRECTION). The poster makes it look like a
children's film, but I would probably call it PG-13 because of
some frightening images.
Appropriately enough, I watched this on Tubi, an ad-supported
streaming service.
I'm going out now to buy a Feckle freezer.
Released theatrically 18 February 2022.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11398346/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/strawberry_mansion>
===================================================================
TOPIC: Word Use and Mis-Use (letters of comment by Jim Susky and
Larry Kaniut)
In response to Evelyn's comments on word use and mis-use in the
05/04/24 issue of the MT VOID, Jim Suskey writes:
Sometime last century I read a New Year's review in which certain
non-standard (mis-) usages were cited. One I remember--to NOT use
"impact" as a verb. This "innovation" has an advantage--often it
is a succinct way to replace a multi-syllabic phrase.
FORTUITOUS
Your opener (2024MAY05) caused me to seek out Merriam-Webster
<
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fortuitous>
As "dictionarians" must (eventually) do, M-W has bent to fashion,
in that they (it?) have (has?) added "fortunate" to Definition
#2--stating that this usage as been used in a standard if not
elevated fashion since you (and I) were born (!)
M-W is NOT OED--only the primary "By chance" sense was documented
as "first used" in the mid-17th century.
Few of us, I suspect, "read the dictionary"--instead absorbing
words by context. 70 years of misuse has firmly implanted the
"fortunate" meaning between my ears.
DIFFERENCE - ANCESTOR/DESCENDANT
At first this "got me going". Then realized that context solves
the problem--one (most of us?) would not misuse one for the other
in a phrase, sentence, etc. (parent/child anyone?)
I am fond of using successor and predecessor but will often pause
to get it right.
USING PLURAL PRONOUNS IN ALL CONTEXTS
This one still ties a knot in my brain. So far I still use the
"Queen's English" (now, of course, the King's) to the extent that
the leader of a committee is not a piece of furniture.
Keep up the good work. [-js]
Evelyn responds:
No, the leader of a committee is a chairperson--nothing hard about
that.
And if plural pronouns were good enough for Jane, they're good
enough for me.
"Namesake" is another tricky one. It originally meant someone
named after someone else, but now seems to also mean the reverse.
This puts it in the same group of words as "cleave", "sanction",
"fast", and so on; these are called contranyms (or contronyms).
See:
<
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-own-opposites>
[-ecl]
Larry Kaniut responds to Jim:
Good points. [-lk]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
When I reviewed Thomas Jefferson's NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA,
WITH RELATED DOCUMENTS (in the 03/27/2015 issue of the MT VOID), I
said of Jefferson's comments about African-Americans, "In some
ways, Jefferson may have been a genius, but in others, he was a
horse's ass."
Well, now I am reading FAMILIAR LETTERS OF JOHN ADAMS AND HIS WIFE
ABIGAIL ADAMS (Kesinger, ISBN 978-0-548-12197-9), and I begin to
wonder if it is a common state of the founding fathers. In school
we all hear about how in a letter of March 31, 1776, Abigail rote
to John: "I long to hear that you have declared an
independancy--and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I
suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would
Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them
than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the
hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they
could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the
Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold
ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or
Representation. That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth
so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of
you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of
Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then,
not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use
us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all
Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of
your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under
your protection and in immitation of the Supreem Being make use of
that power only for our happiness. [all spelling errors sic]
(Well actually, what is usually taught is just "Remember the
Ladies," but I wanted to provide the context.)
And how did John respond? On April 14, 1776, he replied: "As to
your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been
told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every
where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient--that
schools and Colledges were grown turbulent--that Indians slighted
their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But
your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more
numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown
discontented.--This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are
so saucy, I wont blot it out. Depend upon it, We know better
than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full
Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not
exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair,
and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have
only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which
would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I
hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight. I
am sure every good Politician would plot, as long as he would
against Despotism, Empire, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, or
Ochlocracy. -- A fine Story indeed. I begin to think the Ministry
as deep as they are wicked. After stirring up Tories,
Landjobbers, Trimmers, Bigots, Canadians, Indians, Negroes,
Hanoverians, Hessians, Russians, Irish Roman Catholicks, Scotch
Renegadoes, at last they have stimulated the [] to demand new
Priviledges and threaten to rebell."
In other words, he is claiming that it is really women who have
the power.
John Adams did write, perhaps more seriously, to James Sullivan on
May 26, 1776: "But why exclude Women? You will Say, because their
Delicacy renders them unfit for Practice and Experience, in the
great Business of Life, and the hardy Enterprizes of War, as well
as the arduous Cares of State. Besides, their attention is So
much engaged with the necessary Nurture of their Children, that
Nature has made them fittest for domestic Cares. And Children
have not Judgment or Will of their own. True. But will not these
Reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that Men in
general in every Society, who are wholly destitute of Property,
are also too little acquainted with public Affairs to form a Right
Judgment, and too dependent upon other Men to have a Will of their
own? If this is a Fact, if you give to every Man, who has no
Property, a Vote, will you not make a fine encouraging Provision
for Corruption by your fundamental Law? Such is the Frailty of the
human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any
Judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by
Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds to his
Interest."
A comment on the Internet seems to think this supports women
having the vote. This reads to me not as supporting votes for
women, but as comparing women to children, and then explaining why
men of no property should not have the vote either.
And in a letter from France to Abigail on December 27, 1778,
John wrote, "The King and Queen are much beloved here." That
wasn't true even then, and that became clear a few years later.
Like I said, a horse's ass.
Abigail also wrote (on March 31, 1776), "I have sometimes been
ready to think that the passion for Liberty cannot be Eaquelly
Strong in the Breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive
their fellow Creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is
not founded upon that generous and christian principal of doing to
others as we would that others should do unto us." I will merely
observe that the states who claim to be "freedom" states these
days are in fact mostly the states that Abigail is referring to,
and are also the states most eager to take freedoms away from just
about everyone. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality.
--Albert Einstein
MT VOID, 06/14/24 -- Vol. 42, No. 50, Whole Number 2332