THE MT VOID
08/16/24 -- Vol. 43, No. 7, Whole Number 2341
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 4 (ARRIVAL, LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS
(1960)) (film reviews by Mark R. Leeper
and Evelyn C. Leeper)
Hugo Award Winners
Misquotes (letters of comment by Hal Heydt,
Keith F. Lynch, and Gary McGath)
This Week's Reading (H. P. LOVECRAFT'S THE CALL OF CTHULHU
FOR BEGINNING READERS, H. P. LOVECRAFT'S DAGON FOR
BEGINNING READERS) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Mini Reviews, Part 4 (film reviews by Mark R. Leeper and
Evelyn C. Leeper)
This is the fourth batch of mini-reviews:
ARRIVAL (2016): We re-watched ARRIVAL because we're watching
"Sci-Phi: Science Fiction and Philosophy" from the Great Courses,
and this is one of the films covered ("ARRIVAL and Radical
Translation").
Professor David K. Johnson begins by talking about radical
translation in term of whether a lion's language would have, for
example, conditionals. "Radical Translation" is a theory of
Willard Van Orman Quine that says you can never be sure you
understand the meanings of words. (However, the chances of
misunderstanding all the words in a language, or even most of
them, is too unlikely to be accepted as a theory. Noam Chomsky's
"Universal Language" theory fits in with all this.)
Johnson talks about language, but he doesn't really address what
constitutes a language. For example, Charles F. Hockett's rules
("design features") insist that if communication doesn't have
conditionals, it is not a language. (Actually, he insists on
displacement, which allows one to talk about things not present
and presumably includes conditionals. See THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN,
where George C. Scott uses a conditional when talking to an
"uplifted" dolphin, and the dolphin doesn't understand it is a
conditional.) Johnson does say that language have to have nouns
and verbs and distinguish between them. This is not necessarily
followed in fiction (e.g., STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION:
"Darmok" or Jorge Luis Borges's "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius").
But Johnson is talking about reality raher than fiction.
Wittgenstein's "picture theory" ("statements are meaningful if,
and only if, they can be defined or pictured in the real world")
says most philosophical propositions are meaningless--which turns
out to include not just his writings, but even the word
"meaningless".
Also, a statement is meaningless unless it can be verified. Can
the statement in the preceding sentence be verified? This is
similar to "the problem of induction"--why is induction
(predicting the future based on past observations) valid? Well,
because it has always worked in the past. Wait a minute ...
The lecture covers a lot of somewhat peripheral ideas (sort of
like these comments). For example, the lecture covers the Drake
Equation. It is claimed that one of the Drake Equation factors is
how long a technological civilization survives. But consider
CONTACT: the aliens "discover" us through radio waves (a
television broadcast). But today, there are fewer and fewer
broadcast signals for aliens to pick up. If all our communication
signals are short-range or contained within physical media (e.g.,
fiber optics), would aliens be able to detect us even if our
civilization lasted a million years? Or if an alien civilization
was super-advanced, but never used radio waves that traveled into
outer space, we wouldn't detect them through radio waves, and why
would they even look for them from other civilizations like us
which do use them?
Mark and Evelyn disagree on why this is not a 10/10 movie. Evelyn
thinks that adding a saboteur and explosions drops it a notch,
while Mark thinks that some of the long drawn-out scenes have a
negative effect on the film. [-ecl/mrl]
Released theatrically 11 November 2016. Rating: low +3 (-4 to
+4), or 8/10.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/arrival_2016>
LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960): LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (the 1960
version) was the film for the film-and-book group this month.
(The books--or rather stories--were "The Flowering of a Strange
Orchid" by H. G. Wells, and "The Reluctant Orchid" by Arthur C.
Clarke, which I mentioned in my column in the 08/02/24 issue of
the MT VOID). This was filmed on standing sets in two days (with
three days of rehearsals). A few scenes were filmed outdoors,
including several on skid row. Second Unit Director Chuck
Griffith said that Corman wouldn't pay for a long lens, so the
crew had to get out of the van and shoot on the sidewalk. As soon
as the "winos" (as Griffith called them) saw this, "they started
acting all over the place--staggering, falling over, showing off."
So Griffith had to actually hire some so they would do what he
directed. He says he gave them the change from his pocket and
"they shot craps, brawled, acted out knifing each other, staggered
around." Not only did he hire them as actors, he apparently also
hired some to handle cables and such. The tire yard and toilet
yard were also real locations.
For such a shoe-string-budget film (actually more a string-budget;
Corman would never pay extra for aglets), this is still
surprisingly watchable. It also pioneered the on-screen eating of
flowers as a delicacy forty years before MONSOON WEDDING. [-ecl]
Released theatrically 05 August 1960.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054033/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012514-little_shop_of_horrors>
===================================================================
TOPIC: Hugo Award Winners
Best Novel: SOME DESPERATE GLORY by Emily Tesh (Tordotcom,
Orbit UK)
Best Novella: "Thornhedge" by T. Kingfisher (Tor, Titan UK)
Best Novelette: "The Year Without Sunshine" by Naomi Kritzer
(Uncanny Magazine, November-December 2023)
Best Short Story: "Better Living Through Algorithms"
Orbit UK)by Naomi Kritzer (Clarkesworld May 2023)
Best Series: Imperial Radch by Ann Leckie (Orbit US, Orbit UK)
Best Graphic Story or Comic: SAGA, VOL. 11 written
by Brian K. Vaughan, art by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
Best Related Work: A CITY ON MARS by Kelly Weinersmith
and Zach Weinersmith (Penguin Press; Particular Books)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form: DUNGEONS & DRAGONS:
HONOR AMONG THIEVES (Paramount Pictures)
Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form: The Last of Us:
"Long, Long Time" (Naughty Dog / Sony Pictures)
Best Game or Interactive Work: Baldur’s Gate 3,
produced by Larian Studios
Best Editor Short Form: Neil Clarke
Best Editor Long Form: Ruoxi Chen
Best Professional Artist: Rovina Cai
Best Semiprozine: Strange Horizons, by the Strange Horizons
Editorial Collective
Best Fanzine: Nerds of a Feather, Flock Together,
editors Roseanna Pendlebury, Arturo Serrano, Paul Weimer;
senior editors Joe Sherry, Adri Joy, G. Brown, Vance Kotrla
Best Fancast: Octothorpe, by John Coxon, Alison Scott,
and Liz Batty
Best Fan Writer: Paul Weimer
Best Fan Artist: Laya Rose
Lodestar Award for Best YA Book: TO SHAPE A DRAGON’S BREATH
by Moniquill Blackgoose (Del Rey)
Astounding Award for Best New Writer (sponsored
by Dell Magazines): Xiran Jay Zhao (eligibility extended
at request of Dell Magazines)
Full details of nominations, eligibility, and final placement are
at <
https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2024-hugo-awards/>.
===================================================================
TOPIC: Misquotes (letters of comment by Hal Heydt, Keith F. Lynch,
and Gary McGath)
In response to Evelyn's comments on [the love of] money as the
root of all evil in the 08/09/24 issue of the MT VOID, Hal Heydt
writes:
[Evelyn wrote, ] "But money itself is not 'the root of all earthly
evils'; the reference is to 1 Timothy 6:10, which says, 'For *the
love of* money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted
after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves
through with many sorrows.' [italics mine]"
Far from the only modern idiom that is a mangled Biblical quote.
Take "gilding the lily", where the original is "painting the lily
and gilding refine'd gold." [-hh]
Keith F. Lynch points out:
Someone is wrong on the Internet! That's from Shakespeare, not
the Bible. [-kfl]
Evelyn adds:
And the actual quote (from KING JOHN, Act IV, Scene II) is "To
gild refined gold, to paint the lily ... is wasteful and
ridiculous excess." [-ecl]
Gary McGath adds:
Shakespeare quotes get messed up as often as the Bible. I wrote a
post a couple of days ago and just made it public, on how
Britannica misquoted and incorrectly explained the most famous
line in Romeo and Juliet:
<
https://garymcgath.com/wp/britannica-blunders/>
[-gmg]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Okay, this week we're back to normal--or at least as normal as "H.
P. Lovecraft for Beginning Readers" can be. These are two books,
H. P. LOVECRAFT'S THE CALL OF CTHULHU FOR BEGINNING READERS
(Chaosium, ISBN 9781568821122) and H. P. LOVECRAFT'S DAGON FOR
BEGINNING READERS (Chaosium, ISBN 9781568821832), published in
2017 and 2018 respectively, by R. J. Ivankovic that are quite
charming. The titles are actually "H. P. LOVECRAFT'S The CALL of
CTHULHU for beginning readers" and H. P. LOVECRAFT'S DAGON for
beginning readers", and they are done in the style of Dr. Seuss.
Ivankovic apparently did both the text and the artwork. The text
is the anapestic tetrameter that is so distinctive of Seuss's
poems: here is a sample:
When that city, named R'lyeh,
comes up from the deep,
then Cthulhu will stir
and give up his great sleep.
The artwork is also an excellent imitation of Seuss's style.
What isn't clear is who the target audience is for these books.
The original Dr. Seuss books are aimed at beginning readers,
but these seem more designed for people familiar with
Lovecraft--in other words, older teens or adults.
(<
https://www.best-books-for-kids.com/dr-seuss-book-titles.html>
gives a break-down of the target audiences for the original
books.)
These are available from Amazon, of course, but also from the
H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society (<
http://hplhs.org>), which
has also produced a couple of excellent Lovecraft movies on its
own, as well as having DVDs of others.
Above in this issue you will find a listing of the Hugo Awards.
I have definitely lost touch; the only one I am familiar with
is Neil Clarke. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net Our national flower is the concrete cloverleaf.
--Lewis Mumford
MT VOID, 08/16/24 -- Vol. 43, No. 7, Whole Number 2341