Robert Grudin: An image of change

I've read a number of attempts to describe the way change happens or at least the way we perceive it, and I think Robert Grudin's is one of the best.

I.12

"In late November of 1968, I spent a few days in a hotel just off the Piazza San Marco in Venice. At 6 one morning, hearing the loud warning bells, I jumped out of bed, grabbed my camera and rushed out to see the famous Venetian flood. I stood in the empty and as yet dry Piazza and looked out toward he Gulf, for I expected the flood tides to come in from the open water. Many minutes passed before I turned to see that the Piazza was flooding, not directly from the Gulf, but up through its own sewers. The indented gratings in the pavement had all but disappeared under calm, flat silver puddles, which grew slowly and silently until their peripheries touched and the Piazza had become a lake. That morning I experienced vividly, if almost subliminally , the reality of change itself: how it fools our sentinels and undermines our defenses, how careful we are to look for it in the wrong places, how it does not reveal itself until it is beyond redress, how vainly we search for it around us and find too late that it has occurred within us."

-- Robert Grudin --
from Time and the Art of Living



My experience has always been that the changes I talk about are always the ones that have already occurred. Perhaps others are more perceptive than I am. Unfortunately I've never met them.

Eric Hoffer: on mass movements

Faith is a two-edged sword. It can move people to do virtuous and compassionate acts as well as monstrously evil. However, we tend to focus solely on the good it can do and ignore its tendency towards cruelty and hate. Are the processes that lead to good actions the same as those that lead to evil?

Eric Hoffer on the subject of faith:


11
Mass movements use irrationality to shut out the intellect, to turn people into predictable, mindless machines. Both Stalin and Hitler used blind faith as a device for mechanizing souls.


12
We hear a lot about the dehumanizing effects of the machine. Actually, the large-scale dehumanization of the Stalin-Hitler era was the work of ideological machines. In Russia the doctrinaire appliances work better than the mechanical.


13
The savior who wants to turn men into angels is as much a hater of human nature as the totalitarian despo9t who wants to turn them into puppets.

There are similarities between absolute power and absolute faith: a demand for absolute obedience; a readiness to attempt the impossible; a bias for simple solutions--to cut the knot rather than unravel it; the viewing of compromise as surrender; the tendency to manipulate people and 'experiment with blood.' Both absolute power and absolute faith are instruments of dehumanization. Hence absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.-- Eric Hoffer --
from Reflections on the Human Condition


This is an interesting list of qualities characteristic of those demanding absolute faith.
1. a demand for absolute obedience;

2. a readiness to attempt the impossible;

3. a bias for simple solutions--to cut the knot rather than unravel it;

4. the viewing of compromise as surrender;

5. the tendency to manipulate people and 'experiment with blood.'



Are there "leaders" today who insist on the above from their supporters or have they all disappeared with the twentieth century?

Combination Plate 21

Warning: I will discuss significant plot elements and some endings.


Sea Wolves: a WWII film

The Cheap Detective: a parody/satire? of film noir and WWII films, written by Neil Simon

Rope, a film directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Philip Jose Farmer: To Your Scattered Bodies Go, an SF novel

Willa Cather: The Professor's House

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


Sea Wolves, a WWII film, 1980

Being a longtime Gregory Peck fan, and having seen him in several WWII films, I decided to take a look at The Sea Wolves (TSW). It also stars David Niven, and a host of other names. The cast therefore includes Gregory Peck, David Niven, Roger Moore, Trevor Howard, and Patrick Macnee. With a cast like this, how could one go wrong?

Well, it did go wrong. I did watch it, but I was disappointed at the end. Perhaps I had expected that it would be as good as the earlier Guns of Navarone (GoN) which also starred Peck and Niven. However, in TSW, the pairing was Gregory Peck and Roger Moore, and it didn't work for me. Roger Moore apparently thought he was still James Bond and plays his character that way--ironic and detached, as if this was a farce, definitely something not to be taken too seriously. This did not play well against Gregory Peck's solid and earnest depiction of a military officer with a suicide mission.

In addition, I felt the plot was weak. I didn't see the tension in TSW that I felt was so strong in GoN. I think the difference between the two films were two elements in GoN that were absent in TSW. In GoN, they were in enemy occupied territory, and the German army was in pursuit. Therefore, they had to elude the Germans as well as make it to their target. In TSW, they were either at sea or in neutral territory and the risk of encountering the enemy was minimal. The only obstacles they faced for much of the film were the weather and a boat engine that should have been retired long ago. This made for a much lower level of tension in TSW.

The second element present in GoN was the deadline. Peck and the saboteurs had to destroy those guns by a certain time. If not, those guns would decimate a convey that had been sent to rescue a large number of British soldiers. Therefore, the guns not only had to be destroyed, but they must be destroyed before the convoy arrived. This element was not present in TSW. Peck and his men had to destroy the ship which was transmitting vital information to German U-boats, but there was no real deadline, except for the usual one of doing it as soon as possible. The powers-that-be, I suspect, recognized this weakness and worked a deadline into the plot that the viewers would know about but not the characters.

Every night at 10:30 (I think it was then), the German radio operator would transmit information regarding Allied shipping in the area. On the night of the attack by the British irregulars, the operator had precise information regarding an US aircraft carrier. Therefore, while they didn't know this, the British unit had to destroy the radio before 10:30. For some reason, this didn't work for me. I wonder if this had been known by the characters, it would have affected their performances in some way. I have no idea, but the film didn't work for me.

Recommended for those who want to see every film Gregory Peck made.

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


The film opens with Peter Falk as Lou Peckinpaugh, a private detective in San Francisco during WWII. He has just been notified that his partner, Ezra Dezire (played by Sid Caesar), has been killed. His partner's widow, Jezebel Dezire (Ann-Margaret) later calls him and asks if he killed her husband so they could be together. Peckinpaugh asks if the police are listening in, and she says yes, as the scene shifts to show her on the phone with several police officers standing very near listening to their conversation.

Lou decides to go to his favorite hangout--Nic's Bar. While there, an announcement over the radio informs all in Nic's that Paris has fallen to the German army. A group of German officers immediately stand up and begin singing "Deutschland Uber Alles." Another group of patrons then get up and begin singing "The Marseillaise."

The film written by Neil Simon is a parody of two monumental films: The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. The two films are melded together mostly successfully, although at time it seemed as though Lou Peckinpaugh (Sam Spade and Ric in the original films and both played by Bogart) wanders back and forth between two alternate universes.

It has a cast of relatively well-known actors, a followup of director Robert Moore and Neil Simon's earlier comic mystery, Murder by Death. Dom DeLuise plays Pepe Damascus and John Houseman appears as Jasper Blubber. Fernando Lamas shows up in the Paul Heinreid role as Louise Fletcher with the help of careful lighting comes across quite well in the Ingrid Bergman role. Others appearing more or less briefly are Stockard Channing, James Coco, Madeleine Kahn, and Phil Silvers.

Overall Comments: I would classify this as clever rather than uproariously hilarious, or any such superlative suggested by advertisements. However, I did feel the urge to watch the originals again, and I have already watched The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca is next. I am pleased to say that scenes from the The Cheap Detective did not pop up as I was watching The Maltese Falcon and spoil my enjoyment of one of my favorite films.

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

Rope, a film (1948)

This film, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, is based on a play by the same name written by Patrick Hamilton. Rope is loosely based on the Leopold-Loeb murder case which took place in Chicago in 1924. Twenty-year-old Nathan Leopold and nineteen-year-old Richard Loeb were the sons of two wealthy and prominent families in Chicago. They were tried and convicted of murdering fourteen-year-old Bobby Franks. Their motives supposedly were to see if they could commit the perfect crime. I've also heard that they killed him just to see what it felt like to kill someone.

In the film, two young men, Brandon and Phillip, kill David, a friend whom they considered inferior, based on their interpretation of a philosophy expressed by Rupert Cadall, a former teacher of theirs, played by Jimmy Stewart. They are so certain of their ability to plan the perfect crime that they kill David shortly before a party was held in their apartment. They hid the body in a large chest which they decided to use as a table to hold the food and drinks for the party. Invited to the party are the David's father and aunt, Rupert, another close friend, and the victim's fiance.

As in a stage play, the film is shot basically in two rooms, with the chest in view most of the time.
The drama involves the differing reactions of the two murderers: one being increasingly convinced that nobody would ever suspect them and one becoming more and more wretched over his part in the murder. A discussion based on Rupert's philosophy that the superior people have the right to eliminate inferior people alerts Rupert that something strange is going on, something that may be related to David's inexplicable absence from the party. When one of the two young men expresses his complete agreement with this theory, Rupert gets upset and says that he would never act upon such a theory. Sensing that something is wrong, Rupert then begins to watch the two carefully, especially their interactions with each other.

I found it intriguing that the blurb mentioned that the two young men had acted upon a "misinterpretation" of Rupert's theory, but frankly, I didn't see that at all. Rupert's only disagreement was that he would never act upon this theory. Secondly, in the film, the theory was based on Nietzsche's superman theory. That may be true, but the language used in the discussion comes much closer to that used by Dostoyevsky in his Crime and Punishment, when Raskolnikov justifies his murder of the old pawnbroker.

My favorite scene in the film takes place shortly before the end. While the people are talking, the maid sees that they have finished eating, so she clears the food off the table. She then returns and removes the table cloth. She returns a third time and brings some books with her that belong in the chest. All this is going on behind the backs of the two murderers who don't see her. I have no idea what the others were talking about as I was fascinated by the maid who was simply going about her duties. Was she really going to open the chest and find the body? But, this is Hitchcock.

One bit of trivia: Patrick Hamilton, who wrote the play the film was based on, also wrote Angel Street, aka Gaslight, which had two film versions. The better known one is the second with Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer.

Overall Comments: I found it an interesting film, with Jimmy Stewart playing a different role than I'm used to seeing him in.


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


Philip Jose Farmer: To Your Scattered Bodies Go


This is probably Farmer's best known novel and rightfully so, as I believe it's his best novel. It's the first of five novels set in Riverworld, and frankly, the quality of the subsequent novels does not equal that of the first.

The premise of the novel is simple: when people die, they are resurrected on another planet, which they, for obvious reasons, call Riverworld. Riverworld essentially consists of one river that circles the planet. Paralleling the river are two mountain ranges, one on each side, which is impossible to climb. The resurrectees therefore must live along the banks of the river.

The point-of-view character is Richard Francis Burton, the nineteenth century British geographer, explorer, translator, writer, soldier, orientalist. He is only one of the numerous real people who appear in the book along with various fictional characters. Some of the real characters are Alice Liddell, the model for Lewis Carroll's little girl in Alice in Wonderland. Another is Hermann Goering, a twentieth century German politician, military leader, and a high-ranking member of the Nazi Party. One of the fictional characters is Peter Janius Frigate, who becomes a close friend of Burton on Riverworld. What I find intriguing is that Frigate was born in 1918, the same year that the author was born. Secondly, Frigate describes himself somewhere in the novel as an SF writer. Thirdly, Frigate's initials are PJF, the same as Philip Jose Farmer's--a coincidence, no doubt.

The novel follows the exploits of Burton and his friends as they attempt to explore the length of the River and unravel the mystery behind Riverworld: who created this world, who had gone to the effort of resurrecting all those who had died on Earth, and why?

Readers who expect an idyllic paradise created by humans who have gained a second chance will be mistaken. Humans with a second chance are no better than they were the first time around. One example is Hermann Goering who manages to create a another Third Reich, even if a bit more primitive, with slave camps and a strong military force.

Trivia: the title comes from John Donne's "Holy Sonnet No. 7"

"At the round earths imagin'd corners, blow
Your trumpets, Angells, and arise, arise
From death, you numberless infinities,
Of soules, and to your scattred bodies goe,
All whom the flood did, and the fire shall o'erthrow,
All whom warre, dearth, age , agues, tyrannies,
Despaire, law, chance hath slaine . . ."


I wonder if the sonnet gave Farmer the inspiration for the novel. It certainly is a unique vision of the afterlife. A number of years ago, a friend of mine, who is very interested in various theories of the afterlife, told me about a book that had been written by a person, who claimed to have contact with the dead. According to the book, the locale of the afterlife was identical to the description of Farmer's Riverworld.

Overall Comments: As I mentioned earlier, I think this is Farmer's best novel. However, the questions facing Burton and the other resurrectees are not answered in this novel. Some partial answers are provided, but at a tentative level only.


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


Willa Cather: The Professor's House

This is one of Willa Cather's shorter novels, and it has a rather unique structure.

The first part focuses on Professor Godfrey St. Peter and his family, which includes his wife, Lillian, and their two married daughters and their husbands. It also includes Tom Outland, a young student who became a close friend of the Professor St. Peter and almost married Rosamund, one of the professor's daughters.

The St. Peter family has moved into a new house. However, Godfrey can't accept this and returns to the old residence and does his work there in his old study. The readers also learn about Tom Outland, who had invented a gas engine for aircraft and also had attempted to get the federal government interested in protecting cliff dwellings he had discovered out West.

The second part is the story of Tom Outland's discovery of the cliff dwellings on Blue Mesa (Mesa Verde?) and his failed attempt to have it declared a National Monument.

The third part then returns to Professor St. Peter and his growing despondency and depression as he looks back on his life. After the success of his first book, he has done little to justify the esteem he gained from it. He almost dies when the wind blows out the light on his gas lamp, and the room fills with gas. Is it a suicide attempt?


Overall Comments: the novel left me with several questions.

1. Who is the main character? Professor St. Peter or Tom Outland?

2. What is the point of the novel?

3. What is the relationship between Tom Outland's story of the discovery of and subsequent failure to protect the Blue Mesa from exploitation and destruction and the Professor's inability to adjust to the inevitable changes that time brings?

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: Quatrain LIII

Quatrain LIII introduces a new theme, that of predestination, or so it can be interpreted. See what you think of this:


First Edition: Quatrain LIII

With Earth's first Clay They did the Last Man's knead,
And then of the Last Harvest sow'd the Seed:
Yea, the first Morning of Creation wrote
What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read.



Second Edition: LXXIX
With Earth's first Clay They did the Last Man knead,
And there of the Last Harvest sow'd the Seed:
And the first Morning of Creation wrote
What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read.



Fifth Edition: LXXIII
With Earth's first Clay They did the Last Man knead,
And there of the Last Harvest sow'd the Seed:
And the first Morning of Creation wrote
What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read.



There are several changes from the First to the Second Edition. Apparently FitzGerald was satisfied with the changes, for the Fifth is identical to the Second. In the first line, the poet writes of kneading the Last Man's clay, whereas in the later edtions, it becomes the Last Man who is kneaded. The change seems to subtly suggest that Man is not separate from the Clay but is the Clay itself. The second change occurs in the second line where the "then" becomes "there," a change of time to place. The last change is the substitution of the more prosaic "And" for the poetic and Biblical sounding "Yea."

Overall, the quatrain states that the ending is written or was written on the first day of Creation. The reference to the "Last Dawn of Reckoning" suggests the Judgement Day, and what will be read of humanity's behavior was actually written on "the first Morning of Creation."

This corresponds closely to the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election: "which asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

In other words, we are all sinful and unable to gain redemption on our own, and God chooses those whom He would save, and this choice is NOT based on the "virtue, merit, or faith in those people." I have seen a few lines in the Qur'an which seem to say something similar, but it is not spelled out as clearly as it is in the doctrine of the Christian Calvinist sect.

I think this is even a bleaker view of our position in the universe than was brought out in earlier quatrains which said that we were puppets or chess pieces controlled by the Master Player who engaged in games for His own entertainment. It is a very mechanistic view of the universe which was shared by philosophers and scientists of the time. It was only with the beginning of the 20th century when the theories of Einstein and Heisenberg argued for a relativistic and and uncertain universe that some measure of freedom was once again supported, but not universally accepted.

The question is still this: do we have free will and are able to some extent anyway to make choices freely or are we predetermined to make the "choices" that we only seem to make freely?

Lin Yutang: "Earthbound" conclusion

"The situation then is this: man wants to live, but he still must live upon the earth.

. . . .


"Any good practical philosophy must start out with the recognition of our having a body. It is high time that some among us made the straight admission that we are animals, an admission which is inevitable since the establishment of the basic truth of the Darwinian theory and the great progress of biology, especially bio-chemistry. It was very unfortunate that our teachers and philosophers belong to the so-called intellectual class, with a characteristic professional pride of intellect. The men of the spirit were as proud of the spirit as the shoemaker is proud of leather. Sometimes even the spirit was not sufficiently remote and abstract and they had to use the words, 'essence' or 'soul' or 'idea,' writing the with capital letters to frighten us. The human body was distilled in this scholastic machine into a spirit, and the spirit was further concentrated into a kind of essence, forgetting that even alcoholic drinks must have a 'body'--mixed with plain water--if they are to be palatable at all. And we poor laymen were supposed to drink that concentrated quintessence of spirit. The over-emphasis on the spirit was fatal. It made us war with our natural instincts, and my chief criticism is that it made a whole and rounded view of human nature impossible. It proceeded also from an inadequate knowledge of biology and psychology, and of the place of the senses, emotions and, above all, instincts in our life. Man is made of flesh and spirit both, and it should be philosophy's business to see that the mind and body live harmoniously together, that there be a reconciliation between the two."

-- Lin Yutang --
from The Importance of Living


We are not ghosts in the machine, a soul trapped in a sinful or evil body, as so many religious traditions insist. We are both body and soul (whatever that term may mean to you) and we should accept this. As long as we cannot accept this, any sort of true lasting harmony will be impossible.

Lin Yutang: "Earthbound" part 2

"The situation, then, is this: man wants to live, but he still must live upon this earth.

. . . . .

For we are of the earth, earth-born and earth-bound. There is nothing to be unhappy about the fact that we are, as it were, delivered upon this beautiful earth as its transient guests. Even if it were a dark dungeon, we still would have to make the best of it; it would be ungrateful of us not to do so when we have, instead of a dungeon, such a beautiful earth to live on for a good part of a century. Sometimes we get too ambitious and disdain the humble and yet generous earth. Yet a sentiment for this Mother Earth, a feeling of true affection and attachment, one must have for this temporary abode of our body and spirit, if we are to have a sense of spiritual harmony.

We have to have, therefore, a kind of animal skepticism as well as animal faith, taking this earthly life largely as it is. And we have to retain the wholeness of nature that we see in Thoreau who felt himself kin to the sod and partook largely of its dull patience, in winter expecting the sun of spring, who in his cheapest moments was apt to think that it was not his business to be "seeking the spirit," but as much the spirit's business to seek him, and whose happiness, as he described, was a good deal like that of the wood-chucks. The earth, after all, is real, as the heaven is unreal; how fortunate is man that he is born between the real earth and the unreal heaven!"

(to be concluded)

Lin Yutang: "Earthbound"

The following excerpt doesn't really describe too many people in this country, does it? Or at least, it's not the way I hear people talking today--attempting to show how they are the real Americans.

"The situation then is this: man wants to live, but he still must live upon this earth. All questions of living in heaven must be brushed aside. Let not the spirit take wings and soar to the abode of the gods and forget the earth. Are we not, mortals, condemned to die? The span of life vouchsafed us, threescore and ten, is short enough, if the spirit gets too haughty and wants to live forever, but on the other hand, it is also long enough, if the spirit is a little humble. One can learn such a lot and enjoy such a lot in seventy years, and three generations is a long, long time to see human follies and acquire human wisdom. Anyone who is wise and has lived long enough to witness the changes of fashion and morals and politics through the rise an fall of three generations should be perfectly satisfied to rise from his seat and go away saying, "It was a good show,' when the curtain falls."

(To be continued)

-- Lin Yutang --
from The Importance of Living

Suppose a person who followed this sort of philosophy were to run for public office. I wonder what that person's speeches would be like. What would this person do in a debate?

P. D. James: Death Comes to Pemberley

P. D. James: Death comes to Pemberley, a sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (P&P)

Normally I ignore sequels to classics, but P. D. James is one of my favorite mystery writers. Many of her novels feature a large house, either occupied for centuries by the family or possibly long since turned to other uses: a nursing school, a laboratory, or even a publishing house. As the largest estate in the county, Pemberley would be a perfect setting for one of her stories. In addition, in an interview James said that her favorite author was Austen and she thought that, if Austen were alive today, she would be writing mysteries. So, I had to break a long-standing tradition and, at least, start it.

The novel opens with a prologue summarizing the significant events and introducing the major characters in Pride and Prejudice. James then brings us up-to-date, for six years have passed since the end of what is probably Austen's most popular novel. We are told that Elizabeth and Darcy have two children and that Elizabeth's younger sister Mary is also married to the rector of a nearby parish. Kitty is still at home, the only one left and likely to remain unmarried. Mr. Bennet is a frequent visitor at Pemberley, while Mrs. Bennet is less so. Darcy, while having become more patient and tolerant over time, does have his limits.

It is Friday, October 14, 1803, the day before the most important social event of the year in the neighborhood of Pemberley, Lady Anne's ball, the annual ball held in honor of Darcy's mother. Elizabeth has spent the day planning and preparing for the event with the aid of the inestimable Mrs. Reynolds, the housekeeper whom she had met on her first visit to Pemberley with the Gardiners.

Now late in the evening, Elizabeth, Darcy, the Bingleys (who had arrived a short time ago), Col. Fitzwilliam, and Henry Alveston are gathered together after dinner. Alveston is the only one who needs an introduction to readers of P&P. He is a rising young attorney who has become an increasingly regular visitor to Pemberley, and it is fairly obvious what the source of attraction is. In fact, it is that same attraction that causes Col Fitzwilliam considerable discomfort.

Georgiana, Darcy's sister, is now of a marriageable age: she is attractive and an heiress of a considerable fortune, and she is no longer the shy, quiet young girl we had known. Six years of associating with Elizabeth may have contributed somewhat to that. For some time now, both Fitzwilliam and Alveston have attempted to engage her affections. While Georgiana has not yet made her choice, Elizabeth feels that Col. Fitzwilliam will be disappointed.

It is then that death comes to Pemberley, or at least a madly driven coach carrying an hysterical Lydia arrives at the front door. All she can do is cry out almost incoherently that her beloved Wickham is dead, murdered. After questioning the more rational coach driver, Darcy and the others discover that Wickham and Lydia were going through their usual routine. Darcy has forbidden Wickham's presence at Pemberley; therefore, Lydia is never invited. However, the usual procedure is that Lydia arrives unannounced with luggage while the carriage immediately proceeds onward with Wickham to the nearest inn, where he stays while Lydia enjoys the amenities of Pemberley.

Lydia has come for Lady Anne's ball and will leave after the ball is over. But, this time Lydia and Wickham were accompanied by Wickham's good and possibly only friend, Captain Denny. However, shortly after entering the woods surrounding Pemberley, Denny and Wickham quarrel, with the result that Denny left the coach. Wickham then follows him into the trees. Shortly afterwards, a shot is heard. Lydia becomes hysterical, and the coach driver, unarmed, decides it would be best to go for help and also take Lydia out of any possible danger.

Upon hearing the coachman's story, Darcy, Fitzwilliam, and Alveston decide to go back to the spot where the driver left off the two men. They were reluctant to interfere in a private quarrel, but the report of shots being fired persuaded them to to investigate. After stumbling about in the forest for some time, they are about to leave when they come across a clearing in which a body is stretched out on the ground. Kneeling before the body and covered in blood is Wickham, who cries out upon seeing him that this was his fault. Capt. Denny is dead. The result is that Wickham is arrested, and a coroner's jury decides there is sufficient evidence for a trial.

What follows is NOT a contemporary mystery. James is too wise for that. We do not see Elizabeth and Darcy chasing around the countryside searching for clues, following up leads, and interrogating witnesses and suspects. That is left for the authorities and Wickham's expensive defense attorney (you can guess who pays for him).

In the first place, neither Elizabeth nor Darcy have any experience in detecting nor would they have even considered taking such actions. Secondly, Darcy is prohibited from taking any part in the case for Wickham is his brother-in-law. Darcy is one of three magistrates for the county. If he were to get involved and Wickham released, then there would be a suspicion of favoritism. On the other hand, it was also known that Wickham in some way had earned Darcy's enmity, so if it was decided that Wickham be held over for trial, there might be a suspicion that Darcy had had his revenge. They had to separate themselves from any direct involvement in the case.

Much of the time in the novel is spent with secondary characters--various servants and their familes, Wickham, Col. Fitzwilliam, and even Mrs. Younge, whom readers may recognize as the governess who allowed Wickham to almost carry Georgiana off in P&P, the cause of Darcy's intense dislike of Wickham. It is "downstairs," to borrow the title of a popular TV show, where the facts of Capt. Denny's murder are to be found. And, not surprisingly, it is Wickham who is the cause, directly or indirectly.

This is not a contemporary murder mystery. Instead, it resembles much more closely a mystery novel written during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The solution comes through coincidental meetings, a deathbed confession, various letters, and a last minute frantic journey with important information that, if it arrives in time, could affect the outcome of Wickham's trial. It is not Jane Austen, but it does read like, at least to me anyway, like a mystery that might have been written in Austen's time.

James makes no attempt to imitate Austen's style; instead she gives the reader prose that is a bit more formal. Nor does she attempt to recreate Lizzie as Austen would have done. Elizabeth is no longer Lizzie, the young lady with the sharp tongue. She is now in her late twenties, the mother of two children, a wife, and the mistress of the largest estate in the area. She has a position to fill and has matured in the intervening six years.

James has inserted into the novel, which is mostly serious (murder is a serious business), some subtle bits of humour and an occasional sharp observation of her own. For example, at one point we read the following: And would she herself have married Darcy had he been a penniless curate or a struggling attorney? It was hard to envisage Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy of Pemberley as either, but honesty compelled an answer. Elizabeth knew that she was not formed for the sad contrivances of poverty.

Readers should also be alert to references to people who are mentioned but never make an appearance in the novel. Wickham at one point had been employed as a personal secretary to Sir William Elliot. He was fired six months later, possibly because of Miss Elliot's concern regarding Lydia's open flirting with Sir William, and also perhaps when she grew bored with Wickham's own attempts at flirting with her.

While I won't discuss the ending in any great detail, I should add that the final solution involved (surprise, surprise) considerable expense once again to Darcy, and the aid of Mr. and Mrs. Knightly of Donwell Abbey and her close friend, Mrs. Harriet Martin.

The novel ends, as do all of Austen's novels, with a final summary, some comments about the future, and a conversation between our hero and heroine regarding their own sometimes rocky relationship before it resulted in perfect happiness.

When I first decided to read Death Comes to Pemberley, I went to the library and borrowed a copy. However, about one-third of the way through, I visited Clues Unlimited, Tucson's local mystery bookstore. I figured I'd be reading it again, and I wanted my own copy.

Paul Lawrence Dunbar, "The Mystery"

This poem by Paul Lawrence Dunbar expresses one of the basic tenets of Taoism: we know not where we come from and we know not where we go. In the West, much blood has been spilled by various religious groups because of differences in doctrine about our ultimate destination. Perhaps if they had been less dogmatic about their beliefs, fewer people would have died in vain.


The Mystery

I was not; now I am -- a few days hence
I shall not be; I fain would look before
And after, but can neither do; some Power
Or lack of power says "no" to all I would.
I stand upon a wide and sunless plain,
Nor chart nor steel to guide my steps aright.
Whene'er, overcoming fear, I date to move,
I grope without direction and by chance.
Some feign to hear a voice and feel a hand
That draws them ever upward thro' that gloom.
But I --I hear no voice and touch no hand,
Tho' oft thro' silence infinite I list,
And strain my hearing to supernal sounds;
Tho' oft thro' fearful darkness do I reach,
And stretch my hand to find that other hand.
I question of th' eternal bending skies
That seem to neighbor with the novice earth;
But they roll on, and daily shut their eyes
On me, as I one day shall do on them,
And tell me not the secret that I ask.


Another reason why this poem caught my eye is that recently I had just posted some comments about Quatrain LII from FitzGerald's The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. I thought it might be interesting to quote that quatrain. People from different cultures and times still seem to think alike.


First Edition: Quatrain LII

And that inverted bowl we call The Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop't we live and die,
Lift not thy hands to It for help--for It
Rolls impotently on as Thou and I.



And while I was reading that Quatrain, yet another came to mind:



First Edition: Quatrain XXXIII

Then to the rolling Heav'n I cried,
Asking, "What Lamp had Destiny to guide
Her little Children stumbling in the Dark?
And--"A blind Understanding!" Heav'n replied.


It seems as though there are two ways of dealing with this mystery. One is to grasp desperately at one "truth" which others have claimed to know, and to struggle constantly with those who think differently. The other is to accept that we really can't know, but must go on anyway. I prefer the second way.

Joseph Wood Krutch, more thougts on Joy

J0seph Wood Krutch in his Baja California and the Geography of Hope expresses some unusual ideas, (well, they are unusual today) on joy and its presence in nature. Obviously this is not a scientific view of nature, for when was the last time anyone heard a scientist say anything about joy in nature--that would be unscientific. But, fortunately, Krutch is not a scientist and therefore he can see this in nature--in plants and animals.

Joy is the one thing of which indisputably the healthy animal, and even the healthy plant, gives us an example. And we need them to remind us that beauty and joy can come of their own accord when we let them. The geranium on the tenement window and the orchid in the florist's shop, the poodle on the leash and the goldfish in the bowl, are better than nothing. In the consciousness of the city-dweller, they ought to play a part no less essential than that of the sleek chrome chair and the reproductions of Braque and Miro.

Here [in Baja California] I have, literally, God's plenty. Everything reminds me that man is an incident in nature rather than, as one comes to suppose in the city, that the natural is, at most, an incident, surviving precariously in a man-made world. If I do on my own a little of that peeping and botanizing which Wordsworth scorned, I think that I profit less from what I learn about nature than I do from what I should prefer to call the example she sets me--the example, I mean, of confidence, of serenity, and, above all, of joy. In the city, perhaps especially in the city of today, one may pass whole weeks without meeting a single joyous person or seeing a single joyous thing. One may meet laughter there, and wit--sometimes, perhaps, a fragment of wisdom. These are all good things which I would not willingly do without. But joyousness, as distinguished from diversion and amusement and recreation, is so rare that a whole philosophy has been developed to make a virtue out of its absence.

This world, we are told, is a terrible place, and it is wicked not to be almost continuously aware of the fact. Diversion in limited quantities is permissible as a temporary relaxation, but moral indignation should be the staple of any human life, properly spent. Yet it seems to me that Joy and Love, increasingly fading from human experience, are the two most important things in the world, and that if one must be indignant about something, the fact that they are so rare is the thing most worth of indignation.

-- Joseph Wood Krutch --
from Baja California and the Geography of Hope

I wonder what would happen if one of the candidates in the primaries being held this Spring of 2012 should begin to criticize The System today because of its limited, materialistic view, that there is something more important than economics and religious prohibitions and struggles for world domination. Just suppose that that candidate began to argue that our outlook on life (and not merely just a particular religious doctrine) and that our relationship to the world we live in is just as important, if not more so, than economics and social controls and world preeminence.

I think that person would labelled a nut. What could be more important than jobs and proper religious behavior and world domination?

Patricia Highsmith and the Talented Mr. Ripleys

The title is somewhat misleading for Patricia Highsmith is directly responsible for only one talented Mr. Ripley--the one found in The Talented Mr. Ripley, the first of five novels about his adventures. She is only indirectly responsible for the Ripleys found in the two films based on the first novel: a French version (1960) starring Alain Delon, which is titled Plein Soleil or Purple Noon, as it is in English, (no, I don't understand the choice of the title) and the Hollywood 1999 version titled more appropriately, The Talented Mr. Ripley, with Math Damon.

Spoiler Warning: I will reveal significant plot elements and endings.


In Highsmith's novel, Tom Ripley is sent to Italy by Dickie Greenleaf's father to persuade Dickie Greenleaf to return to the US. A similar theme is found in an earlier novel by Henry James' The Ambassador. Both ultimately fail, but that's the only similarity found in the two novels. Highsmith's ambassador, in contrast to James' Streuther, is a sociopath who fastens himself on his victims and lives the good life as long as he can, at their expense, of course.

Ripley is a complex character who alternates between cold "survival at any cost" behaviors and internal ruminations about how unfair people are and he is able, therefore, to justify himself by blaming everybody else for his actions. After all --what else could he do?-- he asks himself, as he murders two people: one who is about to send him packing, thereby eliminating Ripley's access to the good life, and one who is going to reveal his identity to the police, for Ripley has, by now, assumed the identity of and, most significantly, the fortune of Dickie Greenleaf.

After murdering Dickie, Ripley assumes his identity, and this part of the novel is the most complex and somewhat confusing. Ripley actually is forced to live as both Ripley and Greenleaf as he attempts to conceal his true identity, whichever that is at that particular moment. The police get involved when the body of Freddie is discovered. Freddie was last seen being helped into his car by Greenleaf (Ripley) and therefore is of interest to the police. Secondly, Tom Ripley seems to have disappeared, and the police are now also interested in what Greenleaf (Ripley) knows about him.

Ripley thus has to reappear as himself and remove that suspicion. But, in so doing, Greenleaf must temporarily disappear, which intensifies the police's interest even more. Ripley then has to re-establish Greenleaf's existence, and the plot becomes convoluted as Ripley hustles back and forth between Italy and France, sometimes as Ripley and sometimes as Greeleaf, frequently meeting people who know him as Ripley or Greenleaf. How Highsmith (or Ripley) keeps it all straight, I have no idea.

Two events that happen near the end push the plot beyond credibility. One involves Greenleaf's rings which Ripley wanted and therefore stupidly took from Greenleaf's body. When they are accidentally discovered by Marge, Greenleaf's fiance, Tom's excuse that Greenleaf gave them to him and that he simply forgot he had them is weak. Tom then suddenly remembers that Greenleaf had given him a letter to hold for awhile which he also has forgotten about until now. In the letter, "Dickie" hints at guilt for somethings he has done and declares Tom Ripley to be his heir. I was sure that the police and a private detective hired by Mr. Greenleaf would find both 'lapses" of memory too much to accept. However, I was wrong, and I find these events to be the weakest parts of the novel.

Frankly, I find Tom Ripley an unpleasant character, but Highsmith has created such a fascinating picture of him, that I read on, hoping that he does get caught in the end. Since four more novels about his adventures exist, one can guess the outcome of this novel. I don't know if I will read all four, but I certainly shall read the last one, in hopes that he will get caught in the end.


In the French film, Purple Noon, we see a different Tom Ripley, a highly efficient and coolly professional con man, who has no doubts about what must be done. Alain Delon plays him as the manipulating parasite who always comes out ahead with little or no qualms about his actions, including two murders. The film rearranges, drops, and adds plot elements in order to convey this image of Ripley. Moreover, the homoerotic elements strongly hinted at in the novel are gone. Ripley is definitely heterosexual in the film, which is rather doubtful in Higsmith's Ripley.

Another significant change involves the fake will: in this film "Greenleaf" leaves everything to Marge, his fiance. Ripley then returns as himself and courts Marge. She falls in love with him and, in this way, he will enjoy Greenleaf's fortune after all and, moreover, has turned suspicion from himself regarding Greenleaf's disappearance. However, good must prevail and evil punished at the end, so Highsmith's ending is changed and Tom is found out, just as he is beginning once again to live the good life, as Marge's lover.

In the 1999 version, with Matt Damon as Ripley, we see a very different Ripley, one much closer to Highsmith's Ripley than to Delon's supremely confident and competent Ripley. Damon's Ripley is a more complex individual who appears to be lonely and desires some companionship, much as does Highsmith's Ripley. He is hurt by the taunts and insults of Dickie and some of Dickie's friends. Moreover, the homoerotic elements are back and, in fact, more clearly brought out than the novel does.

There is also an attempt to soften Ripley's character. When Ripley murders Dickie in the novel and in the French version, we see little guilt in Ripley. It is something that has to be done if Ripley is to live as he desires. However, we are given a different Ripley in the Matt Damon version. Ripley only strikes out at Dickie after being told he is being cast off and after considerable taunting about his homosexuality. Finally Ripley strikes out and hits Dickie with an oar. Seeing Dickie fall, bleeding, to the bottom of the boat, Ripley drops the oar, and with a shocked look on his face, kneels down to help Dickie. Dickie then recovers and attacks Ripley who then kills him in "self-defense."

In this version, Dickie/Tom leaves an ambiguous suicide note about guilt and so forth and ends by saying Ripley is his best friend and he owes much to Ripley's help. There is no will in the note, but Greenleaf's father interprets the note as a suggestion to him and therefore tells Ripley that he will turn over half of Dickie's money to him.

Another modification involves the rings incident. Marge, who accidentally finds the rings, doesn't believe Ripley's story and is convinced that Ripley killed Dickie. Tom is about to kill her also, but a friend appears before Ripley can make a move and she survives, bu she is not believed.

Tom, at the end, when it appears that all is well, is forced to kill again. Since it is on a cruise ship, there is no place to hide, nor can he run anywhere. In addition, on the ship is a woman who knows him as Dickie Greenleaf. The last scene is of Ripley sitting alone in his cabin which can be interpreted as his realization that all is over--he has failed.

Earlier I had mentioned my problems with two incidents that occur near the end of the novel: the one involving the rings and Dickie's forged will. In the novel, he is successful in both endeavors. However, it seems as though there are some agree with me. In the French version, Ripley is successful in explaining away his possession of the rings, but he makes Marge the one who inherits Dickie's money, and not himself, as it is in the novel. In the later 1999 version, Marge does not believe Ripley's story about the rings, and Ripley forges only an ambiguous suicide note in which he says Ripley was a great friend: there is no will at all.

Summary Comments: I enjoyed the novel, and if I already didn't have so many books at home to read, I would go on and read the remaining four novels in the series. However, I definitely will read the last one: Ripley Under Water. That sounds ominous, but . . .

I found both films to be very enjoyable, but, surprisingly, the later Hollywood version with Matt Damon as Ripley is closer to the novel than is the French version with Alain Delon. In addition. Damon's Ripley, although softened a bit, is still closer to the complex Ripley in the novel than is Delon's. If I had to choose one to view again, I would, at least now, select the Damon version.

Loren Eiseley: humanization and evolution

In discussions about evolution, usually three factors are brought in as the selective forces behind the development of species: climatic, geological, and competition for survival needs. Loren Eiseley here suggests that there may be a fourth factor in the evolution of the human species.


"Although there is still much that we do not understand, it is likely that the selective forces working upon the humanization of man lay essentially in the nature of the sociocultural world itself. Man, in other words, once he had "crossed over" into this new invisible environment, was being as rigorously selected for survival within it as the first fish that waddled up the shore on its fins. I have said that the new world was "invisible." I do so advisedly. It lay, not so much in his surroundings as in man's brain, in his way of looking at the world around him and at the social environment he was beginning to create in his tiny human groupings.

He was becoming something the world had never seen before--a dream animal--living at least partially within a secret universe of his own creation and sharing that secret universe in his head with other, similar heads. Symbolic communication had begun. Man had escaped out of the eternal present of the animal world into a knowledge of past and future. The unseen gods, the powers behind the world of phenomenal appearance, began to stalk through his dreams.

Nature, one might say, through the powers of this mind, grossly superstitious though it might be in its naive examination of wind and water, was beginning to reach out into the dark behind itself. Nature was beginning to evade its own limitations in the shape of this strange, dreaming and observant brain. It was a weird multiheaded universe, going on, unseen and immaterial save as its thoughts smoldered in the eyes of hunters huddled by night fires, or were translated into pictures upon cave walls, or were expressed in the trappings of myth or ritual. The Eden of this eternal present that the animal world had known for ages was shattered at least. Through the human mind, time and darkness, good and evil, would enter and possess the world."

-- Loren Eiseley --
from The Immense Journey

I wonder what Loren Eiseley would say about cyberspace: is it a further development of the "invisible world," the universe inside the brain, or is it something entirely new? Since Eiseley frequently maintained that evolution had not stopped, he might well speculate about the effect that life in cyberspace could have on the evolution of the human species in the future. I wish I could ask him.

Russell Hoban: The Lion of Boaz-Jachin and Jachin-Boaz

The opening paragraph:

There were no lions any more. There had been lions once. Sometimes in the shimmer of the heat on the plains the motion of their running still flickered on the dry wind -- tawny, great, and quickly gone. Sometimes the honey-colored moon shivered to the silence of a ghost-roar on the rising air.


Russell Hoban is a difficult writer for me to write about. The reason is simple: he's one of my favorite writers and I find it hard to step back from his works and get beyond expressing simple admiration. "Quirky" is an overused adjective when applied to Hoban's works, but I can't find a better one. Many of his novels deal with rather ordinary people in rather ordinary situations, but there's always something a bit strange or odd floating about. This novel is an excellent example.

Jachin-Boaz is a mapmaker, and a good one. He has a map store which is highly respected by those who want or need maps. On the other hand, his domestic situation is less happy. The fire has gone out of his relationship with his wife, and his son, Boaz-Jachin, best described as a lout, considers himself both omniscient and infallible--there are some young ones like that, I've heard. Boaz-Jachin considers himself superior to his parents and when that opinion is threatened, he resorts to insults and sneers.

For example. Jachin-Boaz has, over the years, created a beautiful map, filled with everything he's learned from travelers and explorers. He will leave the map to his son--his legacy. He shows to map to his son and says that it's the result not only of the long years of his experience but also the lives of many others who have contributed to it. Everything possible has been included in the map. When Boaz-Jachin sees the map, however, he can't admit that, so he asks where the lions are, implying that the map is incomplete. Now, lions used to exist long ago but have long since disappeared around there. Boaz-Jachin just can't admit the value of his father's work.

Several months later, Jachin-Boaz leaves on a trip. This is not unusual for he often does this when doing research on maps, but this time he doesn't return. What is there for him to return to--an indifferent wife and a sneering son. He leaves a note: "I have gone to look for a lion." Boaz-Jachin now discovers that one must work for money, and now he is trapped behind the counter of the map store.

Boaz-Jachin decides that he too will find a lion, but he doesn't have to go far to find one. A three-hour bus trip will take him to a small town outside of which are the ruins of an old palace, and on the walls are images of men and lions and chariots. He goes to the ruin and finds:

Carved in the brownish stone was a lion with two arrows in his spine, leaping up at the king's chariot from behind, biting the tall chariot wheel, dying on the spears of the king and the king's spearmen. The horses galloped on, the beard of the calm-faced king was carefully curled, the king looked straight out over the back of the chariot, over the lion biting the wheel and dying on his spear. With both front paws the lion clung to the turning wheel that pulled him up on to the spears. His teeth were in the wheel, his muzzle was wrinkled back from his teeth, his brows were drawn together in a frown, his eyes were looking straight out from the shadow of his brows. There was no expression on the king's face. He was looking over the lion and beyond him.

I think I've seen this somewhere; at least it seems familiar. This is a link to a page with similar hunting scenes that have been found on the walls of palace ruins: http://tinyurl.com7szfe73.

He creates a copy of the scene and then slowly modifies it. Finally all that is left is the lion: the king, the chariot, the arrows, and spears are gone. It is no longer a defeated and dying lion.

Jachin-Boaz meanwhile has found a home in another city. He is living with Gretel, a young woman who is not indifferent to him. There is no sneering son. He now works in a bookstore, where the knowledge he gained in making maps allows him to recommend books of all sorts to the customers. His only regret now, a slight one, but real, is that there were times when his son wanted to help with the maps, but he would never let him. Perhaps . . .

Now, it's Boaz-Jachin who is restless, for it is the young man who should leave home and have adventures, and instead, he is trapped here in the map store while his father is out having Boaz-Jachin's adventures. Since his mother has now found someone to comfort her in her loss, Boaz-Jachin decides to find his father. After all, Jachin-Boaz has the map, and it's his legacy.

Meanwhile, life has become a bit strange for Jachin-Boaz. He is haunted--by a lion. It's a lion that only he can see. Others sometimes glimpse something indistinct, but only he can see the lion. It stalks him as he goes to and from work. He buys meat and throws it to the lion, hoping to appease it, but after quickly downing the bribe, the lion is back after him, and it's getting closer every day. Once his arm is mauled by the lion, and he has to go for medical treatment.

Where does the lion come from and why is it haunting him? Why can't anyone else see it? It could be Boaz-Jachin's lion, the one that his drawing freed from the spears and the arrows. But how could this happen and why is it after him?

The novel is a split narrative, between Jachin-Boaz and Boaz-Jachin, and their encounters with the lion is the link that joins the father and the son. As is frequently found in Hoban's novels, especially his later ones, the people and the situation are relatively mundane, but there's frequently a bit of magic there that releases them from the ordinary. Whatever the outcome of their adventures, they are changed by them. Perhaps that's Hoban's point: there's always magic in life, one just has to see it.

Overall Recommendation: Looking for a short novel that's well-written and a bit quirky--turn to the first page of The Lion of Boaz-Jachin and Jachin-Boaz.

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: Quatrain LII

This quatrain is part of a series that focuses on the helplessness of humanity. We are all just puppets, moved here and there, by the Puppet Master, whose intentions are unknown to us. Even the sky above us cannot help us for it too is helpless.


First Edition: Quatrain LII

And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop't we live and die,
Lift not thy hands to It for help--for It
Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.



Second Edition: Quatrain LXXVIII

And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop'd we live and die,
Lift not your hands to It for help--for It
As impotently rolls as you or I.



Fifth Edition: Quatrain LXXII

And that inverted Bowl they call the Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop'd we live and die,
Lift not your hands to It for help--for It
As impotently moves as you or I.


FitzGerald made mostly minor changes over the five editions. He substituted "you" for "thou" in the second and fifth editions. Another change occurred in the fifth edition when he replaced "we call" with "they call." I'm not sure why he did this, for it distances somewhat the reader from the quatrain. It's not we who call the Bowl the Sky but they, someone else.

The other change was in the last line when he replaced "Rolls impotently on as Thou or I." with "As impotently rolls as you or I" in the second and fifth editions. FitzGerald then made one more alteration when he substituted "moves" for "rolls" in the fifth edition. "Moves" is vague in comparison to "rolls," and it is a far weaker verb, in my estimation. "Rolls" has an inevitability about it, something unstoppable once started, but where it is going and what started it is unknown, for it too is controlled by the Player. I think FitzGerald should have left it as it was in the first edition.

It's a common image in painting, sculpture, and literature: the defiant shaking fists at the heavens or the supplicant pleading for help from the heavens. The Poet here tells us that either is a waste of time for It has no more power than do we.

Langston Hughes: Feb. 1, 1902--May 22, 1967

Some short early poems by Langston Hughes.


Cabaret

Does a jazz band ever sob?
They say a jazz band's gay.
Yet as the vulgar dancers whirled
And the wan night wore away,
One said she heard the jazz band sob
When the little dawn was grey.


The night is over, and the fantasy world created by music must retreat before the harsh reality of the coming day. What do the jazz players face during the day that elicits a sob before they gather again to enter that fantasy world?

"vulgar dancers"-- Does he mean "vulgar" in the modern sense of coarse, crude, or uncouth, or in the earlier sense of common or ordinary?



Winter Moon

How thin and sharp is the moon tonight!
How thin and sharp and ghostly white
Is the slim curved crook of the moon tonight!

A scythe? -- the implement frequently depicted as being carried by Death, the Grim Reaper.




Dream Variations

To fling my arms wide
In some place of the sun,
To whirl and to dance
Till the white day is done.
Then rest at cool evening
Beneath a tall tree
While night comes on gently,
Dark like me--
That is my dream!

To fling my arms wide
In the face of the sun,
Dance! Whirl! Whirl!
Till the quick day is done.
Rest at pale evening . . .
A tall slim tree . . .
Night coming tenderly
Black like me.


the white day of activity, furious and frenzied, and the dark night of rest and tenderness.
But--both are only dreams.

Combination Plate 20

Spoiler Warning: I will reveal important plot elements and endings if necessary in the discussion.



Moon: an SF film

Ever Since The World Ended: an SF film

Geoff Ryman: Air, an SF novel

Peter Temple: Truth, a mystery

The Mutant Chronicles: an SF? horror? slasher film



Villains in earlier SF films and stories tended to be clumped into well-defined categories: bad governments, alien invaders, mad scientists, mutated critters of all sorts (grasshoppers, ants, rabbits. . .), and the hazards of space travel. Over the years some popular types have dropped out and new ones have taken their place. For example, aliens are no longer universally viewed as evil, as demonstrated by the recent film Avatar, which also provides an example of a new type of villain--the corporation. Corporations are now portrayed as evil, or at best, insensitive to the effects they have either on beings or the environment. In fact, I can't think of a recent film or story that has a benevolent corporation. There may be some, but as I haven't read every story or seen every film, I may have missed it.

-------------------------



Moon, an SF film

Sam Bell has the perfect job for a hermit, or at least a loner. He has signed a three-year contract with a mining company to monitor an automated computer- run mining installation. He will be the only human on the site, and, moreover, the mining site is on the far side of the moon. His only company has been Gerty (voice of Kevin Spacey), the computer whose job it is to run the mining operation and also to monitor Sam Bell. Sam's only contact with humans has been the occasional TV contact with his wife and daughter and a mining official. Sam's contract is nearing the end of his three years, and he is looking forward to rejoining his family. He's been alone long enough, almost too long perhaps, because he's beginning to hallucinate the presence of others on the installation.

All is still going well, though, until Gerty informs him that one of the harvesters has malfunctioned. Bell decides to take a rover there to see if he can figure out the problem. On the site he has an accident which traps him in the rover, and he is rendered unconscious.

In the next scene we see him back at the station, with no apparent injuries. He decides to go back to the site and attempt to figure out what happened. Once there he discovers another rover and a man in a spacesuit trapped inside, just barely alive.

In the next scene, we are back at the main installation and discover two Sam Bells, which for the sake of clarity, I will designate as Bell1, the first Sam Bell, the one who was injured, and Bell2, the "new" Sam Bell.

The answer, of course, is cloning. Bell2 is a clone of Bell1. However, both argue that they are the real Bell but agree to put that dispute aside for the time being. The real problem is where Bell2 came from. From this point on, the film becomes a mystery as they attempt to solve the riddle of the Bell clones. As you may have guessed by now, the villain in this film is the "evil corporation."

I found it an interesting film, low-key, and what was best, not a single car chase, gun battle, or exploding building throughout. The focus is on the relationship between the two Bells and their struggle to determine just what the real situation is. Certain questions need to be answered: Bell1 is going home shortly--just what will happen to Bell2? If Bell2 is a clone and just recently created (by whom?), how can he be the same age as Bell1?

The questions, eventually, are answered, and unfortunately, recent headlines regarding corporate and also government behavior, suggest that they really would act that way.

My favorite line in the film is also the last line in the film. Bell2 has managed to escape to Earth and has told his story to the UN. A radio talk show host has this comment about Bell2's story: "This guy is either wacko or an illegal immigrant. Either way he should be locked up for good."

I wonder what state the radio host lives in--I think I can guess.


-------------------------


Ever Since The World Ended

This appears to be a low-budget, independent film. One of its most striking features is the lack of special effects. If one mutes the dialogue, one would find it hard to guess that this is a post-holocaust film.

The film is set in the San Francisco Bay area. Approximately seven years have passed since the great plague killed most of the inhabitants, and fewer than 300 people now live in the area. The disease acted so quickly that there was no chance of doing any research leading to identification and perhaps a cure. They do not know where the plague came from--whether it was a naturally evolving plague or perhaps something that escaped from a laboratory or even the result of an attack by an enemy that succeeded all too well. Since it was a disease and not a war, in the conventional sense anyway, there is no destruction, therefore no need for special effects showing any devastation.

The film is an audio-visual record made by a survivor who decided that it was time to document life as it now is after the plague. It's a comfortable, quieter, more peaceful life now. In fact, I got the feeling that many were happy that the plague took place.

To be brief, the cameraman wanders around the area, films the everyday activities of the survivors, and interviews a number of them. Some are teaching the children that survived the plague, while others work to find ways to get around the lack of a central power system--batteries are very important now. Since there was very little destruction, people live in houses just as they did before the plague. Clothing is not a problem yet, so all are dressed as they were before the plague.

There is no real government, just a group of people who meet to discuss and suggest ways of solving problems that arise. One problem that has recently arisen is the return of the arsonist. Shortly after the plague they found him setting fires (he was a firefighter before the plague), in abandoned buildings, at least so far. They forced him to leave the area and warned him not to return.

He has returned, in spite of the warning, and insists that he is cured of his problem and no longer has any desire to set fires. The group is not unanimous about what to do. Some want to give him a chance, while others see him as a threat. The problem is that there is no one who wants to watch him constantly. If he is locked up, who will be the jailer? Who will feed him?

Several of the characters decide that it is now time to try to connect up with other small communities. Five of them, including the cameraman, begin a trek to the nearest community. They expect to be gone a week or so. Several days into the trip, they are fired upon by one or more people, and one of them is wounded. Unlike characters in numerous other films I've seen, these people are not heroes who are determined to carry on, regardless of the risk. Life is too precious. They turn back.

The killing has not stopped.


At times I found the film compelling, mainly because of the format--a documentary. At no time did I get the feeling that I had seen something like this before. Since there really was no plot, no story line, I never could predict what was coming next. It is what it was supposed to be- a rather amateurish attempt to document on film the way people lived now, some seven years after the plague.

At the same time, this is also an handicap, for though it was compelling--at times-- I was only slightly involved at other times, but enough so that I was interested and never considered giving up on it. Since there were no real overarching storyline and dominant characters to follow, there really was nothing there for me to get deeply involved in.

For example, the only two incidents I remember are those which involved the arsonist who had returned and the failed exploratory expedition. Both had drama and a specific issue to be resolved. Both are resolved--sadly. I remember little about the rest of the film.

Recommended for those who are interested in post-holocaust films and would like to see an atypical treatment, something without scenes of destruction, mutants, zombies, etc.

-------------------------


Geoff Ryman: Air, an SF novel of the near future

This has to be one of the most interesting SF novels I've read recently. The basic idea is simple. A means of transmitting information has been developed that will allow all humans to connect with, well, let's call it the Internet for want of a better term, without the need of any physical equipment. Instead of turning on one's PC, laptop, or other electronic device, all one has to do is think about connecting up. Once connected, the individual simply thinks about various actions instead off have to mess around with a keyboard or mouse. If wanted, I guess one could simply visualize a mouse or keyboard and interact that way.

The good side is that it is free and accessible to everyone. It's in the air. And, that's also the bad side; people do not have a choice. All, including the most isolated villagers sitting high atop a mountain or deep within a swamp or desert are hooked in--involuntarily. It wasn't clear, but I think that those who do not make an effort to hook up will not be affected in any way. It just won't be there for them. Of course, there really haven't been any long-term study made of the effects of being immersed in Air, nobody really knows what the effects will be--socially, culturally, or physically--in a few decades.

There are two slightly different formats to this process. The United Nations elected to install Air as its choice, therefore blocking the other format, which was called Gates. Gates is the format owned by a large software company (you can guess which one). The UN decided to get involved because it thought that having a political entity control a process that affected every human on the planet would be preferable to a corporation having that control.

Ryman focuses on a small isolated village in a country in Central Asia. The inhabitants are a mix of Chinese Buddhists who fled from communism decades ago, Moslems, Hindus, and indigenous peoples. They are poor, but they have managed to survive for centuries. There is only one TV set in the village, owned by one of the wealthier families. They have set the TV up so that in the evening, anyone who wishes can stop by and watch. Shortly afterwards, another wealthy family suddenly decides to get a TV, the latest and more up-to-date, as they point out, and lets it be known that visitors are welcome to stop by.

The main character is Chung Mae, a Chinese woman who has become the style leader or fashion expert for the women in the village. She learns of the project and fears for what it means to her village and their culture. She adopts the old adage--know thy enemy--thinking that learning about it will help her to fight it and thereby maintain their way of life. Of course, the ending at this point is predictable.

One example of the very predictable outcome is the episode of the collars. In her village, people who are involved in a significant event or do something significant get together, decide on a pattern, and weave a collar that is distinct from all others. It is their sign that they were involved in this event and are proud of it. Chung Mae in her interactions on the Net finds there is a great market for this type of apparel at this time. Her employees, she has a small company by this time, make up the collars and send them off to their distributor in New York. Chung Mae doesn't realize what she has done. She has taken this item of significance to the people of her village and turned it into a global accessory, worn by people to whom it is merely a fashion statement.

What will the future be like? I think Chung Mae's infant is an example. Born at the end of the novel, the infant has suffered severe burns and loss of all senses--vision, smell, hearing, touch. . .
Chung Mae says to her child, "My little future. You are blind, but you will not need to see, for we can all see for you, and sights and sounds will pass through to you from us. You have no hands, but you will not need hands, for your mind will control the machines, and they will be as\ hqnds. Your ears also burned away, but you will hear jmore in one hour than we heard in all of our lifetimes."

Without physical senses, how can the child form a sense of a separate identity?

I find this terrifying.

The last words of the novel: " . . . all of them turned and walked together into the future."

The characters walk off at the end into a bright future.

Perhaps . . .

Ryman, I believe, has constructed an allegory, with Air being the all-pervasive destructive influence of Western technological culture on local cultures and mores. I found this disturbing, but the others in the SF discussion group that selected Air disagreed. I got the feeling I was perceived as being a Luddite, one against progress. After all, I was one of the few there that didn't have a mobile phone. Well, perhaps I am. But, I still have a choice. The people in Ryman's novel didn't.

To sum up, perhaps Ryman is saying that change is inevitable, that for every gain there will be a loss, that the best one can do is to work with it, that one should do one's utmost to control it and not be controlled by it.

It's an intriguing story and one that I would recommend.

-------------------------

Peter Temple, Truth
Mystery type: Police Procedural
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Time: Contemporary


It's an ironic title for at the end I wasn't sure I had found the truth. It's my first novel by Temple, so I don't know whether this writing style is typical of him. It takes a while to get into the flow for it could be described as telegraphese with its short sentences, staccato flow, and missing subjects. Several of the members of the discussion group stopped reading because of the style. One of the members called it hyper-machismo.

This is the first in a series of novels featuring the cases of John Villani, head of the homicide squad in Melbourne, Australia. Villani's problems aren't limited to solving murders, for his marriage is falling apart and his daughter is hooked on drugs. At one point, his daughter is arrested, and he decides to let her think about it overnight in jail, rather than get her out that night. His wife doesn't agree.

Other obstacles are corrupt superiors in his own department, corrupt politicians, and corrupt business leaders. He himself is not exactly pure, as one might guess from his last name--Villani. If one switches the last two letters in his name, it becomes Villain--interesting coincidence, if that is what it is. Coincidence or not, I got the same feeling from reading this novel as I did from reading several of Ian Rankin's "Rebus" stories. Corruption is in the air.

Overall Reaction: The plotting is complex, and several of the characters, including Villani, are finely drawn. If you are up for a really gritty and grubby police procedural and are willing to work a bit with the style, it's worth reading. But, don't expect to settle back and get comfortable while reading it. Its staccato style put me on edge, and it was more like starts and stops than a smooth flow.

Having said this, I would still say--take a look at it. It is different.

-------------------------


The Mutant Chronicles: a film.

Actually, I think it's a misnamed film; if one considers the precise meaning of mutant, then these aren't mutants. Just what they are--I'll let you decide, if you ever watch this film.


The world is divided among four corporate states which are permanently at war with one another (see George Orwell's 1984, even though he had only three states):

1. Capitol (North America perhaps),
2. Bauhaus (Central Europe?),
3. Imperial (???), and
4. Mishima (Asia?--probably a reference to the right-wing Japanese novelist Yukio Mishima, who committed suicide when he couldn't persuade the Japanese army to overthrow the government and restore the Emperor as ruler).

The film opens on a battlefield in the trenches with the Capitol army. The enemy this time is BAuhaus. The two armies have constructed trenches that stretch over many miles. Suddenly, the Bauhaus artillery opens with a sustained barrage, a sure sign of an impending attack. Then the barrage lifts, and the Bauhaus army goes over the top and charges into withering fire in the no-man's land between the two armies. It appears the Capitol lines will hold until the Bauhaus troops begin lobbing canisters of poison gas into the Capitol trenches (see World War I, for more information).

In the midst of the hand-to-hand struggle, a third force intervenes and slaughters both sides. We now switch to a conference room where the representatives of the four states are meeting. There they learn from a representative (played by Ron Perlman) of a small and unknown religious order (we know it's a religious order because he's wearing monk's robes and a hood) of the nature of the threat.

Thousands of years ago, a space ship landed carrying a machine. The machine could turn humans into slaves to do its bidding. After a prolonged struggle, the machine was finally isolated and sealed away in an underground cavern. The religious order has been tasked with keeping watch over the machine for lo these many thousands of years. Now, the machine has breached the walls confining it and is again attempting to master the human race. (I'll bet that some of this sounds vaguely familiar.)

The conference comes up with two solutions. Build space craft to take them to Mars as soon as possible. Even though they can't build enough for the entire population, there will be enough room for the leaders and the powerful and rich elite, and possibly a few of the common folk.

The second solution is to recruit a small group of warriors and hope that they might be able to get to the machine and destroy it (see The Dirty Dozen and numerous other films). The film follows predictably from this point.

One little twist is that though a single shot, even to the head, won't stop the critters from coming, a sword can and will kill them. So, this allows for a considerable amount of blood splattering and gushing as the critters are armed only with a long knife, so now there's a reason for both sides to hack away at each other.

While watching the machine attempt to convert a human, I couldn't help but remember a somewhat similar scene in Star Trek: The Next Generation, as Captain Picard is turned into a Borg. And, the critters remind me of zombies, even though a bit more agile, but certainly not any prettier--zomborgs? borbies? I don't know, but I certainly don't consider them mutants.

The atmosphere, the setting, is as dark and grim as any I've seen, and very well done. I didn't spot a zipper anywhere.

At the end, Mitch (the leader of the squad) is standing on the top of the underground tower while everything crashes down around him. Suddenly, the quiet but urgent voice of Obi-Wan Kanobi is heard: "Use the Force, Luke, use the Force." I couldn't believe this, so I froze the film, backed it up a bit, and replayed it. What was really said? It was the voice of Ron Perlman, who apparently wasn't dead, at least not yet, saying: "Jump, Mitch, trust me, jump."

The last scene of the film? Nothing after a hard day of hacking and chopping and slicing tastes quite as good as a cigarette.

Recommendation: Lots of fun, best viewed with others of like minds and with plenty of one's favorite mood enhancer.

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: Quatrain LI

Quatrain LI is one of my favorites, and FitzGerald must have been satisfied with it also.


First Edition: Quatrain LI

The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.



Second Edition: Quatrain LXXVI

The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.



Fifth Edition: Quatrain LXXI

The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.


As far as I can see, FitzGerald made only two changes--the substitution of the more prosaic "your" in the second and fourth lines in the later editions, for the more poetic "thy." Being somewhat perverse in these matters, I prefer "thy" for it seems, at least to me, to flow much more smoothly: "thy tears" as opposed to "your tears."

I think the reference to the "Moving Finger" that "writes" comes from The Old Testament, specifically the Book of Daniel, 5: 1-4. This is the account of Belshazzar's Feast in which sacred vessels taken from Solomon's Temple were being used in rituals to the Babylonian gods. A hand appears and writes Mene, Mene, Teqel, Upharsin on the wall, a foretelling of the approaching fall of the Babylonian empire.

It relates, therefore, back to the previous quatrains which point out that we have no control over our fate or destiny, for it is determined by powers outside our ken and there's nothing we can do to prevent or even modify it.

This is part of what I see as an element of predestination in The Rubaiyat. I haven't read any of the other translations so I can't say whether this is present in Khayyam's quatrains or is something introduced by FitzGerald.

2012: New Year's Resolution, Reading List, and Reading Challenges

Last year I created a combined New Year's Resolution, Reading List, and Reading Challenges for myself. It was simply to read two books a month from my TBR bookcase, a total of 24 for the year. The Bad News is that I only managed to read 15 of 24 books, not even two-thirds of my goal. The Good News is that I managed to read 15 of 24 books, therefore removing 15 books from the bookcase. Consequently, I have decided to try again this year, hoping to either make my goal or even exceed it.

Overall it was a good year. Following is a partial list of the books I did read and would recommend.


Stella Gibbons: Cold Comfort Farm
Hermann Hesse: Siddhartha
Kim Stanley Robinson: The Wild Shore
Hermann Hesse: Steppenwolf
Loren Eiseley: The Immense Journey
Fred Vargas: Seeking Whom He May Devour
Joseph Conrad: Victory
Mikhail Bulgakov: Heart of a Dog
Joseph Wood Krutch: Baja California and the Geography of HopeKS Robinson: The Gold Coast
Thomas Mann: The Transposed Heads
Russell Hoban: The Lion of Boaz-Jachim and Jachim-Boaz
Chinua Achebe: Things Fall Apart
Bruce Stolbov: Last Fall
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn: We Never Make Mistakes
Karin Fossum: The Indian Bride or Calling Out for You
Ken Grimwood: Replay
China Mieville: Kraken
Dan Simmons: Hyperion
Jack London: The Sea-Wolf
Rudyard Kipling: Kim
Arthur Conan Doyle: The Hound of the Baskervilles
Ingrid Black: Circle of the Dead
Lewis Carroll: Alice in Wonderland
Philip Jose Farmer: To Your Scattered Bodies Go
Michael Gregorio: A Visible Darkness
Arnaldur Indridason: Silence of the Grave
P. D. James: Death Comes to Pemberley
Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching
Eliot Pattison: The Lord of Death
Kim Stanley Robinson: 40 Signs of Rain
Ben Sanders: The Fallen
C. J. Sansom: Heartstone
John Scalzi: Android's Dream
Manil Suri: Death of Vishnu