From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom
THE MT VOID
04/10/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 41, Whole Number 2427
Editor: Evelyn Leeper,
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
All 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
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
The 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:
Is Pluto a Planet? (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Ray Harryhausen Films (Part 9) (ONE MILLION YEARS B.C.)
(film comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
THERE IS NO ANTIMEMETIC DIVISION by qntm (Sam Hughes)
(book review by Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Second Time Books (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
STORIES YOU NEVER HEARD OF (letter of comment by Hal Heydt)
This Week's Reading (Federalist No. 10) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Is Pluto a Planet? (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
[And now for a break from film reviews.]
Before we can answer this, we obviously have to define what we
mean by "planet".
But before we do this, let me answer the questions "what is a
kosher bird?" and "what is a reptile?"
Or try to.
When it comes to land animals or marine animals, the question of
the kosher status of an animal is rule-based. If a land animal
chews a cud and has cloven hooves it is kosher, otherwise not. If
a marine animal has both scales and fins, it is kosher, otherwise
not.
But for birds, it is different. Here the definition is list-based,
or enumerative. If the bird is on the list of twenty-four
non-kosher birds in Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18,
it is not kosher, otherwise (theoretically) it is kosher. But
since we don't really know what all the Hebrew names for the
species map to in term of current species names, we can never
really be sure.
The Mishnah attempts to turn this list into a set of rules. Birds
of prey are not kosher. (Birds of prey use their claws to catch
their prey, so chickens pecking at worms are not birds of prey.)
Birds with an "extra" toe, a crop, or a gizzard that can be peeled
are not kosher.
There are further rules and descriptions, and it appears that one
goal of these rules is to make sure all the "traditionally" kosher
birds stay kosher.
(This raises the question of which comes first: the list or the
rules. With birds, the rules are designed to match the existing
list. With "language", its definition seems to change so as to
make sure that only humans have "language".)
And now we look at the question "what is a reptile"? The
traditional definition was cold-blooded, egg-laying lung-breathing
animals with dry skin covered with scales or plates.
But then we came to cladistics and also the knowledge that birds
evolved from dinosaurs. So now by some scientific classification
systems, birds are considered reptiles because they are descended
from reptiles. But most people would say that birds are *not*
reptiles, and indeed science has to redefine "reptile" to get
birds into that category. (Actually, the current classification is
of the clade Archosauria, which includes "all living and extinct
relatives of birds and crocodilians such as non-avian dinosaurs,
pterosaurs, phytosaurs, aetosaurs and rauisuchians as well as many
Mesozoic marine reptiles.")
So where does all this leave Pluto? Well, we can define what is a
planet by a list (like the non-kosher birds), or by fixed rules
(like reptiles), or by rules we keep changing (like languages).
It appears that the International Astronomical Union [IAU] is
going with "rules that keep changing." The rules adopted in 2006
were that a planet is in orbit around the Sun, has sufficient mass
to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, and has cleared the neighborhood
around its orbit.
The first requirement ruled out all extra-solar planets; the last
two requirements are ambiguous (the third one even more than the
second). The IAU has a separate definition for extra-solar
planets, which makes one wonder why they can't have a single
definition--if they are going to have one solar system as an
exception to the rules, why not have Pluto an exception within
that solar system?
And I wouldn't be me if I didn't mention Jorge Luis Borges every
chance I get, so let's just say that we want to avoid the type of
categories Borges wrote about in "The Analytical Language of John
Wilkins", in which he speaks of "a Chinese encyclopaedia entitled
'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'. In its remote pages it
is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the
emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f)
fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present
classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a
very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken
the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies."
[-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Ray Harryhausen Films (Part 9) (film comments by Evelyn
C. Leeper)
[I misspoke last week; I only did two films that week, so that was
not the last part--this one is.]
ONE MILLION YEARS B.C. (1966): ONE MILLION YEARS B.C. is basically
a remake of the 1940 film ONE MILLION B.C. It starts out with a
narrator saying, "This was a story of long, long ago when the
world was just beginning." Well, no, it wasn't just beginning and
in general this gets prehistory totally wrong. A million years
ago, the only humanoids were Homo erectus and possibly Homo
heidelbergensis, while the film has what are clearly Homo sapiens.
The film also has dinosaurs, which died off about 64 million years
before its purported time, and it mixes Jurassic and Cretaceous
dinosaurs. The various mammals are far too modern; this was the
era of wooly mammoths, sabertooth tigers, and giant ground sloths.
And I don't think there were ever giant spiders or giant sea
turtles as big as these. (Unlike the lizard, the sea turtle is
stop-motion animation, though the combining of actors and creature
effects in a single frame is not nearly as well done as in many of Harryhausen's other films.)
Needless to say, eye liner, mascara, and perfectly coiffed hair
are also wildly inaccurate.
Actually, given the spareness of the population the narrator
claims, the close proximity of two tribes, one completely
dark-haired and one completely blond is evolutionarily unlikely.
There are a lot of non-stop-motion creatures: a warthog-like
creature probably created by putting prosthetics on an actual
warthog, a giant lizard created by using a regular lizard and
split screen projection, and so on.
It is interesting that Harryhausen is often connected with
dinosaurs, yet only one of the dozen films he made with Charles
Schneer (VALLEY OF GWANGI) had dinosaurs; yet three of the five
films he made elsewhere had them.
Released theatrically 21 February 1967.
Film Credits:
<
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/reference>
What others are saying:
<
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/one_million_years_bc>
[-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THERE IS NO ANTIMEMETIC DIVISION by qntm (Sam Hughes) (book
review by Paul S. R. Chisholm)
The secret Unknown Organization protects humanity from dangerous
artifacts, entities, and phenomena. That includes antimemetics,
which destroy memories. UO's Antimemetic Division works to contain
these Unknowns. Unfortunately, the Unknowns destroy memories and
even the records of the division and its members. As far as the
Organization knows, there is no Antimemetic Division.
How can you fight an enemy you can't remember?
This was one of the three books Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark
recommended on a recent podcast interview with Ezra Klein. (I
couldn't remember who the interview subject was. I even had
trouble finding a reference to it. Insert joke here. The other two
were Ursula K. LeGuin's A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA and THE TRUE BELIEVER
by Eric Hoffer.) The novel was inspired by the wiki for the SCP
Foundation, a fictional organization that creates Special
Containment Procedures for "anomalies." The SCP wiki is
delightfully weird, and the novel first appeared on that site. The
author, "qntm" ("quantum," a.k.a. Sam Hughes) is a talented
writer. He makes the story flow. The first chapter grabbed my
attention and wouldln't let go.
The novel naturally devolves--evolves?--into horror. That's
unsurprising. The most terrifying diagnosis one can get, worse
than cancer, is dementia. It promises the destruction of memory
(and eventually cognition).
A little more than halfway through the book, the narrators'
perception of reality shifts radically from the reader's, and from
the reality described in the epilogue. I don't understand the
ending. It's as if the author realized there was no way to finish
the story and then threw words at it.
Great concept, good execution, disappointing finale. I can't
recommend this book, but I don't recommend against it. [-psrc]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Second Time Books (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I have mentioned Second Time Books (114 Creek Rd, Mt Laurel
Township, NJ; <
https://www.facebook.com/SecondTimeBooks/>) many
times in my book column, but I will put this as a regular article.
Second Time Books has been featured on "My Family Travels":
<
https://myfamilytravels.com/this-stunning-new-jersey-bookstore-is- home-to-used-books-that-are-treated-like-gold/>
and picked up on Facebook by "Explore New Jersey":
<
https://www.facebook.com/story.php? story_fbid=122120635683208625&id=61586258759255>
I cannot say enough good about this store. I just wish it were
closer to me--but it's probably good that it isn't. :-) Tell
Brandon I sent you. [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: STORIES YOU NEVER HEARD OF (letter of comment by Hal Heydt)
In response to Joe Karpierz's comments on RABBIT TEST AND OTHER
STORIES in the 04/03/26 issue of the MT VOID, Hal Heydt writes:
[Joe Karpierz wrote,] "Those readers who are familiar with Mills'
work will nod their head sagely when I say that she does not limit
herself to one type of story, one genre, one theme, one anything.
You might want to take a look at Dorothy's collection STORIES YOU
NEVER HEARD OF (<
https://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/>). It
Dorothy's various stories that either didn't total enough for
their own collection (e.g. THE WITCH OF SYRACUSE, the collected
Cynthia stories), or wouldn't fit anywhere else. [-hh]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
The "Classical Stuff You Should Know" podcast did an episode on
The Federalist paper #10, and not surprisingly, I have comments:
Federalist No. 10, "The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a
Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection" by James
Madison begins, "Among the numerous advantages promised by a
well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately
developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of
faction."
He goes on to say, however, that factionalism still existed (in
1787, when this was written).
Madison defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether
amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united
and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest,
adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community."
He goes on to say, "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs
of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by
controlling its effects." The first, he says, is undesirable; the
second, impossible.
"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the
various and unequal distribution of property. ... The regulation
of [the] various and interfering interests [that arise form this]
forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the
spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary
operations of the government.
Madison notes, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause,
because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not
improbably, corrupt his integrity." I will add that this is why
Madison would be appalled at Trump suing his own Department of
Justice (and when I say "own", I mean he owns it) for any sum of
money, let alone $10 billion.
(It turns out, that the $10 billion lawsuit over a leak of his tax
returns has a couple of flaws. First, the statute of limitations
seems to have expired. And second, the leak took place in 2019,
when Trump was President, and hence in charge. So he's actually
trying to collect damages for something he was responsible for
("The buck stops here"--Harry Truman).)
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to
adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient
to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at
the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at
all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations,
which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one
party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good
of the whole."
Well, Madison nailed it there.
But then he goes on to say that in a pure democracy, a faction
that is the majority can ride roughshod over the minority. But a
republic, "by which [he means] a government in which the scheme of representation takes place ... promises the cure for which we are
seeking. ... The two great points of difference between a
democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the
government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected
by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater
sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The
effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and
enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a
chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true
interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of
justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or
partial considerations."
He seems to think this wouldn't happen, or wouldn't happen as
often, in a large republic: "as each representative will be chosen
by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small
republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to
practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too
often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free,
will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most
attractive merit and the most diffusive and established
characters."
We've seen how (in)accurate that is.
He goes on to say, "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a
flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread
a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect
may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the
Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire
face of it must secure the national councils against any danger
from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of
debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other
improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole
body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same
proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular
county or district, than an entire State."
Okay, we now have religious sects trying to control the schools
and other functions of government, and paper money, and the
forgiveness of student loans, so I think we can say Madison is
zero for three here.
H. L. Mencken may have been more perceptive when he said, "No one
in this world, so far as I know--and I have researched the records
for years, and employed agents to help me--has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain
people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby." [-ecl]
===================================================================
Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.
--Irving Caesar
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2