• MT VOID, 03/04/22 -- Vol. 40, No. 36, Whole Number 2213

    From evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 6 07:00:49 2022
    THE MT VOID
    Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
    03/04/22 -- Vol. 40, No. 36, Whole Number 2213

    Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
    Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
    Sending Address: 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 eleeper@optonline.net
    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:
    Mini Reviews, Part 10 (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO, TITANE,
    LITTLE FISH) (film reviews by Mark R. Leeper
    and Evelyn C. Leeper)
    MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS (letter of comment by Paul Dormer)
    FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS (letter of comment by Sam Long)
    THE STRANGE CASE OF DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE
    (letters of comment by Gary McGath,
    Dorothy J. Heydt, and Peter Trei)
    THE DISPOSSESSED and First Person Pronouns
    (letter of comment by Jim Susky)
    This Week's Reading (book sales) (book comments
    by Evelyn C. Leeper)

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

    TOPIC: Mini Reviews, Part 10 (film reviews by Mark R. Leeper and
    Evelyn C. Leeper)

    Here is the tenth batch of mini-reviews, all films of the fantastic.

    LAST NIGHT IN SOHO: LAST NIGHT IN SOHO looks back at the 1960s
    through the dreams--often nightmares--of Ellie, a would-be fashion
    designer (played by Thomasin McKenzie), in the present-day. The
    extensive use of 1960s songs gives even the present it a 1960s
    atmosphere; luckily the use of filters and different film stock
    helps fix the time periods of the various scenes. Kudos to the set
    designer for the 1960s look. Ellie dreams about Sandie, a would-be
    singer in the 1960s (played by Anya Taylor-Joy); Sandie can see
    multiple possible futures for herself; most have a downside.
    (Ellie's dreams back to the 1960s give this a "Midnight in Paris"
    vibe.) LAST NIGHT IN SOHO also features Diana Rigg in her last
    film role, as well as Terence Stamp and Rita Tushingham in
    supporting roles. This is a surprising film with enough ideas for
    two films.

    Released theatrically 10/29/21. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4), or 9/10.

    Film Credits:
    <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9639470/reference>

    What others are saying:
    <https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_night_in_soho>

    TITANE: TITANE is a film of "body horror", reminding one of much of
    David Cronenberg's works, but particularly VIDEODROME. Alexia
    (played by Agatha Rousselle) has to take great pains to disguise
    themself beyond what the viewer would expect, as the film examines
    not just questions of prosthetics and human-machine interactions,
    but also of gender as well. This is one of the more original
    fugitive stories. After seeing it, I said that it seemed ideal for
    the "Midnight Madness" track of the Toronto International Film
    Festival; upon checking, I discovered it was the closing film in
    that track this year. That position is something of an honor.

    Released theatrically 10/01/21; available on Amazon Prime. Rating:
    +1 (-4 to 4) or 6/10.

    Film Credits:
    <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10944760/reference>

    What others are saying:
    <https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/titane>

    LITTLE FISH: LITTLE FISH is a near-future science fiction story
    about a memory loss virus. However, the societal implications are
    only somewhat touched on: Emma, the narrator, talks about a man who
    forgot how to steer his boat, and a pilot that forgot how to fly,
    and "the woman in the marathon who forgot to stop running." (That
    last one seems like a totally different sort of forgetting that
    anything else in the film.) We also see more dogs in the pound
    where Emma works, apparently because more people forget to close
    their gates. People start to get "memory tattoos", with names, or
    phone numbers, or addresses. (They cannot just write themselves
    notes, because they don't remember to look at a notebook in their
    pocket, or as Jude asks, "How am I going to know I forgot?") There
    are also obvious parallels on the international level to COVID-19
    situation. But the film is primarily a story of a couple, one of
    whom is starting to show symptoms of the virus. The wife Emma
    (played by Olivia Cooke) is a veterinarian; the husband Jude
    (played by Jack O'Connell) is a photographer (ironic, given that
    the virus wipes out the sorts of memories he makes permanent in his occupation). This has echoes of MEMENTO and of a science fiction
    story in which there are the equivalent of memory tattoos. (The
    title may refer to Dora in FINDING NEMO, or possibly to the speech
    about goldfish's memory in HEAR MY SONG.)

    Released theatrically 02/05/21; available on DVD and various
    streaming services. Rating: +2 (-4 to +4), or 7/10.

    Film Credits:
    <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9735470/reference>

    What others are saying:
    <https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/little_fish_2021>

    [-mrl/ecl]

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

    TOPIC: MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS (letter of comment by Paul Dormer)

    In response to Evelyn's comments on MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS in the
    02/25/22 issue of the MT VOID, Paul Dormer writes:

    Amusing fact. About the time [MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS] came out, I
    went on holiday to Munich. The German title was "Lady Henderson
    prasentiert" not Frau Henderson which would be how I'd translate it
    (not that I have much German). [-pd]

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

    TOPIC: FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS (letter of comment by Sam Long)

    In response to Evelyn's comments on FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS in the
    02/25/22 issue of the MT VOID, Sam Long writes:

    Ref. the mention of the film FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS...my wife and
    I enjoyed the film very much: she's trained as an opera singer, and
    I'm into music too; we both knew the "music" of FFJ from decades
    ago. The film was on locally here, so we went to see it. We were
    the only people in the theater for that showing--which was fine: we
    could laugh and talk without bothering anyone else. As always,
    Meryl was first-class...and so were the other actors, especially
    Simon Helberg, the guy who played Cosme McMoon, Florence's
    accompanist, and Hugh Grant, who played Florence's husband. [-sl]

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

    TOPIC: THE STRANGE CASE OF DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE (letters of
    comment by Gary McGath, Dorothy J. Heydt, and Peter Trei)

    In response to Mark's comments on THE STRANGE CASE OF DR JEKYLL AND
    MR HYDE in the 02/25/22 issue of the MT VOID, Gary McGath writes:

    I like the 1920 version. John Barrymore did the transformation
    without makeup and without a cut, using just facial expressions and
    body language.

    In the original story, the identity of Jekyll and Hyde was the
    shock ending. I don't think any movie has ever done it that way.
    Today it would fail to surprise anyone. [-gmg]

    Dorothy J. Heydt disputes:

    Without makeup or a cut on his face. There's both on the closeup
    of his hand. Hardly necessary. [-djh]

    Peter Trei adds:

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8i0U3nUi8E>

    [-pt]

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

    TOPIC: THE DISPOSSESSED and First Person Pronouns (letter of
    comment by Jim Susky)

    In response to Evelyn's comments on THE DISPOSSESSED in the
    02/25/22 issue of the MT VOID, Jim Susky writes:

    In MT VOID on Friday Evelyn commented on LeGuin's THE DISPOSSESSED,
    (which I gather builds on her THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS??). Evelyn
    surmised:

    "why would Pravic--an invented language--even have the words "my",
    "mine", and so on?"

    Rene Descartes was not covered in the survey philosophy courses I
    took for fun and credit (and blessed relief from STEM courses). I
    regret that my own poor self-education also neglected Monsieur
    Descartes' writing. Still, it seems that first-person pronouns
    (and possessive ones) would be fundamental for sentient beings.

    Lest this seem too serious, I recall that in 2016 my mother's alma
    mater (mid-50s grad school)--the University of Michigan called for
    students to (optionally) login to "Wolverine Access" and state his/her/their/______ preferred pronoun.

    Such pronouns were to be printed on class rosters and used by
    lecturers.

    Grant Strobl "made the news" when he entered his preference as "His
    Majesty". A little reflection shows this to be
    ungrammatical--surely, in a classroom setting that should be the
    second-person *Your* Majesty?

    By now, with endless usages, I am no longer confused about it, but
    synapses involuntarily fire when I see plural pronouns written and
    spoken with singular subjects (objects?)--which is to say, that
    sort of ungrammatical use abounds in 2022. [-js]

    Evelyn responds:

    Other than both taking place in LeGuin's Hainish universe, there is
    no connection between THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS and THE
    DISPOSSESSED.

    There is ample historical evidence for the use of the "plural"
    pronouns as indefinite singulars (e.g., Jane Austen). For that
    matter, "you" used to refer to only the plural, and "thee" and
    "thou" were the singular. There was also a ruckus over the change
    to "you" as a singular.

    And while generations of English teachers insisted (and maybe still
    insist, AFAIK) that "everyone" et al are singular and hence should
    take singular pronouns, I doubt that any of that impressive
    assemblage would accept the correctness of the sentence "Everyone I
    knew was there, and he had a good time." [-ecl]

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

    TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

    Paraphrasing Chris Isaak's song, I did a bad, bad thing. Well, not
    *that* bad. by most standards.

    About this time each year (at least B.C.), I would write about my
    forays to various annual book sales. But we are trying to
    downsize, albeit slowly. So for example, if I went to Philcon
    (back in the days when I went to Philcon) with four bags to sell at
    the bookstore and two bags for the freebie table, and came back
    with only three bags of books *from* the freebie table, that was a
    win.

    Other than Second Time Books (which I used to visit three times a
    year, but have been only once in the last two years), there are no
    decent used bookstores around here, so my buying was/is limited to
    library sales (ongoing and annual) and the annual Bryn Mawr book
    sale. But of course, none of my libraries has had annual sales for
    two years, and even the on-going sales were closed most of the time.

    Well, after no annual sales for two years, the Old Bridge Friends
    of the Library decided they needed to clear out a lot of books and
    DVDs. So they set up a $5-a-bag sale, with full-sized paper
    grocery bags. And, yes, it even included DVDs.

    I needed to go in to pick up a book for our discussion group, and
    saw this. So, okay, I went a little crazy. I filled a bag with
    books and when I brought it to the desk, I asked, "The sale doesn't
    include DVDs, does it?" (because you can put a *lot* of DVDs in a
    bag). The librarian said that it included everything, DVDs and CDs
    as well as books. So what could I do? I went back and filled a
    bag with DVDs.

    In the end, for $10 I got 25 books (including two coffee table
    books of space photography and a batch of Spanish-language classics
    for my niece), and 47 DVDs (including three slipcased sets, so call
    it a round 50). I knew we already had a half-dozen or so of the
    DVDs, but they seemed like ones I could re-sell.

    The good news of all this is I may have satisfied my craving for
    going to the Bryn Mawr book sale and/or Second Time Books, at least
    for a while.

    [After I wrote that I went back to the library to return some books
    I had borrowed, and got another bag of DVDs. The librarian was
    embarrassingly grateful for my taking them, wanted to make sure I
    had filled the bag to the top, and said they'd be putting out more
    soon.]

    [-ecl]

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

    Mark Leeper
    mleeper@optonline.net


    All our lives we are putting pennies--our most golden
    pennies--into penny-in-the-slot machines that are
    almost always empty.
    --Logan Pearsall Smith

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary McGath@21:1/5 to eleeper@optonline.net on Sun Mar 6 10:36:38 2022
    On 3/6/22 10:00 AM, eleeper@optonline.net wrote:
    There is ample historical evidence for the use of the "plural"
    pronouns as indefinite singulars (e.g., Jane Austen). For that
    matter, "you" used to refer to only the plural, and "thee" and
    "thou" were the singular. There was also a ruckus over the change
    to "you" as a singular.

    More precisely, "you" was used as more respectful, formal pronoun than
    "thou," analogous to the "tu/vous" distinction in French and "du/Sie" in German. This seems to have arisen in late Middle or early Modern
    English. While I don't know Old English, it appears that it made a
    consistent distinction between single and plural second person,
    regardless of social relationships.

    The Quakers pushed for the abolition of social distinctions in pronouns
    by using "thou" and "thee" for everyone. The language accomplished the
    same thing by going in the opposite direction, with "you" for everyone.
    The accusative "ye" disappeared around the same time, further
    simplifying the language.

    Perhaps because of the King James Bible, the use of "thou" for God hung
    on after other uses of the pronoun became rare, giving the impression
    it's a more formal pronoun, when the reverse was originally true.

    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Dormer@21:1/5 to evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com on Sun Mar 6 16:06:00 2022
    In article <fbd6b057-4379-45b5-ac99-788981bbb193n@googlegroups.com>, evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com () wrote:


    There is ample historical evidence for the use of the "plural"
    pronouns as indefinite singulars (e.g., Jane Austen). For that
    matter, "you" used to refer to only the plural, and "thee" and
    "thou" were the singular. There was also a ruckus over the change
    to "you" as a singular.

    I was certainly taught - primary school, north of England, early sixties -
    that they and them were to be used for singular persons of unknown
    gender:

    There's someone at the door.

    Ask them what they want.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Keith F. Lynch@21:1/5 to Gary McGath on Sun Mar 6 15:54:36 2022
    Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
    The accusative "ye" disappeared around the same time, further
    simplifying the language.

    Was there ever really such a word as "ye," or was it just a misreading
    of "the" spelled with a thorn in place of "th"? The letter thorn
    looks a lot like a "y."
    --
    Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
    Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Dormer@21:1/5 to Lynch on Sun Mar 6 17:25:00 2022
    In article <t02lfs$1bf$1@reader1.panix.com>, kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. Lynch) wrote:



    Was there ever really such a word as "ye," or was it just a misreading
    of "the" spelled with a thorn in place of "th"? The letter thorn
    looks a lot like a "y."

    Chambers says there were two different words "ye":

    ye[1] /ye or yi/ (now archaic, dialect or poetic)
    pronoun
    The second person plural (sometimes singular) pronoun
    Cf you. Formerly, eg in the Authorized Version of the English Bible, ye
    was always used as a nominative, and you as a dative or accusative
    Later ye was sometimes used for all these cases
    ORIGIN: ME ye, nominative; your, genitive; you, yow, dative and
    accusative pl, from OE ge, nominative; eower, genitive; eow, dative and accusative

    ye[2] /the, thi or (reflecting the spelling) ye/
    demonstrative adj
    An archaic spelling for ‘the’, arising from printers' use of y for the
    letter thorn, . See Y (n)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary McGath@21:1/5 to Paul Dormer on Sun Mar 6 16:28:17 2022
    On 3/6/22 12:24 PM, Paul Dormer wrote:
    In article <t02lfs$1bf$1@reader1.panix.com>, kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. Lynch) wrote:



    Was there ever really such a word as "ye," or was it just a misreading
    of "the" spelled with a thorn in place of "th"? The letter thorn
    looks a lot like a "y."

    Chambers says there were two different words "ye":

    ye[1] /ye or yi/ (now archaic, dialect or poetic)
    pronoun
    The second person plural (sometimes singular) pronoun
    Cf you. Formerly, eg in the Authorized Version of the English Bible, ye
    was always used as a nominative, and you as a dative or accusative
    Later ye was sometimes used for all these cases
    ORIGIN: ME ye, nominative; your, genitive; you, yow, dative and
    accusative pl, from OE ge, nominative; eower, genitive; eow, dative and accusative

    I got it backwards. As explained there, "ye" is the nominative and "you"
    the dative or accusative, which are rarely distinguished in modern English.

    "Ye" survives in some expressions, such as "Hear ye, hear ye."

    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Trei@21:1/5 to Gary McGath on Sun Mar 6 15:29:32 2022
    On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 4:28:21 PM UTC-5, Gary McGath wrote:
    On 3/6/22 12:24 PM, Paul Dormer wrote:
    In article <t02lfs$1bf$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
    Lynch) wrote:



    Was there ever really such a word as "ye," or was it just a misreading
    of "the" spelled with a thorn in place of "th"? The letter thorn
    looks a lot like a "y."

    Chambers says there were two different words "ye":

    ye[1] /ye or yi/ (now archaic, dialect or poetic)
    pronoun
    The second person plural (sometimes singular) pronoun
    Cf you. Formerly, eg in the Authorized Version of the English Bible, ye
    was always used as a nominative, and you as a dative or accusative
    Later ye was sometimes used for all these cases
    ORIGIN: ME ye, nominative; your, genitive; you, yow, dative and
    accusative pl, from OE ge, nominative; eower, genitive; eow, dative and accusative
    I got it backwards. As explained there, "ye" is the nominative and "you"
    the dative or accusative, which are rarely distinguished in modern English.

    "Ye" survives in some expressions, such as "Hear ye, hear ye."

    So, it's like 'youse' , or 'you all'?

    Pt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steve Coltrin@21:1/5 to Paul Dormer on Mon Mar 7 09:55:39 2022
    begin fnord
    prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) writes:

    I was certainly taught - primary school, north of England, early sixties - that they and them were to be used for singular persons of unknown
    gender:

    There's someone at the door.

    Ask them what they want.

    That's unremarkable in my experience too.

    A thing I've noticed I do is use singular they for persons of known (to
    me) presenting gender when they're highly distal to the person I'm
    talking to.

    --
    Steve Coltrin spcoltri@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
    "A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
    to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
    - Associated Press

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kevrob@21:1/5 to Gary McGath on Tue Mar 8 00:52:00 2022
    On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 4:28:21 PM UTC-5, Gary McGath wrote:
    On 3/6/22 12:24 PM, Paul Dormer wrote:
    In article <t02lfs$1bf$1...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
    Lynch) wrote:



    Was there ever really such a word as "ye," or was it just a misreading
    of "the" spelled with a thorn in place of "th"? The letter thorn
    looks a lot like a "y."

    Chambers says there were two different words "ye":

    ye[1] /ye or yi/ (now archaic, dialect or poetic)
    pronoun
    The second person plural (sometimes singular) pronoun
    Cf you. Formerly, eg in the Authorized Version of the English Bible, ye
    was always used as a nominative, and you as a dative or accusative
    Later ye was sometimes used for all these cases
    ORIGIN: ME ye, nominative; your, genitive; you, yow, dative and
    accusative pl, from OE ge, nominative; eower, genitive; eow, dative and accusative
    I got it backwards. As explained there, "ye" is the nominative and "you"
    the dative or accusative, which are rarely distinguished in modern English.

    "Ye" survives in some expressions, such as "Hear ye, hear ye."
    --
    Also used to ID certain bipolar rappers.

    --
    Kevin R

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)