THE MT VOID
10/06/23 -- Vol. 42, No. 14, Whole Number 2296

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:
Principles (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
GETTYSBURG (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
LEGENDS AND LATTES by Travis Baldree (audio book review
by Joe Karpierz)
Lawyer vs. Attorney, and Alan Arkin (letter of comment
by Jim Susky)
This Week's Reading (THE ANNOTATED BIG SLEEP)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

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

TOPIC: Principles (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

We had a friend once who claimed that on her bookshelves, she filed
all the female authors separately from the male authors. When we
pointed out that GONE WITH THE WIND was in with the male authors,
she said that didn't count. I observed that she had very strong
principles, but she needed someone to proofread them for her.
[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: GETTYSBURG (1993) (film review by Mark R. Leeper)

[November marks the 30th anniversary of the film GETTYSBURG, in
honor of which we are reprinting Mark's review from 1993.]

CAPSULE: This film of military history contains more authentic
military history than any other film I have ever seen. The film
itself is more than four hours and very little seems to be fiction.
Perhaps a little is speculation, but the highest proportion of
time is reenactment of the most important battle in United States
history. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4)

As usual when I see an historical film, I will go home afterward
and pick up many historical accounts of the event and pick holes in
what I have seen on the screen. I have not yet read Shelby Foote's
account of the battle of Gettysburg (which is about 120 pages), but
I have read several shorter accounts. What I have discovered is
that the film contradicts no account any more than the accounts
contradict each other. And that is not surprising since by all
accounts writer/director Ronald F. Maxwell, after basing his script
on a Pulitzer Prize winning novel, THE KILLER ANGELS by Michael
Shaara, allowed his small army of historical experts to be tyrants
over the production of the film. What made it to the screen is what
the experts agreed happened. What STAR WARS was to the special
effects film, GETTYSBURG is to the historical film. Nobody who sees
the film and later reads account of the battle can come away
without the feeling of having witnessed the battle already and
without remembering a flood of images from the film. As far as how
well the actors look and dress like people of the Civil War the
film gets an A+. For the degree to which each major actor looks
like the actual person he is portraying the grade is a
not-too-shabby B+. (The opening credits show the original and the
actor and invite comparison.) Why not higher? Well for example at
the time of his most familiar photographs, Lee had a fuller beard
than Martin Sheen sports. That is the sort of variation you get.
Of course nobody mentions how full Lee's beard was at the time of
Gettysburg so perhaps I am underrating the film. But if I can find
no less picayune quibble than the length of a beard in a 254-minute
historical film, I am not just impressed, I am floored.

The actors are often familiar, if you can make them out under the
heavy beards typical of the Civil War period. (The presence of
women, incidentally, is limited to a count of two and a screentime
of about six seconds.) But actors seem to be chosen more for
proven acting ability than for marquee value. The players include
Tom Berenger as Gen. Longstreet, Martin Sheen as Gen. Lee, Stephen
Lang as Maj. Gen. Pickett, the late Richard Jordan as Brig. Gen.
Armistead, Jeff Daniels as Col. Chamberlain, Sam Elliot as Brig.
Gen. Buford, and Kevin Conway (whom I thought had been dead for at
least a couple years) as the what I would guess was an interpolated
character, Sgt. Buster Kilrain.

Gettysburg was the climax of the Civil War as Midway was the climax
of the war in the Pacific. And I found myself comparing this film
to the 1976 film MIDWAY as I watched it. MIDWAY is only five
minutes longer than half of GETTYSBURG's length, yet for that film
a whole fictional plot of "human interest" was added about an
American commander's son in love with a Japanese-American woman.
Apparently the filmmakers thought that so much history was too much
for the viewer. In GETTYSBURG with the exception of a few
conversations to broaden the characters, and a rhetorical speech
added here and there, what we see is all documented history and
ironically the film is more and not less compelling as a result.

From the point of view of the film five men were responsible for
the South going from a winning war to a losing war with this one
battle. For the North, Buford created the strategy and Chamberlain
defended the weak flank. For the South, Jeb Stuart chose to raid
rather then reconnoiter, Ewell failed to attack at a strategic
moment, and Lee's ego told him to fight the battle even on the
enemy's terms because winning would almost certainly bring the end
of the war. Of these the most screen time is devoted to Chamberlain
who, torn with self-doubt, shows himself to nonetheless represent
both heroism and decency.

GETTYSBURG was reportedly made as a television mini-series and at
some point was redirected to the big screen. It will certainly
lose much of the impact of its huge cast when translated to the
small screen. In incredible list of historical reenactment
societies apparently volunteered to act as extras and to reenact
the battle. The men participating in Pickett's charge form a very
long wall that will not be nearly as impressive when the flanks are
cut for television's aspect ratio. On the other hand, getting the
film on video will allow the stopping of the film and reading from
historical sources about the various actions being depicted. My
initial reaction to the film was that it must have cut out a lot of
what was really happening to concentrate only on Buford's defense
of the high ground the first day, Chamberlain's defense of the
flank the second day, and Pickett's charge the third day. The
first source I saw that described the battle in any detail listed
three important actions and they were exactly the ones chosen by
the filmmakers. This engaging film is almost a textbook about the
battle and because at the same time it is so enthralling, this is
one of best and perhaps in some respects is the best historical
feature film ever made. Nothing quite like this has ever been done
at this length and done this elaborately, so it is all the more
impressive. [-mrl]

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

TOPIC: LEGENDS AND LATTES by Travis Baldree (copyright 2022, Tor
Books, Trade Paperback, 304 pp., ISBN-10: 1250886082,ISBN-13:
978-1250886088, Macmillan Audio, 7 hours and 19 minutes, ASIN:
B0B3G97QY1, narrated by Travis Baldree) (audio book review by Joe
Karpierz)

It's a bit difficult to know where to start when talking about
LEGENDS AND LATTES by Travis Baldree (well, it's difficult for me,
anyway). I find it difficult to imagine an orc that wants to give
up the fighting life and open her own coffee shop. That's probably
because Viv (since when are orcs named Viv?), the orc in question,
isn't an orc in the traditional sense as we know them via fantasy
stories going all the way back to Tolkien. And maybe that's my
problem as a reader of this novel. I mean, orcs don't want to
reinvent who they are because they're tired of their life, and they
want to do something better with it. That's not what orcs do.
And, if I'm not mistaken with my orc lore--well, the orc lore as
put forth by Tolkien, anyway--orcs don't team up with other
scoundrels aside from other orcs. But that's what we're dealing
with here.

At this point, you may be starting to think that I didn't like
LEGENDS AND LATTES. You'd be wrong. But I'm setting up something
for later on in this review. Please bear with me.

So, in Viv's last adventure with her gang of rogues, she takes as
her share of the booty the Scalvert's Stone grown in the skull of
the Scalvert Queen. The stone is supposed to bring good luck to
its bearer. Viv's plan, as we've already learned, is to go to a
town--in this case Thune--to set up a coffee shop. She purchases
an abandoned stable in Thune, and in short order manages to recruit
a hob carpenter named Cal and a succubus named Tandri to help her
run the business. As time goes on she acquires a baker (Thimble),
a bard (Pendry) to perform in the shop, and a dire cat named Amity
to watch over the place.

As the story progresses, the cafe (named "Legends and Lattes", of
course) gains customers, expands its menu, becomes successful, and
draws the attention of the Madrigal, who, along with the requisite
thugs, runs the local protection racket. But, strangely enough,
it's not the Madrigal's thugs that cause the most problems for Viv,
but her former colleague Fennus, who believes there's something
more to the Scalvert's Stone than meets the eye. Fennus is the
cause of the novel's requisite disaster (because there has to be
one in a story where the main character is doing so well), which
brings Viv, her friends, and the town, closer together than ever.

LEGENDS AND LATTES is light, cozy, and a comfort read. If the
reader is looking for something deep, heavy, and meaningful, well,
you get a little bit of the meaningful here. LEGENDS AND LATTES is
a story of change, rebirth, friendship, cooperation, and community.
It's funny at times, poignant at others, and satisfying. This is
a pretty good book, which, according to Baldree's website, started
out life as a National Novel Writing Month project in 2021. It's a
low-stakes fantasy that turned into a best seller. It really is an
enjoyable read, and a good story with good characters. I did like
it.

What it is not is worthy of a Hugo.

Yes, that's harsh. I was having a discussion with someone who is
close to me about what makes a book a Hugo finalist and eventually
a Hugo winner. What we did agree on is that a Hugo winner must
have some heft, if you will. Something that would make a long
lasting contribution to the fields of science fiction and fantasy.
Something that may change the field. Something that people might
be talking about decades from now. I was at a Worldcon a few years
ago and attended a kaffee klatsch (or however you spell it) with a
couple of notable people in the field who produce a podcast and
whose opinions I respect. I asked them, "what books will people
like us sitting around a table like this be talking about 50 years
from now?" (this came up because we were talking about DUNE, more
than 50 years after its publication), and the answer was "The
Broken Earth Trilogy" by N. K. Jemisin. That was the answer I was
expecting, and I agree with it.

With regard to the Hugo Awards, no one will be talking about
LEGENDS AND LATTES 50 years from now. But that's okay, because
being a Hugo Award winner (or finalist) is not a prerequisite for
being a good book, or even a great book (goodness knows that Kim
Stanley Robinson's THE MINISTRY FOR THE FUTURE is a great book, and
it wasn't a Hugo finalist, but I digress). LEGENDS AND LATTES is
a fine, light read, and sometimes you just need that.

Travis Baldree himself narrated the novel. It turns out that
Baldree is a full time audio book narrator, and it shows. He does
a fine job narrating his own work. I wouldn't mind listening to
something else that he has narrated. [-jak]

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

TOPIC: Lawyer vs. Attorney, and Alan Arkin (letter of comment by
Jim Susky)

In response to John Hertz's letter of comment in the 09/26/23 issue
of the MT VOID, Jim Susky writes:

Until the late (2023SEP29) MT VOID I hadn't known of a potential
misuse of "attorney" and "lawyer".

I checked my trusty 1976 WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY and now I
find that I have been mispronouncing "law yer".

In that reference "attorney" is a broad term which denotes one who
has been "legally empowered to act as agent for, or in behalf of
another; esp. a lawyer."

(semi-colon in the original)

Then there is "lawyer"--"a person who has been trained in the law,
esp. one whose profession is advising others in matters of law or
representing them in lawsuits."

I suppose, then, that an "attorney general" who is appointed by a
governor, president, or others who can get a confirming body to go
along, and *then* get that confirming body to actually confirm her,
need not be "trained in the law"? [-js]

Evelyn notes:

Hence "power of attorney" does not make one a lawyer, but makes one
"legally empowered to act as agent for, or in behalf of another".
[-ecl]

In response to Mark's comments on THE IN-LAWS in the same issue of
the MT VOID, Jim writes:

I am sorry to hear that Alan Arkin died. One of his last hurrahs
was as a lead with Michael Douglas in very funny show--THE KOMINSKY
METHOD--a NETFLIX project. [-js]

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

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

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago picking up a half dozen books at
Second Time Books in Mount Laurel (NJ). One of them was THE
ANNOTATED BIG SLEEP by Raymond Chandler (annotations by Owen Hill,
Pamela Jackson, and Anthony Dean Rizzuto) (Vintage Crime/Black
Lizard, ISBN 978-0-804-16888-5), and it does annotations the right
way. That is to say, the text is on the left page, the and the
annotations on the right page facing it. (You may recall my
complaining of an annotated edition where the text and the
annotations did not stay in sync on the pages.) This
synchronization naturally leads to blank spaces, either because
some text has few annotations, or some text has extensive
annotations. This edition often fills those space with
illustrations: book covers, photographs of 1930s Los Angeles, short
essays about private eyes, the detective genre, and so on. Since
this is a large format trade paperback, the typeface is also very
readable. The drawback is that this means the book weighs a pound
and a half.

I have to say that Chandler was very kind to collectors. He wrote
his Philip Marlowe books in alphabetical order, meaning one is not
conflicted between alphabetical and Chronological shelving order.
(This ordering fell apart with the posthumous Marlowe books write
by other authors, PERCHANCE TO DREAM by Robert B. Parker, THE
BLACK-EYED BLONDE by Benjamin Black, ONLY TO SLEEP by Lawrence
Osborne, and THE GOODBYE COAST by Joe Ide.)

So THE BIG SLEEP was the first Philip Marlowe book written, and
considered the best. (I have a fondness for THE LONG GOODBYE.
though I can't say why. Interestingly, the two titles mean the
same thing.) But the first six novels are all good, PLAYBACK is
okay, and POODLE SPRINGS ... Well, the idea of marrying Marlowe
off was a bad one to start with, and the fact that Chandler left
the novel unfinished when he died may have been intentional.

Chandler is one of the great writers of private eye stories, THE
BIG SLEEP is considered his best, and the annotations are both
interesting and informative. If you haven't read THE BIG SLEEP
yet, it might make sense to just read the book itself first, and
then decide if you want to read the annotations. (Consider it
similar to watching the movie before listening to the commentary.)
But I wholeheartedly recommend this edition.

(And if you like Chandler's style, consider KAFKA'S COOKBOOK: A
COMPLETE HISTORY OF WORLD LITERATURE IN 14 RECIPES and its "Lamb
with Dill Sauce a la Raymond Chandler": "I needed a table at
Maxim’s, a hundred bucks, and a gorgeous blonde; what I had was a
leg of lamb and no clues. I took hold of the joint. It felt cold
and damp, like a coroner’s handshake. I took out a knife and cut
the lamb into pieces. Feeling the blade in my hand I sliced an
onion, and before I knew what I was doing a carrot lay in pieces on
the slab. None of them moved.") [-ecl]

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

Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net


There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact.
--Mark Twain

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