jameswharris

Old Movies on Big Screens Again

by James Wallace Harris, Thursday, December 1, 2016

Last night I went out to see Breakfast at Tiffany’s at the movie theater. It was absolutely wonderful to see on the big screen. Generally, we see movies on the big screen first, and then watch them again on the little screen at home. We’ve gotten used to seeing old movies small, but when you see one again big, it’s almost mind altering. And even though my little screen is 56”, and I have a Blu-ray copy of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, it’s just not the same – not even close. While watching the movie last night I wondered why I even bothered with watching movies on television. I even wondered about getting a video projector to create my own home theater. I doubted if I could make the image large enough. If I could convince my wife to allow me to cover the windows in the living room with movie screen I might buy a video projector and try.

I was at a multiplex that has 16 screens, and Breakfast at Tiffany’s was on one of the small-to-medium size screens, and it was damn impressive. Month ago I saw The Maltese Falcon on one of the larger screens, and it was amazing. We’re so used to seeing classic films on a small screen that we forget what they’re really suppose to look like. Back in the 1970s there were old theaters here that played old movies – at least for a couple years. I’d go two or three times a week, and got to see many famous flicks, including silent films, on a big screen. It’s worth both the money and effort, although I don’t know why an old movie should cost more to see than a new movie. Last night it was $27 for 2 tickets. I’d go once or twice a week if it was $5-7 and old shows were available to see.

Be sure and check out Fathom Events to see if old movies, plays, concerts, operas and other special films are shown in your area. Test out an old movie on a big screen. This month they will be showing From Here to Eternity. I’m still kicking myself for missing when they showed Dr. Strangelove. What I’d love to see are my favorite westerns from the 1950s at a theater. And I’d really love seeing old movies from the 1930s. I consider myself lucky to have seen films like Grand Hotel, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity and Dodsworth on big screens. I’ve also seen Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, and Buster Keaton like they appeared in the 1920s. Silent movies don’t look so quaint and archaic when shown in a theater at the right film rate.

I guess this might be the only thing I envy the rich. I don’t care about privates jets, exotic sports cars, or mansions. But I’d love to have a large home theater and a 4K projector.

JWH

Isn’t Receptivity for Fake News in Our Genes?

by James Wallace Harris, Tuesday, November 29, 2016

When we are very young our parents convince us to believe in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and The Easter Bunny. We grow up believing in Super Heroes, Harry Potter like magic, and far out science fictional ideas. We are taken to churches and taught to believe in Jesus, God, angels, heaven, hell and eternal life. All of these beliefs are easily disproved with a good education. And when we want to keep these fantasies rather than accept reality, we learn denialism. Even our favorite adult art forms – television, movies and novels depend on us suspending rational thinking to enjoy.

We are conditioned to believe in fantasies. Most people aren’t atheists because they can’t throw off their childhood brainwashing even when there’s amble evidence. And all the fantastic ideas we embrace are so much more appealing than the cold facts of reality. Is it any wonder we find it easier to rationalize what we want than to be rational thinkers able to discern fake news from validated facts? Homo sapiens aren’t rational creatures, but rationalizing ones.

Strangely, fake news is in the news like its something new. The Onion and Saturday Night Live have been doing fake news for decades (1988, 1975). Tabloids go back much further, but even the earliest of newspapers played fast and loose in their reporting. It’s also well established that first person testimony is unreliable. We all live in a sea of lies, so is it such a surprise we can’t tell shit from Shinola?

The Bible is promoted as the literal word of God by many, yet it only takes reading the book itself to reveal it was written by all too human people, expressing widely divergent opinions and philosophies, using different writing styles and points-of-views, and often showing contradictions and inconsistencies. And scholars of history, who study The Bible in-depth, have found parts of it to be fake history. Many books of The Old Testament appear to have been written to pre-date land claims in building of an ancient nation. And books in the New Testament were forged to shape Christian theology based on personal bias. To compound the many false aspects of The Bible, many thousands of books have been written to rationalize those falsities. Anyone who reads The Bible should at least get a scholarly study Bible, like The New Oxford Annotated Bible, and read what experts have to say along with the currently best translation of the oldest biblical texts we have. It would also help to read books about the history of The Bible before starting any serious Bible study, such as The Bible Unearthed or Who Wrote the Bible? to give a historical context why the The Bible was originally written, and by who. But we don’t do that, do we? We just embrace the good bits, using them to justify our current beliefs and wants, claiming “God” an an authority.

And remember that saying, “History is written by the victors,” that’s just the start of the distortion. Anyone who wants to shape current thought can write a history book. And the news media can say anything about history, as well as artists. Just look at JFK by Oliver Stone. Everyone thinks they know the truth. But reality is Rashomon 24×7. Truth is extremely elusive, unless you understand science, math and statistics, and only then it’s the best truth we can find at the moment.

How to deal with fake news is the talking-head topic of the month. Most discussions are about how to ban fake news, yet I can’t imagine a world where we can trust what we read, hear and see. Will we ban satire? Obviously we won’t ban lying politicians. Should churches have to prove the existence of eternal life before collecting tithes? Shouldn’t fantasy fiction come with the warning “Magic Does Not Exist” printed on the spine?

Fake news isn’t just those weird stories you see on Facebook. Fake news is any information you use to understand reality. I include religion because gospel means the good news. We assume its true, but isn’t it fake news too? Gossip can also be considered fake news, since it’s usually distorted. When it comes to spotting fake news, we’re piss-poor judges, and it’s everywhere.

To abolish fake news would require programming our kids to become hyperaware of lying, to think skeptically, distrust the media, history books, social institutions and other people, and carefully evaluate everything they read, see, or hear. We need to educate them about science, logic, philosophy, ethics, authority, evidence, scholarship and statistics. We’d have a wiser society if folks studied statistics and data mining every Sunday instead of going to church.

But will any of this ever happen? Didn’t Donald Trump win because of anti-intellectualism, denialism, fake news, unethicality, and mob rule social media? Doesn’t his success endorse its efficacy? Isn’t fake news an effective tool in the fight against science and enlightenment politics? Didn’t orthodox Christianity suppress liberal Christianity in the first three centuries of the common era with the same tactics? George Orwell’s classic novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four illustrated perfectly the value controlling the news. Aren’t the institutions of news always the first things revolutionaries take over in revolutions? Haven’t conservatives succeeded amazingly well with Fox News? Fake news is too effective to give up, especially if your objective is to get votes, change laws, or demolish reputations.

I’d like to believe we could change things for the better, but when I read history I’m not sure I see any signs of progress. I’d like to believe the pendulum swings back and forth between conservative and liberal eras, and overall we’re becoming more liberal over time. But that might be like climate change deniers taking tiny segments of temperature histories to claim a cooling trend, while ignoring the larger trend on the graph. Reading books like Collapsed by Jared Diamond suggests we don’t change. Our species has been extremely stable for a couple hundred thousand years. Evolution produces species that adapt to their environment, and we have adapted very well. But we have adapted because of the selfishness of individuals. We have not adapted because of liberal ideals. Fake news benefits the survival of the fittest individuals, not groups.

JWH

65 Classic Science Fiction Books I Want to Hear

by James Wallace Harris, Friday, November 25, 2016

Happy Birthday to me! Last year I wrote “64 Classic Science Fiction Books I Want to Hear” for my 64th birthday. It was published at SF Signal. I had hoped audiobook publishers would have granted my wish by now. Unfortunately, only one title has shown up at Audible.com – Nova by Samuel R. Delany. I bought it and it sounds wonderful. Maybe more will show up by the time I’m 66. But guys, I can only live for so long.

Here’s the list updated to 65 titles for my 65th birthday. I’ve substituted some collected works for older original short story collections. I figure it’s probably easier to get the audio publishing rights to the most recent collections.

If I had three wishes from a genie, one wish would be for Adventures in Time and Space (1946) edited by Raymond J. Healy and J. Francis McComas in a perfect audiobook edition. Great anthologies on audio are rare. I expect publishing rights are hard to arrange. I’m still wishing for six completely out-of-print volumes to come out in audio. Most of these books below are available in print or ebook editions. Does it take a certain demand for print/ebook editions before publishers will risk an audio edition?

Most of the great science fiction classics have shown up on audio. Starting in 2002 when I join Audible.com, I’ve been “rereading” my favorite science fiction books from youth by listening to them. I love hearing old science fiction when read by a great narrator. If you can think of an old science fiction book that’s not on my list below, chances are its available on audio at Audible.com. If you haven’t gotten into audiobooks yet, I recommend starting with an old favorite. You might be surprised to hear something you missed.

Many of the books below are forgotten classics, especially the older ones. People from my generation might remember them, but younger readers may never have heard of many titles. The real question is whether or not these books still hold up. Just because I want to hear them doesn’t mean they are great stories. They are just books I often read about when reading about science fiction.

What amazes me are the authors that have no Audible.com editions of their work. Or next to none. I can’t figure out if this is for legal reasons, or there’s no interest in their work. These include:

Eleanor Arnason
Alfred Bester
Michael Bishop
Pat Cadigan
R. A. Lafferty
Maureen F. McHugh
Eric Frank Russell
James H. Schmitz
William Tenn
James Tiptree, Jr.
Wilson Tucker

65 Books I Want to Hear

H=Hardback T=Trade paper M=Mass market E=ebook *=OOP

A Voyage to Arcturus (1920) by David Lindsay – HT
The World of Null-A (1948) by A. E. Van Vogt – TE
The Voyage of the Space Beagle (1950) by A. E. Van Vogt – T
Bring the Jubilee (1953) by Ward Moore – TE
The Demolished Man (1953) by Alfred Bester – TE
A Mirror for Observers (1954) by Edgar Pangborn – H
Mission of Gravity (1954) by Hal Clement – TE (as Heavy Planet: The Classic Mesklin Stories)
Cities in Flight (1955) by James Blish – E
The Stars My Destination (1956) by Alfred Bester – TE
Wasp (1957) by Eric Frank Russell – E
The Lincoln Hunters (1958) by Wilson Tucker *
Rogue Moon (1960) by Algis Budrys – E
The High Crusade (1960) by Poul Anderson ME
Hothouse (1962) by Brian W. Aldiss – E
Davy (1964) by Edgar Pangborn – H
Empire Star (1966) – T (combined with Babel-17)
The Witches of Karres (1966) by James H. Schmitz – ME
Dangerous Visions (1967) ed. Harlan Ellison – TE
The Einstein Intersection (1967) by Samuel R. Delany – TE
Camp Concentration (1968) by Thomas Disch – TE
Past Master (1968) by R. A. Lafferty – T
The Last Starship from Earth (1968) by John Boyd – *
Behold the Man (1969) by Michael Moorcock – T
Bug Jack Barron (1969) by Norman Spinrad – TE
Macroscope (1969) by Piers Anthony – HTE
The Left Hand of Darkness (1969) by Ursula K. Le Guin – HTME (OOP on audio)
And Chaos Died (1970) by Joanna Russ – *
Science Fiction Hall of Fame (1970) edit by Robert Silverberg – T
The Year of the Quiet Sun (1970) by Wilson Tucker *
The Doors of His Face, The Lamps of His Mouth (1971) by Roger Zelanzy – TE
The Fifth Head of Cerberus (1972) by Gene Wolfe – TE
The Listeners (1972) by James Gunn – T
The Science Fiction Hall of Fame Volume 2A and 2B (1972) edited by Ben Bova – T
The Sheep Look Up (1972) by John Brunner – TE
Before the Golden Age (1974) edited by Isaac Asimov – *
A Martian Odyssey and Other Science Fiction Tales (1974) by Stanley G. Weinbaum – *
The Centauri Device (1974) by M. John Harrison *
The Female Man (1975) by Joanna Russ – T
The Shockwave Rider (1975) by John Brunner – TE
Trouble on Triton (1976) by Samuel R. Delany – TE
On Wings of a Song (1979) by Thomas M. Disch – E
Ridley Walker (1980) by Russell Hoban – HTE
No Enemy But Time (1982) by Michael Bishop – E
Native Tongue (1984) by Suzette Haden Elgin – TE
Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand (1984) by Samuel R. Delany – TE
Ancient of Days (1985) by Michael Bishop – TE
The Falling Woman (1986) by Pat Murphy – E
Mindplayers (1988) by Pat Cadigan – TE
Grass (1989) by Sheri S. Tepper – TE
Her Smoke Rose Up Forever (1990) by James Tiptree, Jr. – T
A Woman of the Iron People (1991) by Eleanor Arnason – E
Sarah Canary (1991) – Karen Joy Fowler – TE
Synners (1991) by Pat Cadigan – TE
China Mountain Zhang (1992) by Maureen F. McHugh – TE
Ammonite (1993) by Nicola Griffith – TE
The Rediscovery of Man (1993) by Cordwainer Smith – H
Galatea 2.2 (1995) by Richard Powers – TE
Ingathering: The Complete People Stories of Zenna Henderson (1995) – H
Holy Fire (1996) by Bruce Sterling – TE
The Book of the Long Sun (1993-96) v.1 and v.2 by Gene Wolfe – T
Immodest Proposals: The Complete Science Fiction of William Tenn Volume 1 (2001) – H
Here Comes Civilization: The Complete Science Fiction of William Tenn Volume 2 (2001) – H
Aye, and Gomorrah (2003) by Samuel R. Delany – T
Strange Relations (2008) by Philip Jose Farmer – M (The Lovers, Flesh, Strange Relations omnibus)
The Big Book of Science Fiction (2016) edited by Jeff and Ann Vandermeer – TE

JWH

Counting My Worries

by James Wallace Harris, Monday, November 21, 2016

My friends and I are hyper-worried about the future, now that Republicans have gained control of all three branches of government. I suppose that could be a signal to stop worrying, since they now have the reigns, and thus the worries. Of course, both parties have always assumed the other side would destroy the future, explaining each side’s endless worrying.

What if I stopped worrying about politics and only worried about things I could actual change? What if I was granted the serenity prayer?

If I only need to worry about those things I can change, then how many things do I need to worry about? What world problems can I change on my own? Would rephrasing that be more illuminating? How many problems do I make worse? My wife and I never had children, so we don’t add to overpopulation. I’m retired, get out little, and live off a plant based diet, so my carbon footprint is relatively small. Except for an occasional roof rat, I don’t kill anything. I’m not a terrorist or hate anyone. I don’t drink, do drugs or commit crimes. I’m rather bland and innocuous. I’m a watcher and a reader, observing reality as I wait to die. By this accounting, I have little to worry about.

A major increaser of worries is trying to convince other people to be different. Whether its getting a spouse to do more housework, a friend to eat healthy, or everyone to stop using coal, convincing people to be different creates endless worries. I could vastly reduce my total worry count if I stopped trying to change people.

What about worrying about myself? For example, I’m currently worried about writing a new essay for Book Riot. My choices are either to write or not write, but I spend a lot of time either worrying about not writing or worrying about what to write. The Zen thing to do would be either to write or not write and forget the worrying.

Should I worry about anything? Is not worrying shirking a duty? Shouldn’t we all be taking turns worrying about the world’s problems? Everyone should contribute to charities, right? Is worrying helping those causes? Maybe giving or volunteering to a charity is the only way to solve their problems. But many charities spend their income trying to convince more people to worry about their cause. The solution, give to charities that do rather than worry.

I’ve convinced myself I have little to worry about, so why do I worry so much? My mother was a worrier. I called it gnawing her bone. She believed that worrying about bad things kept those bad things from happening. The evidence suggests all my worry about climate change and Republicans had no effect on the 2016 election.

Maybe I should stop gnawing my bones.

JWH

Should Manufacturing Robots Be Banned?

by James Wallace Harris, Saturday, November 19, 2016

Because my friends have been depressed since November 8th, I’ve been wondering what it would take to make both liberals and conservatives happy – and solve all our environmental problems. Once again, the election has shown, “It’s the economy stupid.” Without widespread economic security, the population will be unstably polarized. As long as such unrest exists, no other major problem can be solved. To solve the problems of sustainability, climate change, overpopulation, inequality, mass extinctions, pollution, will first require solving the problem with the economy.

Is that possible? Can we create an economy where most people find security? Corporations are at war with workers, either by moving jobs overseas, or by buying robots. Donald Trump promised he’d stop corporations from moving jobs. Would that help? No, the problem requires a global solution. Would banning robots help? Maybe. If capital was willing to accept higher production costs, employing more people, it should. However, robotics creates jobs too. And we have to decide if billions of people working like machines is a good thing. People want is a job they love. People want to feel creative, productive, worthwhile, and independent. Does a Foxconn assembly job provides that? Could we create enough jobs without banning robots? I doubt it.

If robots were regulated, and cars for example, had to be made by human hands, could they be made at affordable prices? Let’s bring in the environment now. What if we designed a sustainable transportation system, one that’s a blend of bicycles, cars, trucks, buses, trains, ships, and planes. Such a system needs to create jobs and protect the environment. Would building things like cars only by human hands create enough jobs, and still be profitable for corporations?

If we don’t outlaw robots, what would be the next solution? It’s obvious that free-market capitalism fails many workers and the environment. Capital ranks wealth over labor. The next solution would be a minimum income for people without jobs. This would be a tax on capital, something it also hates. Since capital hates both labor and taxes, it might need to decide which it hates more.

Conservatives claim if they had free reign their economic solutions would create more jobs. That claim is probably false. If their economic theories were true, they still want to ignore the environment. Ignoring the environment ultimately means economic self-destruction, so it can’t be a solution. Remember, any real solution must be economically and environmentally sustainable.

Capital’s current path is towards fewer workers and greater inequality. Since we originally stated that the base problem is economic security for workers, that brings us back to where we started. Liberals believe a growing economy/population can be designed to protect the environment. Conservatives believe a healthy economy can be built by ignoring the environment and population growth. Neither are realistic.

I’m not sure a solution is possible, which is more depressing than the Republicans winning all the branches of the government.

JWH