MT VOID, 05/28/21 -- Vol. 39, No. 48, Whole Number 2173

[evelynchim...@gmail.com]

THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
05/28/21 -- Vol. 39, No. 48, Whole Number 2173

Co-Editor: Mark Leeper, mle...@optonline.net
Co-Editor: Evelyn Leeper, ele...@optonline.net
Sending Address: evelynchim...@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 ele...@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:
Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups, Films,
Lectures, etc. (NJ)
My Picks for Turner Classic Movies in June (comments
by Mark R. Leeper)
A Nancy Drew--Tom Swift Teamup (television review
by Dale Skran)
PIRANESI (letter of comment by Gary McGath)
This Week's Reading (THE STEPFORD WIVES) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)

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

TOPIC: Science Fiction (and Other) Discussion Groups, Films,
Lectures, etc. (NJ)

While the last year's meetings have all been Zoomed, we are hoping
to resume in-person meetings in Old Bridge this month (albeit
outdoors). People who are "officially" part of the group will
receive details as to time and place.

I'm not sure about the Middletown meetings, but I'm reasonably sure
that participants need to watch the film on their own ahead of time
as well as reading the book.

June 2 (MTPL), 7:30PM: SECONDS (1966) & novel by David Ely (1962)
movie: <https://fsharetv.co/movie/seconds-episode-1-tt0060955>
book: <https://archive.org/details/secondsnovel00elyd>
book: <https://openlibrary.org/works/OL4127707W/Seconds>
July 1 (MTPL), 7:30PM: A SCANNER DARKLY (2006) & novel
by Philip K. Dick (1977)
movie: DVD MTPL; rent on PrimeVideo, Vudu, YouTube
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKtyfjFcvSA>
book: <https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/12325569>

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

TOPIC: My Picks for Turner Classic Movies in June (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)

The 1950s could be thought of as the Golden Age of giant arthropod
films and frequently giant arthropod films are mis-categorized as
science fiction.

Some of the Fifties science fiction films are not as good as they
once seemed. THE BLACK SCORPION, on the other hand is actually a
better monster movie than I had remembered. True, there are a few
embarrassing touches that leave a bad impression. But there are
also some subtle touches in the script. It boasts the effects work
of Willis O'Brien, best known for creating KING KONG. In fact, in
that film when Kong shakes the men from the log, they were
originally supposed to fall into a spider web. The decision was
made not to use the spiders in that film and they finally get used
here.

One of the bad touches accounts for why the scorpion had to be
black. The film ran out of money in production so no image of the
scorpion could be super-imposed over the matte silhouette of the
scorpion in many of the later scenes. The producers assumed the
imagination of the audience would fill in just a very dark scorpion
so the eye cannot find the details. In these scenes the monsters
are shown in silhouette.

The plot of THE BLACK SCORPION borrows a lot from THEM! The film
starts with an apparent news announcement of a huge volcano, the
largest in modern times, striking Mexico and bringing with it a
powerful earthquake. Two main characters, geologists (played by
Richard Denning and Carlos Rivas), are studying a volcano in Mexico
when they get involved first with a beautiful rancher and then some
mysterious disappearances. It seems a number of people including a
police officer have disappeared. Also, the scientists hear some
mysterious sounds that are a lot like the ant calls from THEM! The
locals think that the cause is a demon bull. It takes a long time
to establish that the real menace is a breed of twenty-foot
scorpions released by the volcano from being sealed in rocks. Uh,
that is the premise of this film, that arthropods sealed in rocks
for millions of years can remain alive. The idea was used in many
Fifties science fiction films and is probably based on the fact
that some animal embryos can remain viable for long periods of
time, but the idea that you could break a scorpion out of obsidian
and it would be alive as is portrayed in one scene is complete
balderdash. But in this case we are led to believe that this
particular volcano and quake released a pocket of prehistoric
monsters who had been sealed in rock. If that were true, why
hadn't it happened with any previous quakes anywhere in the world?
Our heroes find the cavern and enter it to use poison gas on the
scorpions, a plan that fails but they do get to see a variety of
giant insects, spiders, and some thing that looks like an unknown
worm-like relative of a scorpion. The humans have to struggle to
get out of the cavern. They seal it with dynamite only to have the
creatures escape to cause more havoc with an attack on Mexico City.

Richard Denning (who played an over-ambitious scientist in THE
CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON) plays Dr. Hank Scott, and Carlos
Rivas (of THE BEAST OF HOLLOW MOUNTAIN) is Dr. Artur Ramos. Mara
Corday (of TARANTULA) provides love interest as a local rancher.
The acting is not great, but sufficient.

The film shows the signs of a quick production and a bit of sloppy
script construction. The worst faults of the film are use of
mattes and the silly face of the scorpions. The face is not at all
scorpion-like and is made even less so by its teeth and the fact
that it is drooling. At one point early on we and the scientists
hear a rattle that frightens the scientists but turns out to be a
baby with a rattle. When we see the baby it seems too small and
quiet to have been doing the loud rattling. The occasional use of
under-cranked camera to speed up the action is too transparent and
unconvincing. Generally, however, money-saving corner-cutting is
cleverly concealed. In a scene of a line of scorpions leaving a
cave, footage is repeated, but it take a really close examination
to notice. The scene is used once again when the scorpions attack
a train and here it is more noticeable. A helicopter rendered in
stop-motion looks wrong because the of the difficulty of showing
its fast-spinning blades by using a motionless model repositioned
between frames. Ray Harryhausen had the same problem when he tried
to represent fast-spinning flying saucers. A familiar voice-over
voice is heard too often in the film. The same voice narrates the
opening footage, is heard on the police radio, and is heard again
toward the end of the film. We see a swarm of scorpions attack a
train, but are told shortly thereafter that only one is left alive
and are left wondering what killed all the others.

On the other hand, the script is at least reasonable, making the
film watchable by adults, and it never seems overly silly or
juvenile. Corday plays a rancher woman who is quite capable and
repeatedly impresses the men, somewhat against the stereotypes that
were common in the Fifties. One nice touch is that the scientists
make mistakes. Most notable is that they accidentally electrocute
a soldier helping them fight the largest scorpion.

The screenplay was written by David Duncan, a sometimes writer of
science fiction novels. He also wrote the screenplays of THE CURSE
OF THE FACELESS MAN, THE MONSTER THAT CHALLENGED THE WORLD, and
(best known) THE TIME MACHINE. The Willis O'Brien scorpions are
fairly nicely done and have motion like the kind Ray Harryhausen
gave his creatures. O'Brien apparently used the scene of the
attack on the phone linemen to sell the film to Warner Brothers.
That was then used in the film and for a scene shot later in which
we see the linemen, doubles were used and kept in shadow. Overall
it is not too shabby for an enlarged creature film.

[THE BLACK SCORPION, June 18, 2;00 PM]

[-mrl]

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

TOPIC: A Nancy Drew--Tom Swift Teamup (television review by Dale
Skran)

I've been thinking of doing a review of NANCY DREW, a relatively
new CW show, for a while, and now I've found the perfect excuse at
last. The most recently aired episode [May 13, 2021, of Season 3],
titled "The Celestial Visitor" is the perfect hook since it
introduces Tom Swift into the Nancy Drew CW universe. This is a
really big deal if you're a fan of Tom, and I am. The various
printed versions of Tom Swift, but mainly the original series
(1910-1941) and the Tom Swift Jr. series (1954-1971), are the
foundational texts for countless SF fans, scientists, and
engineers--the books that made science and engineering both really
exciting and tangibly real. In retrospect, they are mostly hack
pulp adventures, but when you are 10, they open a door to a new
world.

There have been a lot of attempts to create live action Tom Swifts,
but all of these have been unsuccessful, almost as though a curse
was in operation. By unsuccessful I mean that either nothing was
ever made, or a pilot was filmed and then lost. So, when Tom Swift
walked into the Bayside Claw to meet Nancy, I just about fell out
of my chair.

First, a word about NANCY DREW, now in its 3rd season on the CW.
NANCY has been "Buffy-ized" in a variety of ways. In the original
books, NANCY has friends, but mostly operates on her own. In this
modern version she has her own version of a super-team, the "Drew
Crew." The basic idea is that this Nancy is the same Nancy from
the kid's books, but now over 18 (allowing for *sex* in the show),
and with the addition of various supernatural entities. She does
catch a variety of ordinary criminals, and in some cases the
stories are "Scoobie Doos" where the criminals are pretending to be
ghosts. But there really are ghosts in the fictional town of
Horseshoe Bay, Maine, which is more along the lines of Lovecraft's
Arkham. Not every supernatural entity is a ghost--in one episode
the Drew Crew is pitted against a rogue Viking god--but mostly they
are ghosts. Horseshoe Bay has a long history of the supernatural,
with secret societies, covens of witches, and all manner of things,
including the powerful and terrifying Agleaca, a kind of ocean-
based "Crossroads Daemon" that you really don't want to make a deal
with. Of course, Nancy does. There is also a town historical
society that turns out to be a storehouse of magic objects with a
caretaker who is sometimes helpful to Nancy and her friends.

Nancy is well played by Kennedy McMann, who manages to look the
wholesome Nancy Drew, while portraying well someone growing into
adulthood and confronting some difficult facts about who she really
is. This Nancy is the ultimate girl detective, brave to a fault, a
puzzle solver, code-breaker, lock-picker, safe-cracker, burglar,
social engineer, and skulker in dark corners. Her powers of
observation are stunning, and she at least equals Patrick Jane (THE
MENTALIST) as an escape artist. In one episode she is arrested,
handcuffed, and brought to the police station. When the action
gets going, the cop who arrested her notices the cuffs are missing.
She replies, "I'll put them back on if it makes you feel better."

The Drew Crew includes:

-- Georgia "George" Fan, the manager of the Bayside Claw, a local
diner. George is a minor medium with some knowledge of Chinese
spiritualism, and a mother who is a powerful medium that drinks to
drown out the voices. At some point in the 2nd season George is
possessed by Oddette Lamar, a lesbian ghost, and they end up
sharing her body at least up to the current episode. This sounds
trashy but is very well motivated in the plot.

-- Bess Marvin, a fashionista city girl who also works at the
Bayside Claw, and conceals a mysterious past. She eventually turns
out to be an excellent thief who had a previous life as the partner
of a con man. Her "super powers" are fashion and expertise in
social media. She likes girls, and has a relationship with Oddette
for a while. This later situation is, to say the least, complex.

-- Ned "Nick" Nickerson, is a former football player and Nancy's ex
who served time for killing a man in a fight unintentionally. He
is a skilled mechanic. As one of the few blacks in Horseshoe Bay,
he is often viewed by the police with suspicion.

-- Ace, the dishwasher at the Claw, is an expert hacker who was
blackmailed into spying on the Drew Crew, but eventually joins them

There are a lot more characters, but you get the idea. The
structure is very similar to that of BUFFY, except that the
characters are not in school and there is more of a blue-collar
vibe. Also, the plots are very local. The world is not at stake,
but the future of Horseshoe Bay is often in doubt. The mythos is
rich and complex, allowing for a wide range of crime, suspense, and
supernatural adventures.

In this already entertaining mix throw a new version of Tom Swift,
with Tian Richards playing a black, gay, and super-rich version of
Tom. This is in sharp contrast to Nancy Drew, who in spite of
having a diverse, modern set of friends, looks and acts like she
stepped right out the original books. These kind of character
inversions do not sound that auspicious, but Richards creates a
credible version of Tom Swift, and reminds us that what makes the
Tom Swift series exciting and entertaining has nothing to do with
Tom being white or straight.

Together, Tom, Nancy, and the Drew Crew battle ancient magic,
dangerous technology, and a gang of robed ghosts using Tom's super-
science, and Nancy's detective skills and growing knowledge of
magic. To some old Tom Swift and Nancy Drew fans, this may sound
like the woke take-over of their favorite characters, but at least
for me, it worked. It's my understanding that the CW will be
bringing to the small screen a full-on TOM SWIFT series built
around Richards, with LeVar Burton voicing his AI side-kick. This
may or may not work as well as NANCY DREW, but I'm certainly going
to give it a chance.

NANCY DREW is the most interesting fantasy/SF show the CW has
running these days. To me, it's respectful of the original series
(and by the original series, I mean the initial set of books where
Nancy was very independent and strong willed, not the later revised
versions where she is re-written to be "nice") while allowing Nancy
to function as an adult character. I'm not rating it right now,
but if you liked BUFFY, SABRINA, or TEEN WOLF, you'll probably like
NANCY DREW. Although there is sex (very discreet sex) in the show,
I find it less violent/scary than the other three, especially TEEN
WOLF, which is heavy on the violent horror. Fine for kids 12 and
up. It should also be noted that NANCY DREW is not an "action"
show--there are no martial arts scenes, little gun violence, and
any violence that occurs is brief. There are scary scenes and
"adult" situations. [-dls]

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

TOPIC: PIRANESI (letter of comment by Gary McGath)

In response to Joe Karpierz's review of PIRANESI in the 05/21/21
issue of the MT VOID, Gary McGath writes:

For anyone interested in a second opinion, here's mine:

<https://garymcgath.com/wp/piranesi/>

I agree it's an excellent book. [-gmg]

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

TOPIC: Plague of Mice (letter of comment by Scott Dorsey)

In response to Evelyn's comments on the Australian plague of mice
in the 05/14/21 issue of the MT VOID, Scott Dorsey writes:

If you think the plague of mice is bad, just imagine the plague of
cats that will come next. [-sd]

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

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

THE STEPFORD WIVES by Ira Levin (William Morrow, ISBN 978-0-060-
08084-6) was the choice for our book-and-film club this month.
(The film was the 1975 version, not the 2004 remake.) The novel--
well, not a novel really; at 35,000 words, it's really only a
novella--was written in 1972, just as the women's movement was
taking off in a big way, and it's fairly obvious. From a
perspective fifty years later, there is nothing very compelling
about it. Indeed, it seems to owe a lot to BRAVE NEW WORLD in the
sense of conditioning or brainwashing people to be content in the
position *someone* has chosen for them.

SPOILERS AHEAD

The book is not clear on how this conditioning is done, although I
suppose that the speech recording and sketching imply a replacement
rather than a modification. The film is more specific about using
replacement by robots/androids (which is similar to INVASION OF THE
BODY SNATCHERS, but with robots instead of biological entities).
So the film loses that "Brave New World" connection, but I guess
the producers thought that robots were more topical than some sort
of chemical conditioning.

Of course, one problem is that in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS
the children realized their parents had been replaced, and reported
this. They were also eventually replaced, which solved the
problem, but in THE STEPFORD WIVES there is apparently no plan to
replace the children, which would seem to leave a major loose end.
(A 1987 television sequel/remake had the children replaced as well,
though that makes little sense either. There were also REVENGE OF
THE STEPFORD WIVES in 1980 and THE STEPFORD HUSBANDS in 1996.)

Also, one of the men talks as though the change is merely a
modification to her. While one can argue that he is purposely
deceiving her to minimize her resistance, seeing her "double"
almost immediately after would disabuse her of this.

The film adds some backstory about Joanna and an old boyfriend,
which is totally unnecessary. William Goldman, the original
screenwriter, points out that if the men were given free rein in
designing their "new" wives, they would be dressed more like
hookers than Southern belles, and they would be spending a lot less
time cooking and cleaning, and a lot more on other activities (not
named here because this is a family publication). [-ecl]

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

Mark Leeper
mle...@optonline.net


You think dogs will not be in heaven? I tell you,
they will be there long before any of us.
--Robert Louis Stevenson

[Scott Dorsey]

ele...@optonline.net <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In this already entertaining mix throw a new version of Tom Swift,
>with Tian Richards playing a black, gay, and super-rich version of
>Tom. This is in sharp contrast to Nancy Drew, who in spite of
>having a diverse, modern set of friends, looks and acts like she
>stepped right out the original books.

I don't think this is a character inversion at all. In the original
books, Tom Swift was clearly very, very rich, likely from all those
profitable inventions he came up with. He had no real sexuality of
any sort, so making him gay isn't that much of a stretch. Being black
is a pretty dramatic shift but a perfectly reasonable one if you are
going to update the character. The original character was white by
default of course, as things would be in the Age of Edison.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Keith F. Lynch]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> In the original books, Tom Swift was clearly very, very rich, likely
> from all those profitable inventions he came up with. He had no
> real sexuality of any sort, so making him gay isn't that much of
> a stretch.

He was definitely straight in the original novels.

> Being black is a pretty dramatic shift but a perfectly reasonable
> one if you are going to update the character. The original
> character was white by default of course, as things would be
> in the Age of Edison.

I was rather surprised that the movie _Tom Clancy's Without Remorse_
cast a black actor to play the protagonist, John Kelly aka John Clark.

Are there any characters who should never be black?

(I'm not complaining that Kelly was black. But I am complaining that
he coerced a confession from a suspect, whom he then killed. He's
supposed to be a good guy.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Scott Dorsey]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In the original books, Tom Swift was clearly very, very rich, likely
>> from all those profitable inventions he came up with. He had no
>> real sexuality of any sort, so making him gay isn't that much of
>> a stretch.
>
>He was definitely straight in the original novels.

Was he? I don't remember him ever expressing any interest in girls at
any point. Even the Hardy Boys were vaguely interested in Iola, even if
they never made out with her in the rumble seat of Chet's jalopy.

Hmm, now I need to go re-read some of those Swift books. I haven't read
them since third grade when I found a stack of them in the school's attic.

>> Being black is a pretty dramatic shift but a perfectly reasonable
>> one if you are going to update the character. The original
>> character was white by default of course, as things would be
>> in the Age of Edison.
>
>I was rather surprised that the movie _Tom Clancy's Without Remorse_
>cast a black actor to play the protagonist, John Kelly aka John Clark.
>
>Are there any characters who should never be black?

Of course. Characters in historical dramas need to represent the original
characters. You couldn't cast a black man as George Wallace effectively.
The same goes for characters for whom their race is a dominant factor in
their lives and in the plot (again, George Wallace being a fine example).

>(I'm not complaining that Kelly was black. But I am complaining that
>he coerced a confession from a suspect, whom he then killed. He's
>supposed to be a good guy.)

You can take that up with Clancy.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> He was definitely straight in the original novels.

> Was he? I don't remember him ever expressing any interest in girls
> at any point.

Note that I'm speaking of the *original* novels, circa 1910. The
reprints and sequels may have been bowdlerized.

>> (I'm not complaining that Kelly was black. But I am complaining
>> that he coerced a confession from a suspect, whom he then killed.
>> He's supposed to be a good guy.)

> You can take that up with Clancy.

He was unavailable for comment due to death.

To be fair to the movie, he did write positive depictions of coerced
confessions. I don't recall if there was one in _Without Remorse_,
but there was certainly one in _Clear and Present Danger_.

[Tim Merrigan]

Soon after the (grown up, grifter) Bobbsy Twins were introduced to the
show, I looked up the original books and their publisher. (I hadn't
known that The Bobbsy Twins were part of that universe.)

It seems that having no sexuality was part of the publisher's bible,
unless it was asexual.
--

Qualified immuninity = vertual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 30 May 2021 19:10:11 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In the original books, Tom Swift was clearly very, very rich, likely
>> from all those profitable inventions he came up with. He had no
>> real sexuality of any sort, so making him gay isn't that much of
>> a stretch.
>
>He was definitely straight in the original novels.
>
>> Being black is a pretty dramatic shift but a perfectly reasonable
>> one if you are going to update the character. The original
>> character was white by default of course, as things would be
>> in the Age of Edison.
>
>I was rather surprised that the movie _Tom Clancy's Without Remorse_
>cast a black actor to play the protagonist, John Kelly aka John Clark.
>
>Are there any characters who should never be black?

Jefferson Davis?

[Keith F. Lynch]

Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Soon after the (grown up, grifter) Bobbsy Twins were introduced to
> the show,

What show is that?

> I looked up the original books and their publisher. (I hadn't known
> that The Bobbsy Twins were part of that universe.)

> It seems that having no sexuality was part of the publisher's bible,
> unless it was asexual.

To be fair, they were six years old.

The original novels in 1904, so they'd be 123 today, hence also
presumably not sexually active.

[Gary McGath]

On 5/30/21 3:24 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Are there any characters who should never be black?
> Of course. Characters in historical dramas need to represent the original
> characters. You couldn't cast a black man as George Wallace effectively.
> The same goes for characters for whom their race is a dominant factor in
> their lives and in the plot (again, George Wallace being a fine example).
>

In opera anything goes. In _The Magic Flute_, Pamina is supposed to be
white, but Kathleen Battle has played her (quite well, too). I once saw
a live performance of _Faust_ where Marguerite was white but her brother
Valentine was black. Conversely, a number of white performers have
played Aida, who is Ethiopian. It's no stranger than overweight sopranos
portraying heroines who are dying of wasting diseases.

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

[Jeff Urs]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In the original books, Tom Swift was clearly very, very rich, likely
>>> from all those profitable inventions he came up with. He had no
>>> real sexuality of any sort, so making him gay isn't that much of
>>> a stretch.
>>
>> He was definitely straight in the original novels.
>
> Was he? I don't remember him ever expressing any interest in girls at
> any point. Even the Hardy Boys were vaguely interested in Iola, even if
> they never made out with her in the rumble seat of Chet's jalopy.

Wikipedia matches my memory:

"Phyllis Newton — Daughter of Ned Newton and Tom Jr.'s customary social
date. Facing death, Tom Jr. declares his love for Phyllis in Tom Swift on
the Phantom Satellite."

--
Jeff

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 30 May 2021 21:26:24 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> Soon after the (grown up, grifter) Bobbsy Twins were introduced to
>> the show,
>
>What show is that?

Nancy Drew, the show this subthread is about.

>
>> I looked up the original books and their publisher. (I hadn't known
>> that The Bobbsy Twins were part of that universe.)
>
>> It seems that having no sexuality was part of the publisher's bible,
>> unless it was asexual.
>
>To be fair, they were six years old.

But that was the bible for all the titles they published, Nancy Drew,
The Hardy Boys, Tom Swift, and several others I can't think of off the
top of my head.

>
>The original novels in 1904, so they'd be 123 today, hence also
>presumably not sexually active.

I have a question for people who've actually read the books, in
whatever iteration. Was Nancy constantly dealing with supernatural
investigations? I was kinda under the impression she mostly dealt
with "mundane" crimes, missing persons, murders, theft, etc. rather
than the ghosts, including the ghost of her biological mother, and
hauntings and possessions and curses, the show has her dealing with.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <s915ks$rm6$1...@dont-email.me>, ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com

(Gary McGath) wrote:

> In opera anything goes. In _The Magic Flute_, Pamina is supposed to be
> white, but Kathleen Battle has played her (quite well, too). I once saw
> a live performance of _Faust_ where Marguerite was white but her
brother
> Valentine was black. Conversely, a number of white performers have
> played Aida, who is Ethiopian. It's no stranger than overweight
sopranos
> portraying heroines who are dying of wasting diseases.

I have seen the great Jamaican-born baritone Sir Willard White sing Klutz
in Prokofiev's War and Peace.

I also saw a review of a production of The Boys from Syracuse where, for
each pair of twins, one was white and the other black. And nobody could
tell them apart.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <s90opq$1jb$1...@panix2.panix.com>, klu...@panix.com (Scott

Dorsey) wrote:

> Of course. Characters in historical dramas need to represent the
> original characters.

Coincidentally, a new series about the life of Anne Boleyn is starting of
British television. The title role is being played by Jodie
Turner-Smith.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3853652/?ref_=nm_mv_close

[Paul Dormer]

In article <3a7fb9a7-54d8-4b3f...@googlegroups.com>,

evelynchim...@gmail.com () wrote:

> I've been thinking of doing a review of NANCY DREW, a relatively
> new CW show, for a while, and now I've found the perfect excuse at
> last.

That show has not been shown in the UK, yet.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <memo.2021053...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>,

p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:

> Klutz in Prokofiev's War and Peace.

That should, of course, been Kutuzov. Bloody spell checkers.

[Gary McGath]

Do you mean "klutzy spell checkers"?

[Gary McGath]

On 5/30/21 9:12 PM, Jeff Urs wrote:
> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> In the original books, Tom Swift was clearly very, very rich, likely
>>>> from all those profitable inventions he came up with. He had no
>>>> real sexuality of any sort, so making him gay isn't that much of
>>>> a stretch.
>>>
>>> He was definitely straight in the original novels.
>>
>> Was he? I don't remember him ever expressing any interest in girls at
>> any point. Even the Hardy Boys were vaguely interested in Iola, even if
>> they never made out with her in the rumble seat of Chet's jalopy.
>
> Wikipedia matches my memory:
>
> "Phyllis Newton — Daughter of Ned Newton and Tom Jr.'s customary social
> date. Facing death, Tom Jr. declares his love for Phyllis in Tom Swift on
> the Phantom Satellite."
>

Just the existence of a Tom Swift Jr. strongly implies that the elder
Tom had some interest in women. I haven't read the books, so I don't
know if any family details were ever given.

[Lowell Gilbert]

You seem to be implying the existence of some kind of consistency that
none of these stories employed on any kind of ongoing basis. They were
reliably consistent with their backstories, the relevant points of which
were generally laid out in the first (no, second, now that I think of
it) chapter, but not with wider details.

- Lowell

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <s91d6m$jb5$1...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Urs <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wikipedia matches my memory:
>
>"Phyllis Newton — Daughter of Ned Newton and Tom Jr.'s customary social
>date. Facing death, Tom Jr. declares his love for Phyllis in Tom Swift on
>the Phantom Satellite."

I don't really know about the Tom Jr. series, only about the original ones.
I gather there isn't that much connection between the two but at least they
didn't re-use titles for totally different books the way the Hardy Boys series
did.

[Jeff Urs]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> I don't really know about the Tom Jr. series, only about the original ones.
> I gather there isn't that much connection between the two but at least they
> didn't re-use titles for totally different books the way the Hardy Boys series
> did.

Oops. That was me reading one thing and seeing another.

--
Jeff