The Letters to the Editor department is intended to be a forum for our readers to express their own opinions and ideas. While we appreciate the many complimentary letters we receive each day, you won't find them on this page. Instead, you will find letters that go beyond or even contradict what we have written, letters that offer a different perspective and provide a different view of science fiction.
— Scott Edelman, Editor-in-Chief
Send us your letters!
Got a gripe about something going on in the science fiction world? Want to call attention to an overlooked genre gem? Do you disagree with one of our reviews? Would you like to tell the editor of Science Fiction Weekly what a great job he does? Write a letter to the editor and send it in! You'll have the satisfaction of knowing that your letter will be read by thousands of SF fans. Doubtless, fame and fortune will follow (fame and fortune not guaranteed). If you would like to submit a letter, please send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
hile I am not a publishing insider like Mr. Ahearn ("Technology Is Flattening Our World"), I am merely a humble reader of SF. It appears to me that if SF books are not selling, then the books need to be written to appeal to a wider reading public.
After all, writers like Tom Clancy and J.K. Rowling have literally turned themselves into billionaires by writing books. Books that clearly sell very well.
Perhaps SF books need to explore new technologies and marketing concepts.
Baen Publishing recently included in hardback copies of Hell's Faire by John Ringo, a CD which includes complete copies of several other novels from the Baen catalog. While this might mean that few people will buy the particular books on that disc, it is a great marketing device for the authors of those books, as now more people will be looking for more books written by those authors. Baen also publishes large portions of upcoming books on their Web site, hooking the reader early and getting hardback books sells from the "free" excerpts.
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62(at)yahoo.com
am in complete agreement with the comments of Doug Robinson in his letter, "Tripping Has a Remote Chance." However, he does have a minor inaccuracy. Tripping the Rift appeared on the SCI FI Channel before its current incarnation, as a segment of the Exposure series. I never saw the Internet version, but it is likely to be the same as the Exposure segment.
Dan Ware's remarks ("Blue Humor Is Broadcast Too Early") regarding the airing times of Tripping the Rift are sensible considering the show's content. I was not aware SCI FI aired the series earlier than 10:30pm. Though I agree that everyone is able to change channels, SCI FI should show a little more responsibility in scheduling.
Lewis Murphy
lmurp02(at)mindspring.com
egarding "Tripping Creates Viewer Rift," I cannot put into words the level at which I disagree with this. True, while Tripping the Rift is no Futurama, it deserves a chance to find an audience. If the SCI FI Channel is guilty of anything unforgivable, it's the terrible ads they put on for the show that make it seem like nothing but farting and animated boobs. The ads actually made me want to not watch it, despite my curiosity. Their promos give no indication whatsoever about the wireframe of edgy satire that lurks underneath the texture map of kindergarten-level potty humor. It's that variety that gives the show a potentially wide appeal.
Since the "failure to renew" Farscape, I have been looking at every single new piece of increasingly bad programming from the network with the same expression. "This is what they did with the money they could have renewed Farscape with?" Tripping the Rift is the first example of programming that I've seen premiere on the network that seems to have any spark of originality to it, and it would be a shame if it suffered because the book was judged by its cover.
Oliver Zuchowski
capzman(at)aol.com
hristopher Eccleston, who is known to sci-fi fans from eXistenZ, The Others and his role as the villainous Maj. Henry West in 28 Days Later, has been given the science fiction role of a lifetime: DOCTOR WHO.
After seeing this gifted actor a number of times, from the film Shallow Grave with Ewan McGregor to TV's Cracker with Robbie Coltrane, I can certainly vouch for him being a worthy casting choice for "regenerating" the award-winning British TV legacy. He will be among the "youthful" category of actors who have tackled the role including Peter Davison and Paul McGann (as well as Richard E. Grant and Hugh Grant in the Comic Relief adaptation). And with due regard to the older actors who have predominated the role from William Hartnell to Sylvester McCoy, I agree that younger incarnations for the traveling Time Lord have become somewhat more popular over the years.
Paul McGann received the most votes from DWIN (Doctor Who Information Network) members as their choice for who they would have liked to see play the new Doctor in the new series. None of the other names in DWIN's selected category (two of them were Richard E. Grant and Gosford Park's Stephen Fry) won more than half as many as the 8th Doctor. Christopher Eccleston becoming the 9th Doctor took us all by surprise. And he will certainly have his work cut out for him in keeping the legend of Doctor Who alive for fans. And with the reasonable returns of the Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans and all the familiar villains of the Whoniverse, it will be an honorable mission indeed.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
ere I sit, reading the letters (which I do each week) thinking that sometimes people just need to stop, put the pencil or pen down, and use what's holding their ears apart and think about what they are saying.
Things like canceling Star Trek: Enterprise ("Enterprise Should Boldly Die") or animation is the "way to go" ("Animation Is the Future of Sci-Fi"), or Star Trek: The Next Generation needs to re-run other re-runs ("Next Gen Reruns Need New Blood")—well, let's just say that I don't exactly call this an interesting time of reading.
Let's look at a few things that might be considered a little more interesting. How about all new stuff! Yeah!! Maybe we need to point the movie studios, TV producers, TV companies, or whoever that might have any influence toward new material. How many times are Dawn of the Dead, Freddy, Jason, Aliens, Terminator, or any of the others that come out as being "all new" going to be resurrected? Personally, and I know that several out there will complain, I think all these characters need to die once and for all. Let's get real about this! How about we take a few minutes and, instead of writing letters to the producers asking that they continue with a series, why don't we write to them and ask that they examine new material? Like the recent books by Kevin Randal (The Exploration Chronicles) or maybe some of the older science fiction by Robert Heinlein or E.E. Doc Smith? We hear all the time that a movie studio has ordered a sequel to something stupid because it's "politically correct" or of "redeeming social value".
Crap. Pure crap! I sure don't want to pay or go to a movie that is politically correct and of redeeming social value! I go to escape the pressures and problems that I face every day. I sit in front of a TV or go to a movie to watch a program that has something called "entertainment" value. One gentleman stated that animation was the way to go. Good for him. You can go watch those stupid anime cartoons. Me? I want a good-old-fashioned hero saving the good-looking broad and fighting an uphill battle against a million green slimy things and coming out on top. I want to see John Ringo's books (Gust Front, March Up Country, Battle Hymn, those types!) come to the TV and moviehouse. I want first contact movies and alien invasions and stuff like that!
When I read my first sci-fi book (Runaway Robot) I had a vision of the future and how it was going to be in the year 2000. Now it's 2004 and nothing has changed, including the things we watch. Peter Jackson took a bold approach to Lord of the Rings. Fantastic set of movies! Same goes for Harry Potter. But then we get hit in the face with remakes of Battlestar Galactica (it was good, but still the same old stuff), Lost in Space, and other series or movies that should have been left for dead. Speaking about dead: Why are we wasting good money to go watch a remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dawn of the Dead when we can rent them and watch the at home? Why not tell the movie producers and directors to cut the crap and give us something totally new?
This is my opinion. I know that more than one or two are going to say that I need to go back on my pills. OK. Fine. I still think that we, as a collective community, can have an impact on the direction entertainment goes.
Think about it.
ML Coonfield
mlcsac(at)alltel.net
ternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind opened to rave reviews as an original and touching love story of the new millennium. Hardly anyone dared to label it a "science-fiction movie," but the technology that triggered its premise was as vital as the Martians' heat ray in Wells' War of the Worlds. Therefore, Spotless Mind has to be science fiction?
Therein lies the dilemma. Can science fiction be science fiction without being ... science fiction? That latter "science fiction" is the stuff of spaceships and aliens, warp drive and Death Stars ... our science fiction.
What the science-fiction community, especially in publishing, has yet to grasp is that science fiction is science fiction to tell a story. But if the story is based on a fiction of science and marketed as yes, science fiction, it'll be labeled "science fiction" (our science fiction) and deemed salable only to us. That, my few fellow SF readers out there, is the kiss of death.
Ironically, there's a lot of "future" fiction and "space" fiction in print and on screen that is a lot less "science" fiction than Spotless Mind, but since it's in pursuit of the SF market, it wouldn't dream of calling itself anything else. Science fiction is a proud community, yet also one suffering from an inferiority complex. Scott Edelman's complaint on the cliche, "If it's science fiction, it can't be any good and if it's any good, it can't be science fiction," sums it up. So stuck on itself and afraid of change, "our" science fiction is fading into the dustbin of trivia because it can't see the universe for the stars.
Like Carrey's Truman Show, Spotless Mind is involving and evolving science fiction exploring new concepts and new conflicts which further define the human experience in the new millennium. Until "our" science fiction understands and embraces the challenges we face today and tomorrow, it will remain, well, science fiction.
"Beam me up, Scotty!"
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
here seems to be a disturbing mindset these days among Star Trek fans. There is this belief that since the old series was resurrected as The Next Generation and that TNG begot Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise, that if one series is canceled then another will spring up to take its place. They forget that UPN used Trek to launch its fledgling network and that now that that network is launched and running, [UPN is] interested in making a profit. If [UPN] cancels Star Trek: Enterprise, then they are most likely to blame the product and not their mishandling of it. And make no mistake, to them it is not a passion, it is a product, to be sold and merchandized. These are the same kind of MBA and Madison Avenue types that decided in the early 1970s that there was no money to be made in country shows and so—in one season—they canceled the Beverly Hillbillies and other country-oriented shows. They also are the same kind of network moguls who decided in 1969 that there was no money to be made in keeping a little show called Star Trek on the air. The Star Trek movies are all played out. There won't be any more. Don't let the ending of Star Trek: Nemesis fool you. There's no more story left to tell there. So, when Star Trek: Enterprise is canceled, look forward to watching Star Trek repeats and DVD releases. Because that is all that will be left.
Unless the SCI FI Channel decides to buy Star Trek: Enterprise with additional episodes. They did it for Andromeda. And for all of its faults, both real and imagined, Enterprise is a lot better than Andromeda—my personal vote for the worst sci-fi show since The Star Lost.
Carl Thompson
carlt3050(at)msn.com
hen I talk to friends about Enterprise and how it could be improved, Mr. Jaros' letter ("Enterprise Should Boldly Die") just proves why one of my first contention is stop trying to please the Trekkies! They have already written this show off and will not give it a fighting chance based on only two reasons.
The first reason, the dumbest in my opinion, is because it doesn't have one of the overblown, self-important sounding symphonic themes like other ST series. The second, because it doesn't conform to the "universe" that they have created in their own minds. Paramount and the producers have no obligation to fit their production plans to an imaginary timeline that the Trekkies have created in their own heads. Not even Gene Roddenberry, the father of Star Trek, ever put a timeline to paper, as witnessed by the original series (TOS). TOS contradicted itself on many occasions, not only in storylines but stardates quoted in the show, which were assigned arbitrarily by whoever was writing that week's episode. But somehow, the Trekkies have found a way to fit them together, judiciously ignoring what they couldn't reconcile.
How would I save Enterprise?
1) Go back to it's roots. Hire real science-fiction authors to create stories, like they did with TOS.
2) Fire Rick Berman and his toadies. They haven't had a good idea since the sixth season of Next Gen. And their arrogant attitude of being Roddenberry's "chosen heirs" shows in the stories.
3) Get it off of UPN! UPN is nothing but a bunch of second-rate UHF station that are only still in business because the FCC requires local cable to carry them. Syndicate the show like they did with Next Gen and DS9.
4) Release the first season on DVD, since very little of the country has gotten to see it.
5) Stop trying to please the Trekkies! They are a lost cause. Enterprise is a good show, Scott Bakula is probably the best captain since Kirk and it deserves a lot better than it has been getting.
Rob McNay
ClipperNX18600(at)ameritech.net
would like to know what's up with these so-called Star Trek fans. They say they love Star Trek, but they want the series canceled. That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard.
The Xindi plot is the most interesting plot I've seen in a long while. There's an old saying in Star Trek: If you haven't seen it on screen, it hasn't necessarily happened. This "history" that one of your letter writers refers to ("Enterprise Should Boldly Die") is probably in the novels. Didn't we see enough Klingons in Deep Space Nine?
While I'm not saying there aren't flaws, I think Enterprise is going in the right direction. I seem to remember the same criticisms about DS9 when it first came out. And if the networks are worried about ratings, I have three words for them. "Great battle scenes."
Kent R.
krrisked(at)wolf.co.net
have to agree with Chris Jaros in his "Enterprise Should Boldly Die" letter. Now, I'm more of a fan of the Next Gen series than the original, but it is absolutely essential that [producer] Rick [Berman] and his creative team consider the opportunities to really build on the amazement and wonder as well as the foibles and conflicts that will arise as an inexperienced crew sets out beyond their known universe. What's that you say? They are outside of their known universe? Well, it's one thing to explore and see the formation of the ties and conflicts with
Klingons, Andorians, Romulans and Vulcans. It's another to introduce yet another alien race (see Xindi) and feel like you're being cheated out of all the good stuff outside of the Expanse.
And Jeff Zeiber ("Next Gen Reruns Need New Blood") makes a great argument about the "sequel" episodes contained in the seven years of Next Gen. There were quite a few story arcs that occurred, even inclusive of "Where No One Has Gone Before" and "Journey's End" which encapsulated the (fan infuriating) Wesley Crusher and more importantly, the Traveler. And with DS9 premiering on Spike TV, there is a chance for the best of both worlds. (No, not the two-parter) With "The Crossover" and successive episodes that follow, Next Gen and the original series' fans can enjoy arcs that actually use the original series in their storytelling. Too bad Spike TV doesn't have the original series as well. You could have a Tribble two parter!
Jonathan Grove
jgrove(at)weymouthdesign.com
Back to the top.
