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. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
Farscape Is Far From Good SF
essentially got dragged in watching Farscape, although I love watching and analyzing good SF. However, La Femme Nikita wasn't on, so I found myself with Crichton. Personally, I feel that Virginia Hey was the only character of any value whatsoever; there was nothing entertaining about the show and it came across like a cross between Gilligan's Island and the Muppet Show--far from good SF!
Len Fleischer
locutus1@mindspring.com
Wing Commander Is Boring
just took my family to see Wing Commander, and just one word comes to mind: boring. For an action movie, there was no action. Who were the villains in the movie? We didn't even see them till the end. And why were we at war? The space scenes were so dark I couldn't tell whose ships were whose. There was a family sitting in front of us and about halfway through the movie the mother and her son were both sound asleep. I guess that says it all.
Rick Haney
erhlah@aol.com
First Wave Gets Better
live on an Army installation in Germany and have been watching First Wave since its British premiere, and I don't believe your article did it justice. The first few episodes had to focus on building Cade as a leading man, but when the show picks up, it really picks up. The episode with the hallucinating B&B guests was especially good, as was the "walking-fish" episode. I was a rabid Trekker--you couldn't make me watch any other SF, but now, I can't wait for a new episode.
Shaun Adams
tuvok@hotmail.com
Disappointed With Reviews
often read your reviews of movies and television shows in order to get an hint of what they are about and to decide if I want to see them. However, I was very disappointed with three of your recent reviews.
First of all, I thought the pot shot you took at Prey, a wonderful series with a lot of potential, was completely uncalled for. I loved the show's premise. The fundamental question behind the series, "what if humans evolve," has not been explored (to my knowledge) in a series before. The idea that humans may not be the dominant life form on the planet is a novel one that leads to hundreds of interesting plots, most of which we were never given the opportunity to see. ABC made a mistake in canceling it, and your reviewer made a mistake in insulting it.
Second, I saw the previews of both Farscape and First Wave on USA Network, and I don't understand the harsh reviews they received. They were both quite enjoyable, and are much better than most of what's on network TV. Every show needs a few episodes for the actors and writers to fully realize the concept, which may account for the insanely high rate of cancellation. I could easily envision both shows becoming favorites of mine, which is more than I can say of Poltergeist: The Legacy, which I found far too dark. But each to their own. As for giving both shows low grades, particularly First Wave's C rating, I suspect some sort of conspiracy (potentially alien in nature). You would have to be from some other planet not to like those shows.
Robin Sanford
sanfordr@central.edu
Editor's Note: Please keep in mind that we rate only the episodes that the networks send us--usually the pilots--and not the series as a whole. We gave Farscape a B rating for its first episode, which we consider an above-average grade. And when Prey first came out, that also earned a B rating from us. In both cases we think we judged fairly.
Total Recall 2070 Is Above Par
have been watching Total Recall 2070 since it's debut in Canada nearly one and a half months ago. We were about 11 episodes in when the negative buzz started coming out.
Sure TR2070 isn't original: It rips off Blade Runner, The X Files, Isaac Asimov (The Cities and the Robots), but you have to ask yourself, what else is there?
The show has gotten slick--everything is presented seamlessly. Later episodes examine a law that states genetically "deficient" children must be taken at birth, and about the rebels that defend them. The visual effects and directing are above par compared to most TV shows. The acting is also quite good--not incredibly good, but it is believable.
It provides us with new stories set in the Blade Runner world, which is good. Can you imagine if this show had humor? It is the only TV show that presents a dark future, the others (Star Trek, Earth: Final Conflict, etc.) all are optimistic.
Bishnu Bhattacharya
bishnu_b@yahoo.com
LucasFilm Is Going Too Far
ot to sound as if I like beating on the orgy of greed that is the impending Star Wars: Episode I release (which I do, but that's another matter), but I'd like to comment on the news story about LucasFilm threatening legal action against publisher Little, Brown & Company over the book The Unauthorized Star Wars Compendium. Considering that the entire Star Wars series was an unabashed and unrelenting homage (homage being French for "plagiarism") of the works of Frank Herbert, Jack Vance, H. Beam Piper, and a multitude of other early SF writers, I'd like to recommend a quote from Piper to George Lucas about the situation. In his book The Cosmic Computer, Piper wrote "A bear can make some money, and a bull can make some money, but a pig will lose every time."
While I understand the need to protect copyrights on one's creations, this current obsession with hammering nickel-and-dime projects (such as Lucas' ongoing whine about how reporters have no right to refer to the SDI anti-ballistic missile project as "Star Wars") is going to blow up in LucasFilm's face, especially considering that Lucas' hands aren't exactly clean themselves. Just an observation.
Paul T. Riddell
http://www.hpoo.com
Don't Ignore The Value Of Media Fiction
must object to the author who has stated that SF is in a crisis. Yes SF is struggling to maintain its identity before a huge wave of genre fiction, but that does not mean that there is any real danger of it being swallowed up. In many ways I think media fiction serves the same purpose as the pulps of the '30s and '40s. They are a training ground that will allow an author to master the story teller's art, a source of income while the author gets established and a chance to get their name into print. While I much preferred the pulp route, we cannot deny the authors what is available to them.
In addition, we cannot ignore the value that media fiction has in bringing new fans into the genre. How many fans' first exposure to SF was through Star Wars and Star Trek? How many made their first steps into the literature by picking up the latest media paperback? Granted maybe only one in 10 or even one in 100 will ever pick up something else, but perhaps we can help change that. Next time we see someone reading a Star Trek or Star Wars novel we should try handing them one of David Weber's or Lois McMaster Bujold's novels.
It is true that there are no Heinleins, Asimovs or Herberts out there and I for one am glad. While I enjoyed and still enjoy their novels very much, I would hate to see only their works. If Brin and Robinson are more concerned about environmental issues, it should be remembered that we are more concerned about them than the readers of the golden and silver ages. I am sure that in 30 years someone somewhere will be complaining that there are no writers anymore like Brin, Bear, Benford, Robinson, Hamilton, Weber, Bujold and others.
Bill McHale
wmchal1@umbc.edu
Modern SF Can Hold Its Own
F&F is at a crisis? There are no authors who compare to Heinlein, Asimov or Herbert? I have to wonder what Mr. Burns is reading these days (Letters to the Editor, March 15, 1999--"SF&F Is At A Crisis"), because I completely disagree.
I've read an awful lot of books in the past 25 years, including almost all of the works put out by the aforementioned authors, as well as most of the other "must reads" by Niven, Clarke, Varley, Pohl, et al. Not trying to sound too blasphemous, but there are scores of recent books by new and not-so-new authors that, if they don't put the "classics" to shame, at least compare more than favorably.
Most of the works Mr. Burns so reverently remembers were as much great ideas as they were well-written books. Take Asimov for example. With the possible exception of the later robot novels, the majority of his books read like rough drafts of an interesting concept that were spell checked once and then sent to his publisher (see Nemesis). His style is elemental at best. I was halfway through the Foundation Trilogy and asking myself, "when does this get good?" And Herbert? Dune was an excellent novel, but Grandchildren of Dune and Great Grandchildren of Dune, or whatever he was titling the later installments? Please don't try to tell me those were great novels.
On the other hand, fairly modern authors like William Gibson, Connie Willis, Tim Powers, Iain M. Banks, Nicola Griffith, Gene Wolfe (okay, Wolfe's been around for a while, but check out his Book of the Long Sun series) and many others are crafting beautifully written, totally engrossing stories. Neuromancer? Great. Use of Weapons? Great. The Doomsday Book? Great. I challenge Mr. Burns to read any of these books, or one of the dozens of others I could name, and then tell me science fiction is at a crisis.
Brent Johnson
bnbjohnson@msn.com
Where Is The Evidence?
am curious as to how the idea that SF fans are turning away from current books to SF of the '50s, '60s and '70s. Sure, some of the greatest SF authors created some of the best SF of their careers then but what evidence do we have that fans aren't supporting contemporary writers?
Robert Thompson
webmaster@scifilist.com
It Doesn't Have To Be High Art To Be Great
n response to various letters discussing if SF is high art or not, I think people are missing the point.
The majority of SF is extremely well done. To be able to get an interesting story across within a fantasy setting is a great credit to the genre. It does not have to be high art to be great.
The most important thing is if you enjoy it or not. The reason a lot of SF fans are considered to be anorak wearing saddos is that people see the stereotype image of the Trekkie with the Klingon headpiece or getting married in full Starfleet uniform and that puts them off the genre completely.
All credit to these fans for their dedication to the show's they follow, but they do give SF a sad but not necessarily bad name.
As far as SF being a fringe art form, has anybody noticed the excitement over the new Star Wars film? It's estimated to be the biggest grossing film of all time and it may beat Gone with the Wind as the film to have sold the most tickets ever. Hardly what you would call fringe, is it?
Craig Corke
Ccorke2614@aol.com
SF's Diversity Is Its Strength
his letter is a response to David A. Burns' letter "SF&F Is At A Crisis." You say in your letter that "SF&F is both high and low art and this dichotomy will never be rectified in the current environment." I agree with you that SF&F is a genre which spans both qualities, and that this will not change. Why should it? One of the greatest strengths the genre has is the diversity it presents to its readers. Even Star Trek or TSR-based novels are different from one another, and there are some quality works among them. They should not be rejected simply because of the medium they deal with. And though there are some truly inept writers of SF&F, the same goes for any genre, and that will never change. Every writer is different, in some way, and that's why reading is a worthwhile pursuit.
You say that "Fantasy is dominated by one work, The Lord of the Rings." I would respectfully but strongly disagree on this point. Though many readers of fantasy practically worship Tolkien, and take his work as their Bible, this is not true of everyone. Most fans I know value The Lord of the Rings for its originality, its creativity, and the impetus it gave to the fantasy genre, but I and many others believe that Tolkien's greatest gift to the genre was in writing a series which could be improved upon.
You claim that "Bookstores now devote more space to books which are based on a popular series, whether Star Trek or Dungeons & Dragons, then to stand-alone works," and this I agree with. However, consider the number of books written in media-based SF&F and in the rest of the genre. If a bookstore is going to give a good selection of the science fiction and fantasy currently in print, they must represent the genre as it is, and the new proportion of media-based work is the result of this.
You have a very negative view of the direction SF&F is taking as a genre, in the quality of the writing. In many cases, yes, this is correct. Most of the genre's greatest writers have retired, or slowed down considerably. And SF continues to have losses as the classic writers move on. But there are newer writers of similar quality. I can recommend Neil Gaiman (his contemporary fantasy novel Neverwhere, and the groundbreaking Sandman comic book series, among other works), Tracy Hickman (The Immortals deals with issues as important as any SF has ever addressed), and there are others out there, if you only look for them.
Irina Ruden
iruden@brynmawr.edu
Prey Gets Us To Think
ou do television viewers and Prey's creative team a disservice by
comparing Prey unfavorably to The X-Files.
Prey's premise is more like the Planet of the Apes, in that it offers us an unexpected, entertaining treatment of evolution.
It may have borrowed from The X-Files in style. Actually, I've only seen
one episode of The X-Files, so I don't know about that. But in substance
Prey borrows from current, sometimes controversial research in the
fields of anthropology, paleontology and genetics. It shows us the possibilities.
Like many other successful works in this area, such as Michael Bishop's
novel Ancient of Days, or Bjorn Kurten's Dance of the Tiger, Prey gets us to think about our origins, and what makes us human.
It is material rich for drama!
It would be a shame for audiences to be deprived of this show because
reviewers and TV executives shrug it off as an "aborted" X-Files clone.
Jeanne Winstead
jmwinste@cc.purdue.edu
Prey Should Go On
agree that Prey was a great show, but did you really think it would survive on ABC? I hope that the show gets picked up by a cable network because it was a good and I for one would like to see more! Also I like Stange World.It is not like The X-Files at all! Call me an SF buff, I just love all SF shows!
Jenny Lloyd
jennylloyd@webtv.net
Give Fantasy Its Due
umping fantasy with science fiction in reviews is almost always ridiculous, and the spate of comments of late to the "failure" of recent SF&F literature, film, and TV complaining most fantasies are mere "shadows" of Tolkien are a disservice to both the genre and the authors who create that subgenre we call "heroic fantasy."
Tolkien did not create this field; Homer's works, Virgil's, folklore such as the Prose Edda and the Mabinogion (and the other British and European sources Tolkien drew from), Beowulf, Norse and Germanic mythology, and so many other sources laid the foundations of the genre that every contemporary fantasy writer has drawn upon.
No one respects Tolkien more than I, but even before The Lord of the Rings saw the light of day, "quest" fantasies existed, and some were quite excellent...Burroughs' Mars and Venus series, Leiber's Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser stories, or Howard's Conan pulp fiction, for example. Tolkien himself loved a good fantasy, if it was well written, and would never begrudge an author for tapping into the same source materials (so long as they didn't plagiarize him!). So when I see authors like Brooks, Goodkind, Donaldson, Jordan, Bradley, Anthony and Feist inferred as "pale shadows" of Tolkien, I wonder if a snobbish elitism is rearing its ugly head! (Nobody calls Dean Koontz a "pale shadow" of Stephen King!)
Yes, most fantasy fails in film and television. Why? Because fantasy requires a suspension of disbelief, in a setting away from the 20th century, yet acceptable to audiences. And it's damned hard for a screenwriter to be comfortable enough with these restrictions to write a decent story! (Not to mention a studio to come up with the financing to produce such stories!) There are some successes; Schneer and Harryhausen's fantasy films, Jim Henson's work, even the Hercules and Xena series have been able to find audiences. Are the results always "great"? Of course not! But they do keep fantasy alive, until the masterwork arrives. (I have great hopes for the new Lord of the Rings movie series, if it really sees the light of day!)
So please, if a letter writer wants to bemoan "SF and fantasy," give fantasy its due as a rich, unique field, and don't just tack it onto a letter as "Tolkien and some imitators!"
Ben Burgraff
cariart@sprynet.com
Follow The Path To The Future
am drawn to the Letters section because in my life I don't discuss SF with anyone, although I have read it for 35 years. I've never been to a convention, which I regret and may remedy someday.
Science fiction is a gateway to the future, an open-ended invitation to speculate. Our passions don't diminish the medium; it will reflect the best and the worst of us. As fans, we add the salt and pepper to the main dish. SF is our food.
Let us use that analogy, let's dine on our chosen medium, hungry as we are for the best. We have available the finest meals and we also snack on the fast food that comes our way. Often, we have little idea what we're in for when we crack a book or buy a ticket to the next big deal. So what?
The masters of SF&F shine in and of their own vision. The hacks provide us the splash of modern escapism, the popular culture, losing the concept,
if you will.
I read everything and always return to science fiction and Tolkien (the master of fantasy ) at least twice a year. You must be exposed to the mix before you judge "high" and "low" fiction.
If you don't write it, celebrate it, follow the true path to the future and go easy on your fellow pilgrims.
Karl W. Erickson
madot@blissnet.com
The Difference Between Fans
would like to reply to Valari Boyle's letter regarding sports fans, in that I agree 100 percent. Society and the news media treat
sports fans differently than SF fans. If a news program covers a local convention, they take the "look at the freaks" angle, while saying nothing about the morons who go shirtless to a football game in 30 degree weather. The same goes for people who wear their team's jersey out in public. And about Ms. Boyle's statement that losing a game can ruin their whole day, this is taken to extremes in other countries, such as when fans killed that soccer player who scored the winning goal for the other team, and there have been riots in stadiums before. When was the last time a riot started at an SF convention because one group didn't like Star Trek? Ms. Boyle's letter gives us some much needed perspective.
James M. Palmer
grendel2@bellsouth.net
SF Fans Make Reality
've been reading the recent debates in the letters column, and I hope I can add some perspective to all this. Are science fiction fans weird or abnormal? What's normal about suburban housewives squandering their savings on cute little animals stuffed with beans? As a previous letter writer pointed out, sports fans are notorious for their fanatic (literally) behavior. You always notice the extremists in any group. They always show the half-naked morons in body paint at the Superbowl, but they'd never pan in on the gent in a suit just enjoying the game. The next time you go to a science fiction convention, you'll easily notice the cluster of redneck-Klingons, while ignoring the "normal" father/son duos who are just there to share the experience.
Are science fiction fans out of touch with reality? Science fiction fans made reality! Arthur C. Clarke invented the communications satellite. Karel Capek coined the term "robot," while William Gibson coined "cyberspace." Almost to a person, the creative inventors of the latter 20th century have openly admitted they drew their inspiration from science fiction.
Is science fiction nowadays just garbage? Ninety-nine percent of all genres is garbage! That includes movies, television, radio, music and books. You can barely find Harlan Ellison on the shelf, but the bookstores are stuffed to the gills with a rainbow of Star Trek drek and the latest "actor-turned-author" ghost pulp. For every Peyton Place and Gone with the Wind there are googols of Harlequin Romances. The unfortunate truth is that the Independence Days of the world, as awful as they are, make possible the 2001s and the Gattacas. Money drives the entertainment industry (and rightly so), and they'd be fools to ignore the less discriminating masses and not put out the latest Dr. Who or Star Wars novel. It's those fans who make possible the publication of the less-noticed, but more intriguing, works.
Bottom line is, any characterization of any group is general at best, and probably not accurate. I like to watch the occasional NCAA basketball game, but when it's over I might read some Asimov, or listen to some jazz, or chase the dog around the yard. So, get over it people.
Chris Snider
chris@op9.com
SF Fans Give Of Their Hearts
his is a bit of anger in response to Chris German's unkind letter regarding SF fans who, gasp!, wear funny clothes and speak strange tongues: Sometimes I am human, sometimes Klingon, sometimes Minbari. My shipmates and I dress in odd clothing and walk around shopping malls urging people to donate blood for area hospitals, because without blood all die. Have you donated yet? Last summer, in humid Ohio temperatures of 100 degrees, my shipmates wore vinyl and raised money for an eight-year-old girl because her family needed help to pay the doctors and hospitals trying to keep her alive. I do not remember seeing you there. My shipmates and I sell pizza, chocolate, restaurant discount tickets and other items to fund the local Christmas Adopt-a-Family program. We call and write all the northeastern Ohio newspapers to advertise our holiday auction, again raising money for children, because children do not understand that daddy is sick and Santa cannot visit the family this year. Where were you?
I request free tickets to our area sports teams, and the Cleveland Indians respond, creating a "feeding frenzy" when we raffle the Tribe tickets. How much money did you contribute? How many cars have you gotten "off your encounter-suited butt" and washed? How many kids wore nice shoes because you bought them? How many meals have you provided by working in a community activity?
It is easy to call oneself a "fan" and ridicule others. It is difficult to walk about and ask other people to respect you for doing nothing. Yes, I go to conventions and sometimes I wear clothing not like my daily attire. I can speak English, French, some Spanish and some Klingon. I laugh with these odd people, and I have learned to trust them. When the going is tough, I know who will stand up and help make the difference, who will give of their hearts and hands and paychecks. Some people sit nodding at the boob tube and blame tragedy on the individuals involved. My shipmates, whether Human, Klingon, Cardassian or Minbari, get up and do something about the pain. Even if the only thing we can do is pray. Tell me, what do you do?
Cindy Ramey
daryah@sssnet.com
How About A Blakes 7 Movie?
ow that a big-screen version of Battlestar Galactica is to be made, which remake will be next? Personally I am surprised no one has yet taken up the challenge of transforming the BBC series Blakes 7 penned by Terry Nation (the creator of Doctor Who and Survivors). All right, now the groans have died down, lets give it some serious thought.
The story and plots involved were actually surprisingly complex--and far from straightforward. For a start, the "heroes" were more of a dirty dozen than the usual SF cast, with a million-and-one potential character development lines.
The portrayal of a galaxy that was dominated by a dictatorship every bit as rigid as Star Wars' Empire, but that also resorting to mind control, added a particular menacing quality.
Behind the struggle between the '7 and the Federation, the stories--often just trying to run and hide--also had the freedom to dip more into vastly different planets and cultures than many SF tales.
Finally, unlike in many other series, the distinction as to whether Blakes 7 were really freedom fighters or just terrorists gave the whole story line a decidedly "murky" edge to it.
Of course, a film would in no way on screen present the "budget basement FX/On stage drama" atmosphere of the original. But think about it.
Samuel Jackson as Roj Blake, anyone?
Ian Raymond
iraymond@hotmail.com
