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
Clute's 'Dramatic Irony' Misses The Heart
verall John Clute's review of Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky was a very informative read. I do have to take issue with a couple of his statements. He spends half of the article talking about dramatic irony and how unusual Vinge's use of it is. He describes dramatic irony as "when the reader or viewer of a work knows something that is withheld from a character who appears in that work." I'm not sure where this definition came from, but it is only a partial description and doesn't include the heart of the meaning at all.
A reader always has knowledge the characters don't have. His description leaves out the fact this knowledge must make the situation ironic. For this to happen, the real nature of things needs to be more than simply hidden from the character. The reader's understanding of things has to be opposite of the character's understanding. Otherwise, there is little reason for the character to pause at finding out he is wrong. Sorry if this seems like nit-picking, but it really seemed to me that his description was very misleading.
Also, for more unusual dramatic irony, examine Philip K Dick's work, such as the story that inspired Total Recall ("We Can Remember It For You Wholesale"). His bread and butter is to pull a switch on both the characters' and readers' understanding of a situation.
Malik Coates
mcoates@www.anything.com
alik Coates has a strong point. My sketchy half-definition of
dramatic irony was misleadingly inadequate. Thanks for the clarity.
I'd only modify (or quibble with) Coates's entirely proper full
definition by suggesting the usefulness of thinking of dramatic irony as
a withholding of transformation. Oedipus kind of knows all along what we
know, which is what it is he's going to find out in the end: the dramatic
irony there (as I feel it) works as much through the suspense between
before and after as it does through a structure of withheld contradictive
knowledge. So we feel a powerful suspense on Sherkaner Underhill's and
Pham Nuwen's behalf. We want them to find out that which will not so
much contradict as illuminate their lives: Vinge's refusal of that
outcome is 1) highly unusual in SF texts and 2) brilliantly accomplished.
But this is nuance--there's no excuse for slurry. Thanks again.
John Clute
Clute Misses The Point
ohn Clute's columns are always interesting, and they are the first place I turn the weeks you have them. But I think he somewhat misses the point of Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky. (I should add that this is a wonderful novel, my favorite SF novel in several years.)
Clute worries, it seems to me, about the hidden secret behind the setting of A Deepness in the Sky: that the action all takes place in the "Slow Zone" (as defined in Vinge's earlier novel A Fire Upon the Deep), where light speed is an absolute limit and true artificial intelligence is impossible (and anti-gravity is impossible to make, though apparently it works once made). And he seems to regard this as a dark secret which somehow tarnishes everything that happens in the book.
It's true that the knowledge many readers will have of the events and setting of A Fire Upon the Deep do add a layer of extra wonder, tinged with sadness, to events in the book (and to certain things which will happen after the end of the book), and also that such knowledge helps explain some features of the book. Call this dramatic irony if you will. But taken entirely on its own terms, independently, A Deepness in the Sky is a complete success. And its setting, near-perfectly Einsteinian as it is, is still a wonderful stage for space opera. For grand stories. (Like A Deepness in the Sky.) One of the wonderful things about this book is that it manages to be a convincing story of an interstellar society without resorting to faster-than-light travel or even FTL communication. You don't need AI, you don't need FTL, and you can still stuff a 600 page book full of fantastic science fictional sense of wonder. If you are Vernor Vinge.
In addition, part of the theme of the book is "How do we make life meaningful." Clute suggests that for Pham, his life is ironically stripped of meaning because his dream of a stable interstellar Empire is actually possible in the Beyond. And Clute suggests that for Sherkaner, his life is ironically stripped of meaning (short of further developments in a sequel) because the real nature of the entire universe is unknowable in the Slow Zone. But in both cases, I think they have lived great lives because they have done so much within their circumstances. Vinge has written a great space opera within Slow Zone constraints. In the same way, Pham and Sherkaner are respectively a great organizer and a great scientist within Slow Zone constraints. And Pham's conversation with the old man in the garden is central to establishing this theme, I think: that any life can be made great, lived within itself.
I agree with much of Clute's review otherwise: that Vinge's cosmology is a great playground for space opera, that the Emergents are astonishingly unlikable but astonishingly plausible villains, that it is a lot of fun, especially Sherkaner and his family, even though they are too "human-seeming." (But note that Vinge even finesses that last point nicely.) And I'm intrigued by Clute's suggestion that Sherkaner Underhill's name is an Arthurian reference.
Rich Horton
rrhorton@concentric.net
ing Arthur is often referred to, in his guise as Once and Future King, as sleeping under a hill, ready to awaken again when his country needs him. When Sherkaner disappears towards the end of the book, he seems to take refuge in some sort of cave, under a mound. This is very once and future of him... In The Encyclopedia of Fantasy (1997), which I co-edited, Mike Ashley's entry
"Sleeper Under The Hill" goes into this theme in depth.
John Clute
Wing Commander Was A Fun Romp
ersonally, I thought Wing Commander was a great movie--taken in context of the games [it was based on]. Having played every game in the series except one, I was thrilled that the creator of the games [Chris Roberts] was getting a chance to direct the movie (how often does that happen?) and to show off his talents. I acknowledge that coming from the perspective of someone who's never played any of the games, the movie must seem incredibly stupid--it would to me, too. However, I've always loved the series, and to see it in movie form was really quite interesting. Things that seemed contrived or arbitrary in the movie actually came out quite well to me personally because I'd dealt with them in the games--the skipper missiles, for instance. I think the director did a fairly poor job reaching out to the mainstream audience (and for crying out loud, the aliens looked better in the games), but the special effects were great and it was quite a fun romp for anyone who's ever been a fan of the Wing Commander universe.
Brian Guthrie
Radagast4@aol.com
Don't Compare Wing Commander To 2001
just have to take issue with the final note to the review of Wing Commander. There were "no more unbelievable events in Wing Commander [than in] 2001"? Really? Kubrick is rolling in his casket. Take the one example (and there were many, many others) of sound in space. At one point one of our heroes actually says, "Shhhh, the enemy destroyer," causing everyone to quiet down while the bad guy's ship passes overhead. Anyone remember the classic tag line, "In space no one can hear you scream"? Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum, a fact Kubrick made great efforts to acknowledge by the use of classical music in 2001. I enjoyed Wing Commander, but with the understanding that it is just one more movie of science fiction with no grounding in science fact. I can forgive that, but not your reviewer's comparison to 2001 in which so much effort was spent getting the science right for once.
Tyler E. Nordgren
nordgren@sextans.lowell.edu
Wing Commander Was Good For Laughs
'm a poor college student, but my friends and I get out every Friday night to go see one of the extremely overpriced movies at the local cinema. I just blew eight bucks on Wing Commander, and unlike my friends, I don't consider it a waste.
Well, almost not a waste.
Wing Commander made me laugh. It was entertaining, and I have so missed something entertaining after weeks of coddling friends and going to see romantic comedies (shudder). While many things asked one to suspend disbelief so far as to throw it out the window and Wing Commander genuinely ripped off many different books and movies, it was fun. It was fun to rip on the acting, the script, the dialogue. It was fun to see the absurdity and instead of walking out sitting there and reveling in it. I don't begrudge them my eight bucks too much. What I do begrudge is the fact that the second Star Wars trailer wasn't shown. Promises, promises...
Raquel Vallejo
OilandFire@angelfire.com
Wing Commander Is Like Cheap Chocolate
just finished reading Mark Walker's review of Wing Commander, and while I didn't like it as much as he did, I generally agreed with his assessment, at least until his final comments. I would agree that Independence Day had some truly unbelievable events, required huge leaps of faith, and had some questionable acting, and so did Return of the Jedi, though to a much lesser extent, but to include 2001 in that comment shows that it's either been too long since Mr. Walker last saw 2001, or its inclusion was just meant to provoke (which it, obviously, did). 2001 is not only arguably the best science fiction film ever made, but it is generally considered one the best films, period. (For evidence, during the Kubrick tribute at the Oscar ceremony, the applause were considerably louder during the 2001 scenes than any of the others.)
In my opinion, in 2001, all of the acting is dead-on (with Kubrick's directing technique, that's practically guaranteed) and the only points in the film requiring a leap of faith (but not a suspension of disbelief) are the events at the end. Admittedly, a large proportion of the audience did not understand the end of the film upon first viewing (and many never will, even after it's been explained), but those events followed logically from the rest of the film. The same cannot be said of practically any two consecutive scenes in Wing Commander.
Also, and I realize that the makers of Wing Commander (almost) did the best they could with an extremely limited budget, the three films Mr. Walker mentions had far better production values. And talk about bad "acting," leaps of faith, and unbelievability, what about those atrocious Kilrathi creatures? The movie would have been better if they had not shown them at all...or used trained housecats!
One of the main things that sets 2001, Jedi, and even, maybe, possibly, ID4, above Wing Commander is a little thing called "internal logic." If Mr. Walker is unfamiliar with this concept, maybe he shouldn't be reviewing films. (I'm sorry, I know that's a cheap shot, but I'm going to leave it in anyway.)
Finally, let me say that I'm glad I paid (happily, only matinee price) to see Wing Commander on the big screen, but it was like eating cheap chocolate: it's kind of enjoyable while you're eating it, but it leaves a bad aftertaste.
Eric Simpson
cripster@humboldt1.com
Wing Commander Is As Bad As You've Heard
pon reading the Wing Commander review by Mark Walker I am left wondering if Mr. Walker even saw the film; he certainly never played the game. The Das Boot-influenced fights between the capital ships were the best thing about the film, but they were not the Wing Commander that game fans had grown to love. We wanted fighter to fighter, fast moving dog fights, not lumbering giants trading torpedoes.
And what fighter scenes there were jerked and lurched like lame pigeons.
Even the sleek look of the game fighters were traded in for bulky wrecks that would have looked out of place at the battle of Midway. The plot holes were glaring and obvious, my personal favorite being the utter lack of competent medical personnel anywhere in the film. The tacked-on Pilgrim plot was exactly that, tacked on and utterly out of place. The acting was truly pitiful, with the two main leads mugging and sulking for all it was worth.
I'm sorry folks, it was every bit as bad as you heard, and probably much, much worse.
Matthew Webber
helot@hotmail.com
Story, Character And Context Still Matter
normally don't write letters like this. But after your review of Wing Commander, I found that I could no longer be silent.
Though I saw the movie and found it to be boring and not at all deserving of the favorable review that it got, that is not why I am truly upset. Your reviewer brought up the issue of believability and that Wing Commander was no more or less believable than Return of the Jedi, 2001 or Independence Day.
The comparison could not be more off, at least in my opinion. For starters, Return of the Jedi really doesn't fall into the category of science fiction. The Star Wars saga is far more reminiscent of old mythological tales and stories which create a context where magic exists and anything is possible. Is it really possible that you could build a space station the size of a moon? Probably not. But within the context that Lucas creates, we suspend our disbelief and accept it as part of this universe far removed from our own.
2001, on the other hand, is hardcore science fiction. It attempts to show a possible future within our own lifetime as indicated by the title. It seems to me that Kubrick put in an incredible amount of effort in extrapolating possible technologies that might exist (from a '70s perspective) at the turn of the century. The fact that there were no sound effects in space and that they had to explain why they had gravity added up to a willing suspension of disbelief by the audience.
The comparison between Wing Commander and Independence Day is more accurate. Both movies relied heavily on special effects. Both had enormous plot holes. I mean come on, one laptop Mac saves the entire world? So why is Independence Day better? Because the makers compensated by having better special effects and a number of good lines along with better actors who could make the rather weak script work. But I knew that Emmerich and Devlin had built a weak house of cards. And had one of the things I had mentioned fallen short, the film would have collapsed (as it did with Godzilla).
No matter how pretty the special effects are, no matter how gifted the actor, without a suspension of one's disbelief, none of it matters. If I can't relate to the characters or believe the context they exist in, there really isn't much point to watching the film.
I'm tired of films becoming the equivalent of Disney World rides. It seems as time goes on, the line between the two is becoming more blurry. Story, character and context should still mean something.
Max Gremlin
tbaker@fau.edu
First Wave Is Just Not Good
've now seen the first 13 episodes of First Wave. I really did want the show to be good. I was willing to give it a chance. I had learned from Babylon 5 that not every show shows its potential right from the start. But now I've given up on it. Not that it is all that bad. It's just not good either...
I guess the final straw for me was the point where our hero chose not to use some evidence he had of the alien's presence on Earth for some very dubious reasons. It just seemed too silly. From that point on I could not feel sorry for Cade, and thus feel anything for the plot of the show. I hope it gets better, but I for one won't be waiting around for it to happen.
Hans Torm
hfztt@hotmail.com
Farscape Is Unrealistic
arscape just seems too unrealistic to me, both the depth (actually, the lack thereof) of its characters and its writing and its actors' delivery. I may watch the second episode and hope for vast improvement, but I hold out little hope for a significant turnaround.
First Wave seems much better to me. The acting seems very believable--some of the best I have seen since Star Trek: The Next Generation. Sharp writing and plot movement. The things the actors say and the way the plot moves are very realistic, not super hyped like so many shows (SF and otherwise).
Fred R. Yaeger Jr.
fyaeger@columbus.rr.com
Farscape Is Well Written And Well Played
his is a letter in regard to one written by your reader Len Fleischer. I saw Farscape. I thought it was well written, well played and it had good effects for TV. I hope that it is kept on the air for some time.
Frank Corso
rfcorso@mail.zephyrnet.com
Total Recall Is Better Than Farscape Or First Wave
lthough I understand that Science Fiction Weekly only rates pilots and does not try to rate the entire shows (Thanks for not trying to over judge!), I tend to favor First Wave over Farscape, and Total Recall 2070 over both of them.
Total Recall is just the kind of SF show that makes you wonder what's coming up next, and although I wish the producers would understand that we all know that he loves his lady friend by now, and the feeling is mutual (hence the lack of need to waste valuable airtime watching them show their appreciation for each other so often with...how shall I say...bed activity), the show itself, I think, promises to be a multi-season running show.
As for First Wave, I remember actually sitting in front of the TV laughing at the idea that this hero was going to save the world with the help of...of all people...Nostradamus. It cracked me up when I heard that little setup.
But I forgot just how good Francis Ford Coppola is. I should have known he would not put his name on anything that was less than smoking. When I watched the first episode on the Sci Fi Channel recently, I found myself in an impatient state at the end of the show because I was wishing the first show was a two-hour bonanza. Killing one's lady, then having the gall to replace the body after having an infiltrated alien clone choke him into dizzy land...?
"A twice blessed man," said Nastroboy about this dude. I fully intend to be here when he starts to really use that book. Yessir...sure will!
Chris Taylor
taylor@minot.com
First Wave Looks Better Than Farscape
've just watched the two new additions to the Sci Fi Channel, Farscape and First Wave. I have to tell you that Farscape is almost what the name implies; farfetched. On the other hand First Wave looks like it has potential. Of course, with all new TV series one has to at least give it a few episodes. So with that I will give them a chance, but of the two, I believe First Wave has the better chance.
Charlie Stevens
ziggnaut@hotmail.com
Farscape Is Refreshingly Imaginative
think Farscape is refreshingly imaginative for SF TV these days. In the midst of alien and other conspiracies, Farscape returns us to exploring other parts of the galaxy, though some of the aliens may be a bit overdone.
Warren DeLuge
ldeluge1@tampabay.rr.com
Comments On Recent Letters
few comments on some of recent letters. SF at a crisis? Nah. Greg Bear (with the exception of Dinosaur Summer), C.J. Cherryh, Larry Niven, Robert Silverberg, Orson Card, Steven Barnes and Poul Anderson are all our current giants, and most of them are writing outstanding science fiction.
Prey was disappointing. The problem wasn't that the new species was mentally or physically superior, but that they were sociopathic. I'm not sure if that makes them actually superior. The plot also got convoluted with stupid paranoia. Everyone wants to be The X-Files but only Millennium comes close. If Prey were to make a comeback, it certainly needs new writers who can bring the conflict into the open without all the smoke.
Blakes 7 was interesting only because everyone in Blake's crew were such miserable hardcases. You wondered if Blake's brilliant but vicious first officer would kill him and takeover.
T. Hannibal Gay
Hannibal@Hotmail.com
Outland Put Me To Sleep
was a bit stunned when I read your review of the movie, Outland, starring Sean Connery, as it was generally positive. I shouldn't speak too strongly on the subject, as I've never been able to stay awake through the entire film. However, perhaps you've read the criticisms of the film, including technical points such as drawing blood from a several-day-old cadaver and the general ineptitude of the "hired guns" brought in to kill Connery. I'm reminded of these points by Harlan Ellison's scathing review, which may or may not be the least bit objective or impartial.
Chris Pitchford
chris@cybersoulsmusic.com
SF Shows Should Be Given More Time
agree with all the letter writers who praised the now defunct series Prey. Maybe it wasn't high art, but who cares? ABC did us all a disservice by not even showing all the episodes in a timely manner. I'm sure I missed a few because I didn't know they were on. The main networks (with the possible exception of Fox) are notoriously bad at presenting science fiction series. They just don't seem to get it. In the hurry-up-and-make-a-buck world of network TV, there is no time given to letting a series find an audience. Witness the demise of Strange World after only three episodes.
Despite their track record I will continue to support any science fiction series that makes its way into a network lineup. After all, even a few episodes of science fiction are better than no episodes at all, and just maybe the networks will learn better. Where there is science fiction, there is hope.
Norma Engelberg
norma_engelberg@hotmail.com
SF Is Getting Worse And Worse
uite frankly, I am tired of hearing how all of you SF fans are upset with George Lucas or think J.R.R. Tolkien is some kind of god. Yes, Lucas admits he used older SF novels and Saturday morning series to give him ideas for Star Wars. Tolkien, like every other fantasy writer in history, borrowed from Celtic and druidic legends. But the new SF shows coming out are lucky they are even on television. I have watched them. They are horrible. No original ideas, and the acting is just plain bad.
There are only two worthwhile franchises, Star Wars and Star Trek, and let's be honest, Star Trek has not been up to par since The Next Generation went off the air. It is time to look at SF from a third-party view. SF is becoming worse and worse every year. More emphasis is being put on special effects and not on the stories. Hopefully someday an idea will come along, but I see no such thing is in sight.
Travis White
whitets@jmu.edu
SF Really Is In Dire Straits
n response to the letters about SF being in dire straits, I would like to say that yes, they are. David Brin himself will tell you that SF
fans are getting older, meaning that there is no infusion of new blood
into the network that is fandom. What newcomers there are go in for
Hercules and Xena or that clearinghouse for bad writing, Internet fan fiction. And yes, the authors they pointed out are good, but you should
go back to the roots, to the greats. This is like the teenagers who
listen to drek like Marilyn Manson and Orgy, but have never heard of
Eric Clapton or Jimi Hendrix. That's the long and the short of it.
James M. Palmer
grendel2@bellsouth.net
Klingons Aren't Bad People
his is a response to Chris Snider's letter "SF Fans Make Reality." I'll quote you: "Bottom line is, any characterization of any group is general at best, and probably not accurate." That came from the last paragraph of your article. Now let's go to the first. Another quote: "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."
Now did I miss something or are you lost? First, I am a Klingon and proud of it. Also, my children love it when I gear up. They also love going to conventions with me. People like you need to keep your opinions to yourself because you make yourself look stupid . Next time you go to a convention go sit down and talk to the Klingons. I'll bet you'll find they're not a bad group of people, if you can open your mind.
Colin McClain
terorcolin@aol.com
