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
There Are More Arthurian Ties In Deepness
too was intrigued by John Clute's suggestion that the character Sherkaner Underhill in Vernor Vinge's book A Deepness in the Sky is an
Arthurian figure, but as I thought about it, there is additional evidence
that he did not mention--the last name that Sherkaner's daughter adopts is
"Lighthill," and her reasoning behind this choice of name is very reminiscent
of Arthur's self-description in Once and Future King as a "candle in the
wind." I wouldn't have noticed it without Clute's pointer, though.
Andrew Love
andrew.love@jhuapl.edu
Weber Can Too Do High Tech
was glad to see your good review of David Weber's The Apocalypse Troll. But, if Mark Walker thinks that Weber can't do the "gee-whiz high techness" then he hasn't read the Honor Harrington series. No ground battles there but a lot of highly logical and tightly plotted space/naval battles along with some very nice characters.
If you haven't tried them, do so. They too are page turners.
Sue Phillips
vampry@mindspring.com
Troll Doesn't Deserve An 'A'
am a bit surprised at Mr. Walker's review of David Weber's The
Apocalypse Troll. I think that giving it an "A" is a bit much. I too am
a fan of Weber's writing in general and eagerly awaited this book's
publishing. I think I wound up reading more than half the book as Baen
posted the chapters on their Web site.
What I finally got a hold of was a let down. Yes, the initial build-up was
fascinating, and yes, Weber does know how to spin both a good tech tale
and some good personal characterizations. Once he had got things going
however, he ran out of gas. The bad guys were really bad and somewhat one
dimensional in that. The thing that spoiled it for me was the ending.
That last chapter's ending was far too pat,
simplistic, and saccharine to fit with the rest of the tale. Considering
the overwhelming volume of books that Weber churns out each year, I am not
surprised that he cuts some corners somewhere and I guess that this was one
of them.
With that in mind I do not think that The Apocalypse Troll merits such
high praise as an "A" rating. Weber is indeed a good writer and his
writing is almost always above average, but this book was far too formulaic
and simplistic to deserve such high praise.
Madoc Pope
thor62@home.com
As Long As We Wonder, SF Will Live On
n response to Travis White's letter ("SF Is Getting Worse And Worse," Issue No. 102) I ask him, how much real science fiction is in franchise media? Star Wars and Star Trek are great entertainment in their own right, but the science fictional aspects of them is often times a slick, techy coat.
SF is getting worse? What about Blade Runner? Or The Abyss? Or the recent independent film Pi?
Ah, now, if you were to say "popular SF" is getting worse, popular SF is getting old and crusty, then perhaps I might be inclined to agree. Spaceships streaking across the cosmos under laser fire just doesn't affect us like it did audiences back in 1977. The problem with popular SF, as I see it, is a genuine lack of creativity, and a hesitancy to try new ideas. Even the much-hyped film Stargate, which seemed to offer an epic on the scale of Star Wars and Dune (sorry Herbert fans), resorted to an all-out gunfight in the end.
Popular SF is much more concerned with special effects, with the media glitz of technology, then the ramifications of that technology, the changes it forces on humanity, the way the universe churns and spits. Luke Skywalker was a country boy begging for adventure, but what did it really feel like to have the Force flowing through you, influencing your environment? What happens to the fabric of the universe when Warp Factor 10 is hit after Picard says "Make it so"?
Pick up that dusty copy of Blade Runner, read some contemporary SF like Peter Hamilton, Wil McCarthy or Gregory Benford, and then ask yourself if SF is dead. As long as we project, as long as we wonder, so will SF live on.
Dan Soler
dsoler@u.washington.edu
Trek And Star Wars Aren't Perfect
his letter is a response to Travis White's comments about Star Trek as a franchise. You say that Star Trek and Star Wars are the only worthwhile franchises in SF&F. I must disagree here; these two franchises, like any others, have their great moments, and their appallingly bad moments.
The same can be said of TSR with the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms books. If we're dealing strictly with written material here, there have been some great Trek novels, and there have been some horrendously bad ones, and the same is true of the other two franchises I'm discussing here.
If we're dealing with material other than the written word, then the same is still true. The role-playing and trading-card games of all three vary in quality, as do the movies (and episodes, in the case of Star Trek), tributes, artistic portfolios, and other merchandise.
Also, solely concerning Star Trek, you claim that it "hasn't been up to par" since The Next Generation went off the air. I think that while, in many cases, this is true, there have been some truly amazing episodes of Deep Space Nine and Voyager, though far fewer than there ever were in the original series or The Next Generation. If you're referring to the shows in general, I agree with you, but if you're referring to individual episodes, I think that perhaps a generalization is not accurate here; the quality of the episodes of DS9 and Voyager varies as greatly as any of the other series ever have, including the original series.
Irina Ruden
iruden@brynmawr.edu
Space Opera Films Are A Bore
just wanted to say that I've been reading SF since I was around seven years old. I'm now 40. I started with Tom Swift books and The Lord of the Rings. I've read Asimov and Dick, C.J. Cherryh and Sheri Tepper. I saw 2001 on a big wrap-around screen in Philadelphia when it first opened up. I think I was like 10 at the time. In my mind there aren't a lot of movies out there I really liked: 2001, Solaris, Blade Runner, the PBS version of Lathe of Heaven, Fahrenheit 451, The Man Who Fell to Earth...
I find the trend in movies of making space opera, because they can have cool special effects a bore. I'm old school I suppose, but the best SF and fantasy films have always been the ones the make you think, that create worlds to test out ideas of how we might turn out, good evil and all the shades in between. Star Trek held my attention for many years...like a good Philip K. Dick book, they would have some really interesting subplots going on with the standard fair action shots. Good SF is part cheese and part high drama and part philosophical thinking at its finest. For a TV show I think Farscape has a lot of potential--it's part Babylon 5, part cheesy British SF (the good stuff) and part Buck Rogers--though the one alien is a little too much like a Worf clone, and the muppet is a little too much like a puppet, hey like we liked Londo and the Syntari's hairdo's when B5 first hit the stand (okay, I do like space opera if it has substance behind it) I feel that if it's given the time to grow and add depth, we're going to have a grand replacement for our SF TV fare. (I remember when saying "sci-fi" was considered totally uncool, just like calling San Francisco "Frisco"). Even with all the lame SF style TV shows, I still think that science fiction shows are still some of the best around and I'm so glad the SCI FI Channel is creating such wondrous shows as Farscape.
Wendi Martin
wendii@earthlink.net
Today's SF TV Is Shallow
've been an SF fan for a long time, and today's SF television is shallow and it bores me. I want to enjoy First Wave, but I leave at the first commercial. I look forward to Farscape, but after seeing the unknown aliens, I want to escape. Strange World was okay, but after only three tries, who knows? Even The X-Files is getting boring. I must say that Star Trek: Voyager still does it for me! And my current favorite is Earth: Final Conflict. I love Roddenberry and his ideas and special effects. I just wish that he went/could go somewhere with it. After all of the special effects and hype I wind up, once again, with a book! Boggling, isn't it?
Joan Mellon
garl7@erols.com
Cameron's New Series Sounds Familiar
read with great interest--and a touch of amusement--the article about James Cameron's plan for an SF TV series [called Dark Angel] featuring a "biologically-enhanced super detective."
Whoa. Deja vu all over again. Hello? James? Been done. Like, by UPN's The Sentinel. Although Sentinel detective Jim Ellison's enhanced senses aren't genetic in origin, the premise is already out there. The Sentinel is a great combination of SF, mysticism, cop drama and car crashes 'n' explosions.
Tany Zuria
zuria@hal-pc.org
Wing Commander Was Just Plain Bad
Last week I went to see Wing Commander based on what I remembered from reading the paperback when it first came out. I had no preconceptions as I never play video games and only knew from the book's cover that it had been based on such a game. I have, however, been reading hard SF for 35 years and I know a good movie when I see one. I know a good SF plot when I read or see one, too, and Wing Commander the movie isn't either. The acting is atrocious and the special effects couldn't be hokier!
Is there a reason that the hangar deck looks like an industrial warehouse but the bridge of a starship with a crew numbering in the thousands looks like a cramped sub-basement boiler room in a ratty old tenement? And while we're on the bridge, let's not ask why a Flight {Squadron} Leader who is supposed to be organizing fighter raids spends time on the bridge with her newbie hotshot pilot. And let's not ask why a ship on active duty gets just two replacement pilots at a time. Suspend belief? I would have to suspend all conscious thought!
Simon Waldman
simplest@home.com
Wing Commander Is A Must See
he Wing Commander movie is an absolute must see for all SF fans, most especially those fans who have played the games. Granted the movie
makes a lot of assumptions about the audience and their knowledge of the
Wing Commander universe. If you haven't played the games then there
are parts of the movie that will be completely lost to you. On the
other hand, if you are already familiar with the Wing Commander
universe, it is one of the greatest experiences that [Wing Commander creator] Chris Roberts has given us with reference to the Wing Commander series. Make your own judgments, go see the movie.
I have watched the new Sci Fi channel line up on Friday night. I have
only good things to say about Farscape. It's imaginative, has great
writing, has a good cast, and marvelous special effects. I won't be
missing any episodes.
And as for Sliders, that is a given in my book. I have watched Sliders since it first aired on Fox, and I couldn't have been happier when the SCI FI channel acquired the show. The producers and cast have done an
amazing job keeping the show interesting with new plot lines, great
acting, and somehow finding different ways that our planet's history
could've gone differently. I would like to mention that I was very
disappointed to see John Rhys-Davies leave the show. He is a wonderful
actor. What he brought to the show through his character was more than
a "matter-of-fact" professor. His comedic timing is infallible, and his
ability to deliver a line with the proper emphasis is unmatched.
I really wish the writers hadn't killed him and then (to pour salt on
the wound) blown up the planet he was on. Gee guys, when you kill
someone, you really mean it don't you?
All things said, I never miss an episode of Sliders. I love the show
and the current cast. And Kari Wuhrer, no offense to the guys on the cast, but all that and she is a great actress. What a deal.
Paul Waits Jr.
pawait@acxiom.com
Science Fiction Vs. Science Fantasy
have been following with great interest the debate over the merits of
science fiction versus science fantasy. My position is, science fiction
takes known science and projects its use into a future setting. Science
fantasy has no basis in science and does not attempt to use science to tell
the story.
Thus, a great explanation I once heard, "Scientists in the 1800s could
predict the automobile; science fiction writers added the human element and
envisioned traffic jams."
In your most recent letter column, a writer said there has been no good
science fiction since Star Trek: The Next Generation. I disagree. While this season's Voyager has been very, very disappointing--due to
extremely poor and meaningless script plots--I feel Deep Space Nine,
especially the war years, has opened an entire new area for science fiction
writing.
Example: To what lengths will a civilization go to maintain it's strengths: the premise behind Star Trek: Insurrection.
When does it become necessary to question the principals you have pledged to
follow: Sisco's debate with his former and late friend and with the Marque?
Quark's questioning of his nephew on the merits of fighting vs. negotiating
to settle a dispute?
I feel when the series ends, and I have heard that it will end with the
death of the Dominion, the owners of the Star Trek franchise have a real
opportunity to explore an entirely new direction for the series. Rather than
be the shining star of the universe, Voyager could return to find a
Federation in tatters. Will it be recognized? Does the prime directive need
some reconsideration? What was the price of the war and was it worth it?
Any civilization that becomes to smug and sluggish will fall--as it was
with Rome. And those who live by the sword will perish by the sword, a
biblical reference that has been demonstrated in far too many Earth battles.
I know that Roddenberry's widow has said he would not want a continued war in
Star Trek. I was honored to hear the Great Bird of the Galaxy speak once and have nothing but the greatest respect for him.
I would say, let the war end with Deep Space Nine, but allow the Star Trek reality to continue to deal with the damaged aftermath, just as the real world deals with its own scars, political struggles and human costs.
Gloria Hoffner
Gloriah@phillynews.com
The Problem Facing SF Is Reality
he current "real" problem facing science fiction, aside from bad writing, is reality itself. Its very difficult to conceive, as a writer, a plausible future when things are happening today that are pretty mindboggling in themselves.
Look at the Internet, NASA's deep space projects with ion drives, the international space station, cell phones, cloning and the processing speed of computers today.
These things were just dreamt up by science fiction writers within the last few decades. Many things they thought of would be impossible, or unrealistic by today's standards, yet we've come up with things that would seem impossible by their standards.
Science fiction is a great vehicle for taking humans into
the "what if" zone. It can ask ethical questions and answer them, as well as expand the mind into new and creative ways of thinking. This, I feel, is the strength of science fiction and what science fiction fans crave.
Any serious writer of science fiction must be in tune with his/her audience. I find as a fan that when a writer goes for a cheap gimmick or glitzy special effect instead of a meaty plot or tackling a novel or profound idea I become very disappointed.
Dave Graham
dgrhm@hotmail.com
SF Isn't Dying, It's Just Got The Flu
have been reading the letters in your column and have paid particular attention to those saying science fiction is on the way out. Well, ladies and gents, it is. But when it is needed, it will rise again. Look at it this way, fantasy died out after Greek and Roman myths were disproved for awhile and then Tolkien brought it back awhile back and made it mainstream to mention hobbits. Okay, that's a rash generalization, but look at Star Trek. Star Trek premiered in a time when SF had to be base camp. It got canceled, but SF was on the rise when it hit syndication, so it grew in popularity. We don't need science fiction now, and to prove this look at the upcoming movies that have been hyped. Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace will get grouped as SF but it really is more fantasy. Why? The first word of science fiction is science. Star Wars doesn't bother to explain the way light sabers or the Force work in the term of physics or chemistry. Wing Commander and ID4 didn't take time to explain too much science. Star Trek may not be hard science fiction, but at least it explains the way transporters work, relying on the Heisenberg compensator to overcome Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of sub-atomic particles. What I'm saying is Trek and all our favorite SF shows aren't dead, they just have the flu.
They are going to be sick for a long time, and they are going to need caring hands to help them recuperate, but they probably won't die. Science fiction has been around for a long time, even though it is a young genre; think about some of the people who shaped it. Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and all of those. Also, science fiction is hidden in other movies. Look at the character of Ian Fleming's James Bond. He's been around longer than Trek, and there is a lot of science fiction in the devices Q gives him. Final analysis: Science fiction isn't dying, it's becoming integrated and will soon recuperate within, my guess, the next 20 years. The fans will always be there; they'll get disappointed when Picard tries to be light hearted; they'll get mad when the bureaucratic Paramount will not let George Takei have a show, miniseries or movie detailing the voyages of Sulu and the Excelsior; they'll grow weary of shows like Dark Shadows and Brimstone and the Highlander movies getting twisted, perverted, or ignored, but they'll stick around, because they know that they can shape science fiction if they stick around. Someone once told an artist that before he could draw an abstract portrait, he must first be able to show he can draw a normal one. Well, the industry has proven it can do a portrait, now what can it do? A lot, once it recuperates.
James W. Thomas
captain_scott@hotmail.com
SF Is Going Downhill? Bunk!
n response to the comments that SF is going downhill...I say bunk! SF is as good and as lousy as it used to be. Think back to whenever you consider SF was at its peak and I'm sure, if you really try to, you can name a half dozen writers who are truly brilliant. And I'll bet you don't remember the lousy books written during that period either. Who wants to anyway? The point is, as with the music to which teenagers listen, it was always better and more original in your youth than it is now...that's part of growing older.
Frank LaFone
lafone@rocketmail.com
There Is More Good SF Than Ever Before
'm disappointed to see a number of comments about the dire straits that science fiction is, apparently, in. It's my experience that such comments are usually made be people who watch rather than read the stuff. It seems to me that, while SF at the cinema and on television has continued to disappoint, there is more top level science fiction being written and published today than ever before in the history of the genre. Sure, you do have to look for it. And, sure, there is more schlock being published than ever before. But, if you look, there is more good stuff published, and the good stuff is better than it ever was, than ever before.
Jonathan Strahan
jonathanstrahan@hotmail.com
Farscape Is Good, First Wave Isn't Yet
his isn't going to be any deep discussion about Farscape, other then to say that I think it's great. I've grown tired of the "Ship of Thousands" style that SF space series have become lately. Here's hoping that Farscape will stay around for a while!
Now, on to First Wave. I liked the pilot, although the second episode seemed, to me, to fall flat. To be honest, I had a greater sense of plot vitality from Dark Skies when it first premiered than I get from First Wave. But it's still new, so I hope that it'll pick up steam.
Doug Herring
Laerengyl@aol.com
Times Change For SF And Its Fans
hile it's probably true that young proto-SF fans tend to watch Xena and Hercules, and read Dragonlance books, etc. rather than watching/reading good stuff, what's changed? As I recall, when I was younger there was no equivalent to Xena/Hercules on TV at all, so I couldn't watch them. But as for reading, I was a young teenager, for Pete's sake! I read E.E. Smith and Conan and, gods help us, Lin Carter's Thongor books. My tastes matured as I got older; go figure. Kids tend to like McDonalds too--most of them get over it.
Meanwhile, in terms of fandom at conventions, I suspect a lot of people
that might have been at cons in the old days are instead now staying home
surfing the Net, reading Net magazines like this one, playing multi-player
SF games and writing bad Internet fan fiction. Doesn't mean they aren't
fans, just that they don't show up to be counted as meat. Times change, as
SF itself so frequently points out.
Rufus Polson
dpolson@sfu.ca
Why Do We Rate SF By Technology?
've been reading the letters column for a few weeks now, and I've wondered about a few things. Why do we have to rate an SF movie/series/book on whether or not the technology is timely? If we were to judge some of the older SF books by this method, we'd have to condemn too many classics as being technologically impossible.
Why do we have to compare technological advances with stories by other writers? What happens in the year 2001 in the movie 2001 isn't going to apply to Star Wars or Star Trek. I don't think any one work should be a guide for another.
Also, while it is necessary to be as accurate as possible, there are fine stories written that just might have a technical flaw or two that most of us won't catch (or care about) as we're reading for entertainment.
And on another note, Norma Engelberg writes that SF series should be given more time. I totally agree. Prey had just picked up enough speed to make it interesting. I loved the concept of the series, but it moved so slow. But I have to disagree with listing Fox as a possible exception for handling shows. The way they treated Space: Above & Beyond when they had it sure helped lead to its demise. It was consistently pre-empted for football, and it had it's time slot changed. It was an excellent SF show not given the chance it deserved.
Kristine Failla
spacefaith@usa.net
Outland Fails Miserably
have seen Outland twice, and although Patrick Lee's review of it raised some interesting points, I simply can't agree with it, nor with the A pick. Granted, every person has his own taste for movies, but in my opinion Outland was the most boring SF film I have ever seen. And although I agree with some of Mr. Lee's observations, I view this film as nothing more than a Western masking itself as SF.
Even if I was to agree with all that is written in the review about Outland's importance to the SF film industry, I still can't agree with the A pick, because, as a movie, it is still predictable and not stimulating at all. I think that all movies and books in general, and especially SF books, should be interesting as well as smart. And in that, Outland fails miserably.
Miki Gabel
gabelj@gezernet.co.il
