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
Jim Turner Will Be Missed
ere's a news item that will probably be missed by many of your readers and at the same time has a bearing on the ongoing discussion of "good SF."
Jim Turner died Palm Sunday. And who was Jim Turner you ask?
Jim was the third editor of Arkham House, following August Derleth and Donald Wandrei. During his tenure at Arkham he introduced the S. T. Joshi corrected texts of H. P. Lovecraft, continued the traditional publishing aims of Arkham, and at the same time propelled Arkham into the SF short story collection publishing arena.
Just some of the authors he published include Lucius Shepard, John Kessel, Bruce Sterling, Greg Bear, J. G. Ballard, Michael Swanwick, Tanith Lee, a massive collection of James Tiptree, Joanna Russ, and many others.
Jim deeply cared about short fiction which is the lifeblood of this genre. He cared about words. He cared about presenting each author in the best possible way.
If you want to read some of the best short fiction of the genre, get those Arkham House books he published from about 1971 to 1996 and the books he published under his own post-Arkham imprint of Golden Gryphon.
I will miss him--as will the genre.
Michael Walsh
mwalsh@mail.press.jhu.edu
Fantastic Planet Is Opaque
'd like to offer my comments on your recent review of Rene LaLoux's Fantastic Planet. The reviewer, Tasha Robinson, was remarkably restrained in pointing out the movie's flaws. While I agree that the mood and style of the movie truly live up to the title, it has only been through the reviews of this movie that I was ever able to figure out what was happening. By reading the reviews, including Tasha's, the reader is made to think that the characters are clearly defined, their motives clearly understood, and the story proceeds in an easily followable way. None of this is true. Fantastic Planet is an extraordinarily subjective movie and seems aimed almost entirely at the viewer's subconscious mind. I acknowledge that this movie was created in a Communist country and, by necessity, had to be subtle and indirect in its message. This is the case with many SF animated/live-action movies from Eastern European countries under Communist rule. However, Fantastic Planet is the most opaque and abstract animated movie I've ever encountered. It doesn't matter whether the viewer is cold sober or under the influence (although the second could only be an improvement). Without having read the reviews it would be impossible for him or her to appreciate the depth and range of the message LaLoux claims he's presenting.
Mike McLaughlin
macgb9w@worldnet.att.net
Kudos To Lucas For His Rules
ount me in the minority that agree with Lucas's strict rules for theaters playing Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. I worked for Carmike Cinemas for several years in the '80s, and I can say that theater companies rarely gave a damn about presentation, despite any claims they make to the contrary. Even today I find it difficult to even go to a movie in a theater because I'm highly critical of projector problems that seem to be blown off by theater staff and management. Misfiled aperture plates that show the soundtrack on the screen, mistimed shutters that cause constant flicker throughout the film, bulbs that are too dim or too bright, bulbs that flicker because they are stretching them to the end of their useful lives, filthy projectors (I'll guarantee that any theater you visit the projection room in you'll find the inside of the projectors to be filthy, which in turn transfers directly to the film after a few showings), etc.
While an awful lot of attention is paid to sound (which is usually far too loud in almost every theater) in theaters today, the real problems lie in visual presentation. Theaters rarely respond to any complaints about these problems. A good projector technician is part of the solution, but educated managers and projectionist (generally the same person in most of today's large theater companies) are the most important part. A small percentage of these people do care, but most of them just do what they are doing as a job.
Kudos to Lucas for having the power and courage to finally call theaters on this.
James Wesson
wessonj@earthlink.net
Thrilled About Star Wars Restrictions
for one am thrilled to hear that Lucas is placing some restrictions on theaters showing the newest Star Wars chapter. I realize that some people are so desensitized to the commercialism of our society as to actually enjoy the advertisements and trailers. I, however, deeply resent having to pay ever increasing prices to go to the theaters and then have to sit through their personal advertisements regarding their popcorn, candy, whatever, and then endless previews for other movies. I resent the same thing when I purchase a video. If I pay to see a movie or to purchase a video of a movie, I want to see the movie, period.
Lisa Seuferer
seuferer@netins.net
Quit Picking On Keanu
he review of The Matrix in SFW, along with numerous letters from readers, have categorically attacked Keanu Reeves' acting as miserable. I disagree. Reeves is certainly not the world's greatest actor (Bram Stoker's Dracula proves that). However, given the right part, he can quite often do a very good job. Think, for instance, of his role in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. In that film he played a stoned high school kid (not a stretch, I'm sure), but he did it convincingly. He was funny, warm and engaging. In the right part, he can act.
Reeves' character in The Matrix is not Bill S. Preston, Esq. He is a computer programmer who finds himself in unbelievable situations. The character does not instigate most of the action--he reacts to it. As a result, Reeves needed to play a stiff character--a person who (like the audience) is discovering that his entire reality has just been changed. I think, in this role, Reeves does a fine job. He is not flashy or charismatic (like Laurence Fishburne or some of the other actors are). But this role does not require charisma. Reeves' character is, essentially, a non-character: a figure without a past, without an identity, who gains an identity only through the events in the film. In that role, Reeves does a fine job. Quit picking on him.
Michael Heumann
aboo@primenet.com
Keanu Is Like Buster Keaton
kay, I admit it, Keanu Reeves is not the greatest actor in the world. Heck, probably not even in his own house. But the fact is, I enjoyed Johnny Mnemonic. I liked that someone tried to put the kind of world I've read about on the screen. I liked the cast. While Reeves' performances are not the stuff of legend, let's face it, the guy's expressions run the gamut; to say he is the worst actor is to overlook that he is not an actor, he is a movie star. In a lot of ways, he doesn't really have the chops to get past a limited range. Still, the films he's in have much to offer. In the case of The Matrix and Johnny Mnemonic, it is often the surrounding cast that lets him get away with not being able to express more on his own. I do think he might be able to grow as a performer, but I'm not going to hold my breath. He is one of those faces the camera loves, and perhaps, in his case, that may be enough for him. I do hope he'll work on his skills and find a depth he's been lacking so far. But for now, I will enjoy Mnemonic and The Matrix, and if the film is interesting enough, any future performances. In a lot of ways, he is like Buster Keaton, only still looking for the talent to pull it off.
Kenneth Stricland
ksgemini@GTE.net
What Dark City Could Have Been...
've heard quite a few people comment on how Dark City was "better" than The Matrix and, frankly, I'm baffled. I quite like both movies, being a science-fiction junkie, but I have to say that Dark City had huge potential...but I think it fell short because of meddling producers. The original story/screenplay, which I was lucky enough to read, was incredible, and I believe it was better than The Matrix, but the end result, the movie itself, dumbed the whole concept down by telling us exactly what was going on in the beginning of the film with a five minute voice over. If they had just let the movie alone, and let us intelligent viewers figure out what was going on for ourselves, it would have definitely been better than The Matrix. Wouldn't it have been great to start the movie with our main character in the tub and the dead body next to the bed and let the rest play out as a mystery we had to solve? Is he or isn't he the killer? Who are these freaky guys in black suits with Mr. names? But instead, the movie played out like a deflated balloon because you knew what was going on before it even happened.
The Matrix, on the other hand, didn't have so much wrapped up in the actual plot point of this fabricated reality...the first half hour or so, till Keanu takes the pill, plays like Dark City should have, letting you, the viewer, exist in the fabricated reality, and learning along with the main character, what's going on. The rest of the movie was glorious mayhem and action. Hard SF people might play down this aspect, but don't let yourself discount it.
Don't get me wrong, I liked both movies much more than the inane high-school slop they're making out of rehashed Shakespeare, but I think the released version of Dark City was disappointing since it gave away its mystery before even tantalizing us with it first. But I'll still watch anything Alex Proyas has a hand in.. Same for the Wachowskis.
Daniel Kaufman
kaisrdanse@aol.com
The Matrix Is Stunning
find it amazing that some people turn their nose up at great flicks such as The Matrix. I have read comments from some saying it has been done before in anime, etc. Let's face facts, anime is simply juvenile cartoons for those with short attention spans--it is not serious SF. The Matrix is the first film, not anime or comic book, to coherently portray such complex ideas. It is a great movie with great acting and, having read some of the critical letters, I am left with the impression the writers are knocking what they simply don't understand or they are desperately trying to cause controversy. The Matrix is a stunning film, and I would rather see a sequel for this movie than a sequel to yet another lame teenage horror/slasher flick which Hollywood seems to churn out every couple of months. Who cares what you did last summer?
Shane Kliese
SHANOK1@hotmail.com
The Matrix Is Leagues Ahead Of ID4
have recently seen The Matrix and I feel that it was one of the best movies that I have seen in a long time. And I'm not just saying that because of the special effects or because I've "been told" to think that from all the rave reviews it's had. It was well cast (Hugo Weaving in particular) and had a good story line that left you thinking and actually took a little effort to comprehend. Of course, the excellent special effects helped. (Plus the fact that it was filmed in Sydney and, being Australian, I have to say well done to the Aussies who worked on it!)
I'm also responding to a letter titled "The Matrix Is Just Another ID4" from John Madigan. Having seen both, I don't agree. The Matrix is leagues ahead. He also pointed out if you wanted to "see a good movie about the nature of identity and reality, rent Dark City." Now I will agree that this was a good movie and if you haven't seen it, you should.
If you're thinking about seeing The Matrix, do. Don't wait for it to come out on video--it's definitely one worth seeing on the big screen.
Jen Lyons
flame@iniaccess.net.au
The Matrix: Fun, But Not New
nce again we are debating between those who enjoyed a yarn and those who did not. The Matrix is not a new story. As various correspondents have pointed out, it includes long-familiar themes and archetypes, it requires suspension of disbelief and, in the end, it's just a movie.
For those who are disappointed by the lack of originality in The Matrix, I suggest that you delve back into the written word, where you will discover that nothing you have ever seen on the screen, big or small, can claim to be truly original.
So what? The human predicament hasn't really changed. The ability of any film, TV show, book, computer/video game or role-playing simulation to engage an individual is in itself valuable.
Today's cutting-edge special effects will soon seem trite, hackneyed or even laughable. Marketing being what it is, some of the most challenging story ideas will never even reach production, and some of the most predictable will become blockbusters.
The future of SF lies not in original stories or the identification of new conflicts. It used to be said in literature classes that stories could all be boiled down to (sorry about the old sexist verbiage here) "man against man," "man against nature," and "man against himself." It doesn't take much imagination to see that with only slight renaming, these categories remain valid. "Character against character" covers the first--costumes and prosthetics aside. "Human against the universe" captures the second. ("Human against machine/technology" straddles the first two, depending on the assignment of sentience or purpose to a machine.) "A character against itself"--the inner struggle to choose and successfully act on the choice--completes the triad. Combine them as you see fit.
Matt Chew
arcana@mindless.com
Remember Total Recall?
o The Matrix was unreal. You found 35 scientific inconsistencies in the first half alone. Let me tell you a lesson from my youth:
I went with a bunch of my cool friends and fellow SF fans to see a new movie called Total Recall. I think there must have been about 500 scientific errors, some so bad it was really hard to continue taking the movie seriously. My best friend was next to me, and I kept going, "Oh my God.. that's so... oh, gees, no way man...the air pressure would boil their blood, and gravity on Mars is like one-third that of Earth...and...oh, no they added the deus ex machina of an ancient Martian Race...gees o petes!" My best friend kept giggling next to me.
After the movie was over, I was infuriated that the movie was so appalling as far as science facts, and my best friend laughed. I asked her if she was laughing at such and such a comment on air pressure, and she said, "No, I am laughing at you! You just paid $4.50 to see this movie, and forced yourself not to enjoy it, that's what's so funny."
Ouch.
She was right. In my pompously pseudo-educated banter, I had convinced myself from the start that this movie would suck. I didn't get to enjoy the film because I was grounded so much in reality that I couldn't accept something that wasn't. I was taking myself, and science fiction way too seriously.
I see a lot of people send letters about "oh, this was so implausible" but most science fiction and fantasy is implausible, it has to be, or otherwise it would be so realistic, why bother going to the movies at all? Heck, why imagine? Why believe in magic and miracles? We need that. If we didn't, the movie business would be dominated by documentaries.
Like Spike Lee said, "I am sick of seeing how things are, we know how they are, we want to see how they could be..."
Something to think about.
Grig Larson
grig@bigfoot.com
The Matrix Is A Delight
'd have to vote with those who enjoyed The Matrix. I grant you the ideas it contains were not elaborated past a certain point, but how many SF films have any truck with ideas nowadays? It was, for me, a nifty cross between William Gibson and Philip K. Dick, the latter especially in the motive of one "reality" suddenly fading out to reveal another (ultimate?) world just beneath. And any philosophy students out there will recognize the "brains-in-a-vat" conundrum: a carefully maintained, causally consistent induced hallucination would foil any attempt, a priori, to distinguish between itself and any putatively real world.
Free will versus determinism is also present, along with a sort of meditation on personal liberty and happiness. If a person can be happy in the Matrix, at least if he/she can experience something that's in every way indistinguishable from the real (or perhaps "real") thing, then how to justify wrecking the system in favor of a raw uncertainty? I don't say it can't or shouldn't, of course, but we are confronted with the same uneasy questions that arise in Brave New World. If happiness is given a material basis, then what is Utopia?
Complaining that The Matrix steals from others rather misses the point. All these ideas are, so to speak, common property. Everybody takes what he/she needs.
I don't say the film avoids silliness. It wallows in it here and there. And of course it's meant to be a commercial success. But if my interest can be sustained (as it was) despite the almost total lack of character development, not to mention acting, then the film's obviously got something going for it. But in this it reminds me of a fair amount of early SF. If not for the ideas and the action, there's not much else to keep the reader going.
Actually, the imagery alone is reason enough to take in The Matrix. From the "birth" sequence when Neo is forcibly expelled from his womb, to the retro TV sets and gritty urban locales that out-grunge Blade Runner, I found the film a delight.
Wayne Daniels
wdaniels@nypl.north-york.on.ca
The Matrix Was A Crowd Pleaser
cience fiction is always a projection of what is going on at the time it is created. That doesn't mean you should dismiss old SF because it is "wrong." H.G. Wells and Jules Verne got it started last century. They predicted what was to come; it is dated now, but without them we wouldn't have what we have now. If a work used post-apocalyptic visions of a world with people mutated after an atomic war, sure it couldn't happen like that, but was it a good story? That's what important.
Ray Bradbury never gives us details of space ships or time machines; they are a device for the purpose of the story. Some music fans would tell me a certain guitarist was technically better than another, but I'll listen to the one who writes a good song. If one gets the technical details right, all the better. One should strive for as much accuracy as possible. The bottom line is still a good story. Those against The Matrix are missing the point. I know virtual reality has been done better in works by the likes of William Gibson, but those novels may not make a great film. This is the best so far on the subject. Better than nothing. I liked the effects and action. I've hated many an action film for having no plot or stupid ideas. This was acted well enough (Laurence Fishburne is excellent), it had an idea that was worthy and it satisfied. Yes, it was a crowd pleaser. I'm for such a film if it is good. This was.
Michael A. Nelson
miskonelson@prodigy.net
Science Fiction Is Fantasy
found several of the recent letters regarding science fiction interesting. Most especially the one that stated that there is science fiction and science fantasy. Perhaps someone needs to pull out the old dictionary and see that fiction is: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically: an invented story.
In other words it is a fantasy. Some folks said that The Matrix was unenjoyable because it was not realistic or not based on current science fact. Perhaps I missed the trailers that claimed it was not science fiction but a documentary.
The fact is that there is not a set rule when writing fantasy. You can choose to obey every law of physics or claim that a magnet can somehow fix a human's hand to a metal pole. (Real fans will catch that reference.) As for the folks that said current movies/books seem redone or unoriginal: as soon as anybody can lay one film over another...say Star Wars over The Matrix, and show me how two scenes are "exactly the same," quit comparing. Going out and looking for such things is missing the point of the movie or book.
Creators want you to experience something that has been living in their heads, and hopefully even come away with something for having been there. Learn to appreciate things for what they are and not for what came before them. If you can do that, then a whole wonderful world will open up to you. I guarantee it. (Guarantee: an agreement by which one person undertakes to secure another in the possession or enjoyment of something.)
Kirsten Dimmick
hurishta@netscape.net
Nothing In SF&F Is New
ost people, as far as I have read, seem to agree with one another that most modern literary SF/F is lacking a lot of originality, thoughtfulness and talent. These people also seem to agree that SF/F in the movies lack these same qualities. Well, as a person who has grown up with both old and new, I would have to say that nothing, not the books written 40 years ago, not even the books written 100 years ago, are original. Every SF/F book and movie I have ever watched is not even close to "original."
Books like I, Robot, The Hobbit, and even The Time Machine are nothing but compilations of old ideas presented in different ways. The idea of time travel and "scary" futures were old by the time The Time Machine was written. It's the same for the other two. I mean, the adventure story is the oldest form of story telling I can think of.
If you want a book for originality, go in search of the oldest cave drawings and try reading them, and if you want a book for talent, go to the closest bookcase, close your eyes, put your hand on a book, and you have talent. Anybody, in my eyes, who can even get a single book published in their lifetime, has talent.
Eben Bradstreet
ejbrads@palermo.org
SF Does Not Have To Deal With Science Fact
've been reading some of the recent letters, and I am bugged by this notion that SF films don't contain science fact. One letter mentioned the SF idea of terraforming Mars. They said that was stupid, as we can't even terraform terra. My response to that is: How do we know terraforming might not advance in the future? The idea of terraforming Mars is unknown. Science fiction deals with unknowns. Why can't terraforming be possible in the future?
If science fiction must always deal with science fact, then such books as H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, The Invisible Man and The Island of Dr. Moreau, these books are not science fact. But, they are science fiction.
Remember: "Fiction."
My philosophy with anything unknown occurring is this: Anything is possible, anything - the range of possibilities is the only determining factor.
The range of possibilities can always increase in the future.
Erik Hollender
erik@hollender.com
