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
News Flash: Jesus Did Not Possess Anyone
rian Prince's statement that "I have not seen Stigmata, and I never will" in
his Issue No. 129 letter "Stigmata Is Blatantly Blasphemous" is wholly
redundant, as the text of his letter makes it plain that he's only seen the
trailers and hasn't even bothered to speak to someone who has seen the film
before condemning it. Sadly, this seems to sum up the attitude of many of the
more vocal religious groups: "I've been told it's bad so I don't need to see
for myself."
He wrote: "Come on people, that is utter crap that Jesus would forcibly possess
somebody like that..." Well Brian, you're right. It is crap that Jesus would
possess someone like that, which is why you should know that it's not
Jesus in the movie. If you'd bothered to check your facts (or possibly seen
the film before getting worked up into a lather about it), you'd know this. As
a service to those who might not yet have seen Stigmata, I won't comment on the identity of the possessing force, but I will say that it is a nice
statement on the power of faith.
Personally, while I enjoyed Stigmata, I found its "message" (that the power of
an individual's faith is greater than the power of the church) to be pretty
anemic. I was looking forward to something genuinely shocking, not some politically correct,
hug-yourself, inoffensive white-bread waffle.
I do find it amusing that in all the furor about the film, its critics have
failed to notice that the film isn't an attack on the Catholic church. Rather,
it's an attack on one fanatic and the conspiracy of silence he leads. The rest
of the priests in the movie are good guys, risking their lives to uncover the
truth and protect the innocent. Heck, no one even "forgets" their vow of
chastity, despite some fairly serious temptation.
To my mind, the church comes out of the movie fairly well, certainly better
than it does after all the ignorant and ill-informed protests.
Chris Halliday
otherchris@erols.com
Intolerance Is Contrary To SF's Spirit
was disappointed to see such blatant intolerance in Brian Prince's Issue No. 129 letter "Stigmata is Blatantly
Blasphemous." Prince's comments about "Catholic voodoo" and "supposed
holiness" reveal more about the speaker than the subject. Here in New York
City we have a mayor who has decided that a painting is blasphemous, and is
attempting to withhold the museum's funding for daring to show it. This
intolerance will only serve to narrow our horizons and our understanding of
the world.
Unfortunately, some people prefer their horizons short. It means they don't
have to deal with tough questions or make any effort to comprehend new
concepts and ideas. The very heart of SF is to expand our understanding of our
world and our own humanity. Intolerance is counter-productive and destructive
to the spirit of science fiction.
Robert Hoffmann
robred1@hotmail.com
The Bible Has More Mayhem Than Stigmata
tigmata is blasphemous? Job should be so lucky. The Bible is full of
stories of horrible things done to people by God for minor infractions (God
sends a she-bear to slaughter a bunch of children for teasing Elisha and
calling him "bald head") or just to win a wager (Job's case, though actually
performed by Satan with God's permission).
Whatever anyone may think of Stigmata as a movie, it can hardly compare to the
Old Testament for good old-fashioned mayhem and arbitrary divine behavior.
Mike Sheffield
areopagan@aol.com
Is SFWeekly Inciting Controversy?
hy did the editors [of Science Fiction Weekly] decide to include Brian Prince's Issue No. 129 letter "Stigmata is Blatantly Blasphemous"? I can see no other reason other than to incite a rabid response from intellectuals who would and do find his blind prejudice offensive.
Mr. Prince is too quick to label Stigmata "blasphemous," but he hasn't even seen the movie! His view of the movie is based on rumor and apparently the worst assumptions anyone could have made.
As far as the "blasphemy" of the film itself, well, that really depends upon your view of the Catholic church. I found a lot of things I agreed with in the movie. But unlike Prince, I have grounds to state my opinion: I was raised Catholic.
Please, in the future, filter your letters for blind ignorance.
Xian deLore
XIANdeVERO@webtv.net
Stigmata Isn't Good Enough To Offend
feel I must respond to the Issue No. 129 letter from Brian Prince "Stigmata is Blatantly Blasphemous." Now, I am sure I am not the only person writing regarding this most popular form of reactionary ignorance common in our culture today, so I will be brief.
I remember a similar reaction to a much better film from a few years ago called The Last Temptation of Christ in which [director] Martin Scorsese had the terrific gall to approach the subject of Christ from the point of view of a mortal man. Certainly, that movie was blasphemous from a dogmatic perspective, but it was also a thoughtful and deeply religious study of a simple man coming to grips with his destiny.
Stigmata is hardly worthy of such protest, because, for one thing, it's not as interesting, but more importantly, it's not about the spirit of Christ possessing anyone. It's about his gospels.
David Herschel
Skyngangor@aol.com
The Last Broadcast Is Pioneering
admit it, I fell for The Blair Witch Project hype hook, line, and sinker. I waited in line for tickets, bought the "dossier" book, decided that I had to have the video, poster, soundtrack, maybe even a t-shirt. After all, what an original idea! What a great Web site! How clever of those two guys to work it all out themselves! (I must stress here that I do believe the makers of The Blair Witch Project have crafted a clever and engaging film which I did enjoy, and still do.)
Then I read about Blair Witch's striking similarity to The Last Broadcast in Issue No. 129, read the entire linked 11th Hour article, and visited the linked Last Broadcast Web site. I'm surprised that the sound of my jaw dropping wasn't loud enough for all of you to hear!
Don't get me wrong--I know there's nothing new under the sun--but to be so completely misled as to the "originality" of the idea by the media, by the filmmakers themselves, who must have known very well that they were hardly going where no one had gone before, simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth and begs the question, where was the attention for the real innovators, the makers of The Last Broadcast? Where's their Newsweek cover, their cushy new jobs?
Having said that, however, I confess that I still intend to purchase the Blair Witch soundtrack and video--okay, maybe the poster--but I will be sure to also check out what seems to be the true pioneer, The Last Broadcast, and encourage other Blair Witch fans to do the same.
Mary Ann Martinez
nyssa23@thehellhole.com
Plenty Of Non-WASPs Populate SF TV
n her Issue No. 128 letter "WASPs Overrun SF Television," Susan Stein complained
"that the leads of SF TV shows...are always male and WASP" and wondered,
"Why couldn't the lead character of an SF TV show have the last name of
Kowolski, Goldberg, or Spinelli?"
If Stein is using "always" in the sense of "too
blamed often" (e.g., "You always ignore me!"), she has quite a strong point.
But if she's using "always" in its logical sense, she's simply wrong.
One specific example is sufficient to disprove the universal: Captain Janeway
of Star Trek: Voyager is probably Anglo-Saxon (though most likely not a
Protestant and therefore not a true WASP), but definitely not male. Yeah, it's too
bad the bridge crew are all males, but her engineer--of all roles--is female!
As for ethnics, I point out the racial diversity of Space: Above and Beyond of
a few years ago, now regrettably canceled. Also, Parker of Seven Days is played
by Jonathan LaPaglia, who with that noble nose of his looks at least as ethnic
as his name. The character Parker is presumably either Mediterranean on his
mother's side, or the family name's been changed.
George A. Trosper
gtrosper@aros.net
Give Canadian Culture Its Due
lthough I am happy to see that cheesy, wacky (and often tacky) Lexx is getting on the SCI FI Channel, I don't know why it is that Americans can't ever seem to say the word "Canada" when describing products of that country. I was born in the States, and I never had any inkling that our neighbors north of the border had an entertainment culture of their own. The reason I didn't know was that, although Americans are normally told when some singer is English, or some actor is Australian, it is barely mentioned when anything--movie, actor, or music group--is from Canada. I therefore naturally assumed that their culture was identical to ours and fed solely from Hollywood, etc.
Well, when I moved up here, what a surprise it was to find a healthy, wonderful Canadian music scene, and I discovered that a whole bunch of familiar faces whom I had always just assumed were American turned out to be actually Canadian.
So, to break the silence, Salter Street films is based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and CHUM is a multimedia group based in Toronto. I'm not terribly proud of Lexx, but there's a heck of a lot of other great Canadian stuff out there that I wish would get acknowledged. So mention it!
C. Cojeen
xarina@iname.com
GvsE Ripped Off German Film
have been very impressed with GvsE on USA Network up until I saw the episode "Choose
Your Own Evil" on Oct. 4. This episode was a blatant rip-off of
the German film Run Lola Run. Its plot, while based in the GvsE universe, was
identical to Lola in its structure. The idea of three different takes on the
same set of events is identical. Just like in Lola, various characters die
until they get things right. Even certain scenes were stolen. The entire plot
about the main character losing the amulet because his partner forgot to pick
him up is directly out of Lola, as well as the partner escaping getting caught
when he steals an amulet because all the cops thought he wasn't the thief and
ignored him. Such a blatant rip-off should at least pay some sort of respect
to the film whose plot they stole, yet I saw nothing relating to Run Lola Run.
Chris Divis
rohannight@home.com
There's Still Hope For The X-Files
would like to quickly reply to Melody Arneil's Issue No. 129 letter "The X-Files Has Died." In many ways I have to
agree with her. I'm what might be considered a loyalist of the show. I
continue to watch, even after a season of could-haves and might-have-beens.
One gets the feeling that Chris Carter has totally lost his way, that he has
wrapped the plot into so many different loopholes that he is no longer sure
what the story actually is.
Yet I do believe there is life left in the old show yet. There are just enough
good episodes thrown into the mix that I keep coming back, that I keep hoping
that it will turn around and we will be given episodes like those during the
series' heyday. I have a lot of hope for this next season because, as a whole,
The X-Files is still one of the most interesting and thought-provoking shows
on television. Here's to season seven and the hope that The
X-Files will go out with a bang and not a whimper!
Elenna Conner
ElenaCon@aol.com
Janeway Is A Realistic Military Officer
s to Star Trek: Voyager's "broken promises," I must say I personally like the
treatment of Kathryn Janeway as a tyrannical ideologue, willing to kill
everyone on her ship to have her way. This presents a contrast to Jim Kirk's
near total devotion to protecting ship and crew and Picard's Renaissance man
benevolence.
Janeway is like a number of officers I served with who looked upon everything
in their purview as personal property, or simply extensions of themselves, to
be used as they pleased. Such officers behave parentally toward their
subordinates (at best), and are the kind who end up getting charged for sexual
harassment and fraternization, among other things, because they have the
illusion that they are not answerable for their actions.
In Janeway's case she truly is not answerable for her actions, or at least the
possibility of ever being held accountable is so remote that she doesn't give
a damn. Several occasions have already occurred that should have prompted a
first officer to take command and put the captain in the brig. However, since
the first officer here is a traitor facing court martial and prison upon his
return to the Alpha Quadrant, he is hardly in a moral position to enforce
military discipline. Also it appears she has assured Chakotay's personal
loyalty by becoming involved with him in a way that even Star Fleet regulations would
surely prohibit. At the same time, the commander of a ship so far from home
with so little hope of ever getting home may need to become larger than life
and tougher than nails just to keep the crew on task.
Voyager will never be one big happy star-treking crew with Janeway on the
bridge, but that is how it sometimes plays out it the real world. I certainly
dislike the character and the way the other crew members toady to her like the
children of an abusive and molesting parent. At the same time, that's what
finally makes this series interesting. Janeway's not entirely stable. She's
often wrong. She demands but does not engender or give respect. She's real
world in many ways, and the negative side of her character adds conflict and
unpredictability to an otherwise very formulaic show. This keeps me watching,
hoping for the day, however unlikely, when Janeway will get her arrogance
shoved down her throat.
Ron Garrett
ron.garrett@angelfire.com
Voyager Lacks A Central Theme
e, the die-hard Star Trek fans, see and lament the many problems of Star Trek: Voyager,
but what really is the root of these problems? I would like to offer my own
theory. In each of the previous series, a clear theme could be found. This
theme defined the characters and drove the stories. In the original series, it was
morality. All the best episodes were founded on a moral statement. In Star Trek: The Next Generation,
it was technology and science. In Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, it was religion and politics. While
each series possessed elements of the other's driving force, the dominance of
each theme defined the show. And now Voyager. It takes a little bit from the
others, it has the characters, the stories, it goes through the motions. But
what is its theme? Certainly, something could be slapped on. Integration,
survival, self-reliance. But, do these really work? I like Star Trek. I
want to like Voyager. But I just don't know what it's about.
Todd Caldwell
Khaliban@wauknet.com
Voyager: Different And Better
usually don't write letters defending television shows, but I have to speak
in defense of Star Trek: Voyager just because so many people seem to have so
many things against it.
First of all, to all of those who dislike Captain Janeway's personality, let's
not forget that she has often been shown as an incredible mother figure to the
show's characters, and that although she might be a little overbearing at
times, she has been given the most layers of any Star Trek captain. The
writers have really explored different aspects of her personality, and I
believe that makes for a well-rounded character. I love the way that the
writers and Kate Mulgrew have dealt with the growing stress of trying to get
these people home. If you had this type of responsibility, wouldn't you be a
little bitchy at times?
Secondly, for those who say that the characters have not changed at all, I
would suggest that they take a look at Torres and Paris' on-going
relationship, the Doctor's expansion into sentience and Seven of Nine's
rediscovery of her humanity.
Yes, the show is different from Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, but I
can argue that some episodes are better, from "The Caretaker" to "Future's
End" and "The Year of Hell," Star Trek: Voyager has given us some of the best
science fiction on television.
Mazerati Alexander Nieves
Charm272@aol.com
Take A Closer Look At Voyager
n response to Brett Shaff's Issue No. 129 letter "Voyager Is Full Of Broken Promises," it's too bad you
didn't see the episode where Ensign Kim fell in love. As I recall, he threw
Janeway's "I'm so disappointed in you..." speech right back into her face. At
least she had the grace to recognize it. If you want to focus on one character
as a reason to kill a show, I would think you would have to look at the flip
side as well. Janeway is literally "without peer" in the Delta Quadrant.
Chakotay is the closest thing around to another Starfleet captain with whom
she can interact. One episode even established a personal undercurrent to
their relationship which I wish could be explored further. She's human, and
she's alone. Having seen the fallible side of Captain Picard, I feel that he
would probably be having similar difficulties in similar situations.
As for character of Naomi Wildemann, correct me if I am wrong, but don't
those spines down her forehead and the very circumstances of her birth kind of
point out that she's not fully human? We have no way to know how fast
her father's species matures or how much of her physiology resembles his.
Now, I don't know about you, but I think Paris and Torres' relationship should
be steamy enough to satisfy anyone who wants to explore relationships. And as
for the concept of the "generation" ship, has it missed anyone's attention
that the trip which was originally scheduled to take 75+ years has been
refigured several times, and that in five years they have actually reduced the
projected time by almost one third?
I am a Star Trek: All Versions fan. If you don't like it anymore, don't watch
it. But don't slam it either.
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@mail.com
Critics Watch Voyager...With Dismay
his is in response to Bruce Douglas' Issue No. 129 letter "Are The Critics Watching Voyager?" I believe that the critics of Star Trek: Voyager are watching. With dismay. But still watching because it is the only Trek on. I would rather watch reruns of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine than catch the latest Voyager. But, if I have no other choice, I am inexplicably drawn to anything Trek. It has seized my imagination. There is always some hope that Voyager will improve with maturity. But my hope is dwindling. Maybe Janeway does need to find a planet she can't live without. The actress can't see herself playing this role for much longer anyway. Between Janeway and Seven of Nine, the characters of the show need something else to do!
Marion Stade
BEAGA@aol.com
Is Character Development So Important?
n his Issue No. 129 letter "Voyager Is Full Of Broken Promises" Brett Shaff called for the ending of Star
Trek: Voyager, the meandering adventure that's as desperate to find a
good script as the crew is to find home. Among other claims Brett says
that Voyager has broken the "cardinal" rule of providing a likable
captain. I have to dispute this finding. I had problems with Janeway
early on because I felt she was too facile. Now she appears to have the
same aggressive, "my word is law" attitude that Kirk, Picard and Sisko
displayed. I can recall each of the preceding captains giving their
crew the evil eye when something didn't go their way, especially Kirk,
who was exceedingly brash.
So there have been a number of creative decisions that haven't panned
out. None of the previous Star Trek's have held close to their original
vision. None of them. Voyager's first few episodes of season six have
been promising, and more importantly, interesting stories. To me that's
the cardinal rule. Everyone seems bent on the journalistic cliche of
"character development." How much character development did Doctor McCoy have?
Not much, but the country doctor was integral to anything regarding the
original cast. We need interesting stories and situations. Star Trek is
not a prime-time melodrama folks.
I like where Voyager appears to be going. It's just too bad it took so
long getting here as the end is nearer than we think. Here's one former
Voyager detractor who wouldn't mind serving with Kathryn Janeway. If
you don't like the show, fine. But stop calling for an end to something
some of us actually enjoy.
Sean Hawk
seanhawk@mindspring.com
