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.
-- Brooks Peck, Editor
Exposure Rocks!
was surprised and a little disappointed to see that Science Fiction Weekly didn't review [the new SCI FI Channel show] Exposure, so I decided to submit my own review. It gets an A+ from me.
If this is what we should expect from future films, then maybe humanity is worth saving after all. I think it's refreshing to see science fiction portrayed on film as something more than big, bulky spaceships and fancy explosions.
"Protest" was my personal favorite. It was serene yet tear-jerking. Dust City seemed to me like a hilarious parody on David and Goliath, and More was a bittersweet musical journey through loneliness, fame, and self destruction. I was especially pleased to see stop-motion animation being used. It is, in my opinion, the most underrated film medium ever.
If only Hollywood could open its eyes and see that this is what science fiction is all about, and this is what people want to see. The only problem I had with Exposure was its time slot. Isn't there a vacant spot somewhere in SCI FI Prime that it could be put in?
Dylan Ramey
dyl@n-link.com
Wheel Is No Rings
was very surprised to see people reducing Wheel of Time to The Lord of the Rings. Yes, it is true, Jordan did write the beginning of the story to resemble LotR, but if you keep reading the series, you'll see that the books are quite different. First of all, it's very hard to find a purely positive character. We all know that Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, etc., are all positive and will not do anything against each other. You will not find such characters in Wheel of Time. Everybody has his own agenda. We also get a rather detailed look at what's going on in the enemy's camp. In general intrigues are very well done and very hard to predict. This is very nicely done series (although it was better in the first five books, then it started to degrade). It most certainly is not a remake of The Lord of the Rings.
Vadim Dribinsky
dimon@alum.mit.edu
Wheel Uses Archetypes, Not Rip-Offs
o those folks who wrote in decrying Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series as a Tolkien rip-off: You couldn't be more wrong.
Did they use some of the same things? Surely. But let's look at both the similarities and differences and see if Wheel is really a Rings rip-off.
Letter Writer's Claim: Jordan's just taken orcs and made them Trollocs, and so forth.
Opinion: I don't think so. For example, I have yet to see one Dwarf or Elf in the Wheel of Time. And while Padan Fain could be Gollum's long-lost cousin, that's about as far as I want to throw that one. And what are we to make of Loial and the Ogier? They don't remind me of anything in Tolkien's world except trolls, which is exactly how Rand and the others reacted when they first met him.
Letter Writer's Claim: They both use magic in place of technology in a "World War."
Opinion: Sure, but what's wrong with that? Tolkien and Jordan both do so, but in very different ways. Frankly, I've always found Jordan's use of this theme far more satisfying that Tolkien's. Why? Because it's a bit more realistic, fractious, and political in nature rather than merely an all-out good vs. evil fight.
Letter Writer's Claim: They both use unsuspecting heroes.
Opinion: Not so. Both Frodo and Rand may be unsuspecting at the beginning, but where Frodo stays much, much more innocent throughout the series and, well, plods his way to the inevitable destruction of the One Ring, Rand's characterization is much different. Rand, certainly, in the first and most of the second books, is horrified at what he is becoming, tries to run away from it, and even is "unsuspecting" of how things will go for him. But unlike Frodo--possibly because Lews Therin keeps "talking" to him--he begins to embrace his role as "The Dragon Reborn." Rand grows up into a mature, almost anti-hero of a hero. Frodo, except possibly at the very end, remains very much the "young" hobbit.
Letter Writer's Claim: The (overuse) of a Dark One, or Ultimate Evil.
Opinion: Come on, that's the very definition of a fantasy story. In a real basic sense, fantasy writing (to me, anyway), is the expression of an almost black-and-white, good vs. evil story. There has to be an ultimate evil to overcome in order for ultimate good to triumph. More to the point, there has to be good magic and bad magic. Both authors used/use this to their advantage, although I think Jordan has possibly done a better job at providing some "shades of gray" magic and characters. Where Tolkien's Middle Earth seems to be almost exclusively populated with wholly good people and wholly evil people, "Wheel" provides us with characters that are a mixture of both. This kind of character development has become more and more important as fantasy and science fiction gain an even wider popularity: intelligent readers want intelligent fiction.
The point I'm trying to make, is that these Jordan critics are trying to say that we've seen all these and other elements in fantasy ad
nauseum. There's only one problem: Those elements are precisely what makes fantasy literature fantasy. Certainly authors can strive to mix things up a bit. Jordan, for instance, has introduced us to what I believe are the best female fantasy characters I've ever read. They do not take a back seat to the princes and wizards and heroes. They are noble and have powerful magic, and are certainly heroic in their own right. The same goes for Jordan's villains. They are far more complex than Tolkien's.
And before someone accuses me of Tolkien-bashing, I am absolutely not doing that. For his time, and in immortality, in my opinion, he crafted what I believe to the single best collection of high fantasy anyone has ever written. Jordan may be inspired, as all we fantasy authors are, by Tolkien, but we could never match his voice, nor should we strive to.
Martin L. Cahn
editor@demensions.freehosting.net
Tolkien Was A Hack Too
raig Shoemake and Brian Hunt, in their Issue No. 154 letters, both seem to like painting Robert Jordan as some hack and J.R.R. Tolkien as the god of fantasy, but let's get serious, folks, Tolkien was a hack too. Ever read Celtic legends? Same stuff, he just condensed it into a series of three books and threw a bunch of silly prose. Oh, and I don't think orcs were an exclusive creation of Tolkien, either. How can you complain about the Wheel of Time when you didn't even get past the first book? There's eight of them, you know, and just because the beginnings of the two series were similar (which Jordan said he intended, in order to make the reader feel comfortable), doesn't mean the end result is. Now, I'm not exactly pleased with the most recent book of the Wheel of Time, but I'm sick of people saying that Jordan is a hack and no one can touch Tolkien. There's a good reason why Jordan has an enormous
fan base. Face it, he's been surpassed by Jordan, by Robin Hobb, by George R.R. Martin, by Guy Gavriel Kay and by numerous others. Regarding clichés, don't you think every genre suffers from this? How about all of sf's clichés? I agree that some originality is needed, but I think if you bothered to finish out the Wheel of Time, you'd have to agree that at the very least, it is original.
Steve Dunn
dunnsp@jmu.edu
Wheel TV Would Be Garbage
just read a letter recommending that J. Michael
Straczynski produce the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. I have
absolutely no doubt that he would do a fine job, I simply question the
merit of the project.
I've been reading SF and fantasy for many years, and I have to say, I
have never read a more boring and unengaging excuse for an epic in my life
than the Wheel of Time. I have read the last four novels simply to see
if
something compelling happens, and I have been disappointed every bloody
time. It would make a poor excuse for a television series, since it
already
makes an even poorer excuse for literature.
The wealth of incredible storytelling available makes the printing of this
tripe even less forgivable. There are only so many times I can put down a Jordan novel and think to myself: "Well, I guess he was fulfilling some sort
of contractual obligation," or "How many times is the publisher going to
sucker me into buying another book in this worthless series?"
Please ban the Wheel of Time from getting on the air! Or, alternatively,
add some car chases and explosions and put the resulting garbage on the
WB.
Frank Robledano
frank@neoplanet.com
Jordan Surpasses Tolkien
Robert Jordan a rip-off of J.R.R. Tolkien? By far, and I mean way far, Jordan is a much superior writer than Tolkien ever was. Jordan does not have orcs and goblins and elves and the classic fantasy creatures that are found in most books that are deemed fantasy. What Jordan has is original characterization, original monsters/villains, both good and bad alignment characters that a reader can relate to and be connected with. From what I've been seeing on the net and seeing the following that Jordan has amassed, I really believe he has surpassed Tolkien in popularity as well as literary style.
Peter Sung
petersung@hawaii.rr.com
Family Guy Is The True Evil
am somewhat confused by the religious right's reactions to the sitcom God, the Devil and Bob. Seems they succeeded in getting it canned, but have ignored a far more offensive and downright "evil" bit of television that airs on the FOX network.
At the so called "family hour" time of 8:30 p.m. on Tuesdays, this network has the bad grace to air a show called Family Guy, which blatantly abuses the entire concept of good taste and parental respect. The language used is abysmal, the jokes infantile and disgusting, and at no time is the viewer given any notion that this attitude is degrading to our culture as a whole.
God, the Devil and Bob was not nearly as socially reprehensible as Family Guy. Come on you guys, if you want to protest, at least get the right targets!
Joseph Kelch
joek@magnus1.com
Choosing Berman Is A Mistake
t's pretty interesting that Paramount is supposedly considering a new Star Trek series based on the early days of the Federation. Add the rumor that the main villain comes from the 29th century in an attempt to prevent the Federation from ever forming, and it gets better. Problem is, didn't we already see this plot in Star Trek: First Contact? It's a sad state of affairs when all Rick Berman and company can come up with is a rehash of what we've seen before. Fans have lost faith in the current powers that be; Roddenberry's biggest mistake was in aligning himself with Berman in the first place.
Paramount, listen to the fans! You may own the franchise but it's the fans who give it life! We're telling you what we want: Excelsior!
Myron Rumsey
arcturus@servtech.com
Will Andromeda Preserve Roddenberry's Vision?
wish there was some way to let the suits at Paramount know that keeping
Brannon Braga on board as the resident Star Trek developer is just going to mean that we
get another new series about the temporal/spatial anomaly/deus ex machina
of the week. I have watched Star Trek loyally since it was on NBC and I am
saddened to admit that now I prefer reruns of The X-Files on FX rather than endure
another evening with Janeway.
I wish that Paramount would take two small hints concerning the future of
Trek: fresh blood and J. Michael Straczynski. Since that won't happen, I
only hope Robert Hewitt Wolfe's work on Andromeda can keep Gene
Roddenberry's vision of science fiction television alive. Maybe, just
maybe, Kevin Sorbo's Dylan Hunt can keep the legend of Jim Kirk and the
legacy of Gene Roddenberry alive. At least we can dream.
John Miller
jamiller@dbtech.net
Comics Made Wonder Woman, Not Carter
hile I agree with Davey March that Vance Pitman seems to have missed the point of the Madonna/Wonder Woman controversy, I completely disagree with some of his statements ("Madonna Hasn't Got The 'Look,'" Issue No. 154).
He says that Lynda Carter set the "look" for Wonder Woman. I grew up with Wonder Woman comics. If you look at the comics circa 1960-1975, you will see that it is the visual art itself that sets the look for Wonder Woman.
And actually, the issue is about Wonder Woman being an Amazon. Madonna does not have the physique to pull off this role credibly. Casting strictly by body type (not to mention acting ability), Lindsey Wagner could play the Queen, Brooke Shields (we can forgive her The Blue Lagoon, she was very young then) could play Diana, and I'm sure if I thought hard enough I could come up with a good male actor for the role of the ubiquitous Maj. Steve Trevor.
The point of all this is, Madonna is a brilliant business woman and an outstanding performer. It seems inconceivable that she would put time and effort into a venture that just doesn't fit her.
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@mail.com
Women Have Imaginations Too
agree with much of Linda Jokisch's Issue No. 153 letter "All TV Is For Men." Although I do not think that all television is geared towards men, I do believe that most SF is. When the female age 18-49 audience gets a show, it's some sappy romance about divorced people starting over again. Why is it so hard to believe that women watch television, that we like to think and that we have imaginations? One of the best shows to come along in a long time (in general) was Prey, which aired in 1998. This was a science fiction show that had something for everyone. It appealed to a wide age range, and yes, to both men and women. But women aged 18-34 made up a very large part of its audience. Of course, it was cancelled after 13 episodes. It was treated about as badly by ABC as a network can treat a show. It had a large cult following at the time it was canceled, and still continues to carry that following. In fact the fan base has grown since it's airing in syndication on the SCI FI Channel. But we are subjected to TV movies like Satan's School for Girls, and shows like Roswell (which is just a teenaged Prey) and a slew of other direct to teenage viewers productions. It would just be nice, if for once, the adult female viewer could be treated to something other than shows about single parents raising their rebellious teenagers.
Barb Reedy
babsreedy@aol.com
Less Gunfire, More Talk
s far as the screw heads who make the decisions
on some--make that most--of the networks are concerned,
the programs that women in the 18-49 demographic should be
watching are on the Lifetime Channel or during the hours of
7 a.m.-5 p.m., when the talk shows and soap operas are on.
This is what the "wives" and the "mommies" should be
watching, apparently, and all women seemed to be lumped into
this group. Women over 16 who watch shows like the Star
Trek quartet, Farscape, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Earth: Final Conflict, The X-Files, etc., don't really exist as far as
ratings are concerned.
Personally, I think shows like The Sentinel and Due
South, both of which had a huge female fan base, were
canned when they did not attract an equally large male
adolescent group, which was probably what the networks were
targeting. Too much conversation between the characters,
not enough gunfire.
Linda Stoops
jassmoris@yahoo.com
