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
Anderson's X-Files Episode Stunk
've just seen the The X-Files episode "all things" written and directed by Gillian Anderson, a.k.a. Dana Scully. And I have to say I thought it was the worst episode in the show's seven-year run. I mean, I really hated this episode. What was Chris Carter thinking when he decided to produce this piece of crap? I'll tell you what he was thinking. He was thinking, "If I just let her do this one episode it'll make her happy, and I can maybe get her to come back for season eight." Carter is letting those actors run that show any way they see fit, and because of that the quality of the show is hurting. Allowing Anderson to do that episode was the worst move he did so far as producer of The X-Files. The first word he should have said after reading that script was, "No." The episode reminded me of a Calvin Klein perfume commercial, with all the slow motion shots and that stupid music playing, rather than a episode of The X-Files. The story was, at most, lame. The dialog was cheesy. And I remember no better example of overacting than Anderson sitting next to the old fart bawling her eyes out. And I can understand why she was crying. The stench was just too much to handle. I could smell it. Didn't you?
Joseph Mills
badcompany@earthdome.com
Farscape Is No Voyager
[Please note: This letter contains plot spoilers for the Farscape episode "Crackers Don't Matter." --Brooks]
hen I saw the end of this week's Farscape episode, "Crackers Don't
Matter," I noticed something that I had to comment on. What a different
television show this is from Star Trek: Voyager and a lot of the other
science fiction of today. Voyager is loaded with liberal propaganda
and a love everyone/Pollyanna attitude. I remember the episode of
Voyager with the Vidiians, called "Phage," where the aliens were stealing
body parts from healthy beings so that they could live. When the
episode ended, Janeway ranted and raved, but let them go, so they could
go off and kill again. Remember the Prime Directive! We cannot
interfere with another race, even if they are a danger to every other
species in the universe. At the end of Farscape, I was ready for
Crichton to let T'raltixx live, but lo and behold, he thrust his sword
through him. It made me happy to see that a show could break with tradition and risk this. Here we have a life threatening entity that
has endangered the lives of the crew and clearly would have been a
threat to others if he weren't stopped. Crichton eliminated the
problem. I always felt like Star Trek: Voyager emulated the liberal
political agenda of today. Prosecute the innocent and help the guilty.
I know this sounds like a political commentary, but that's what science
fiction is and always has been. The original Star Trek series dealt
with this country's problems during the '60s. It reflected on such
issues as racism, war and the hippie movement to name just a few.
Voyager seems to reflect what is going on today in politics. Maybe
that's why I hate the show so much.
Shane Hannafey
Hannafey@ix.netcom.com
Of Course Tolkien Used Myths
will grant that the many of the characters and creatures found in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien have become clichés, overused by authors at the end of the 20th century. Please keep in mind that Tolkien began writing in the 1930s and 1940s, well before many of today's authors were even born.
Did Tolkien use existing myths and legends as a basis for The Lord of the Rings? Of course! The gentleman was a professor of Middle English language and literature. His translation of the classic "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" into modern English is still considered one of the best. Tolkien used many facets of earlier works as a basis to build his own tale, just as many of today's authors use LotR as a basis for their works. Tolkien used the classic heroic cycle as a basis for his stories, a literary standard dating back to the Beowulf saga and earlier.
Brian Dunten
dunten@iquest.net
Let's See More Single-Volume Epics
consider The Lord of the Rings to be one of the greatest fantasy epics ever written. However, I also bemoan the precedent that it set, which has been carried to ridiculous extremes by Robert Jordan, i.e., the idea of a story arc extending over three or more volumes. This has, unfortunately, become the norm in the last 15 or so years. I read the first volume in Jordan's Wheel of Time series and liked it. But, having been a SF/fantasy devotee since the mid-'50s, nothing irks me more than finishing a 600-page book only to discover that there should be a "To Be Continued" line at the end. Not to mention finding that this is only volume one of a projected 10. I refuse to indulge the author's and publisher's pocketbooks that much.
Whatever happened to single-volume epic fantasies like Tolkien's own The Hobbit, or Byron Preiss and J. Michael Reaves' Dragonworld? Much better, to me, are the series of separate volumes set in a single world, each with its own, self-contained story arc, like Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea Trilogy or Michael Moorcock's Elric saga.
The sad truth is that almost all fantasies published today are just "variations on a theme." Very rare is the fantasy author who attempts to break the mold or color outside the lines. Perhaps if we as readers let publishers know that we expect more from them than the same stories with name changes, we can breathe some life into an otherwise stale, lifeless genre.
Pat Owens
pjowens@att.net
Good Fantasy Doesn't Copy Tolkien
obert Jordan is a hack. How many books does he need to sell before he finishes
the Wheel of Time story? I'm glad I never picked any of his books. Eight books and
counting, what's he writing, a triple trilogy? I read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit
when I was in the fifth grade. Every kid in my class read those books. Of
course, that was b.c. (before cable). The Jordan fan base seems to be a
lot older and less literate. I can think of lots of great fantasy books:
The Riddle Master of Hed trilogy by Patricia McKillip; The Lion, The
Witch and The Wardrobe series by C.S. Lewis; The Thomas Covenant double
trilogy by Stephen Donaldson; A Plague of Angels by Sherri S. Tepper (which
turns fantasy on its ear); The Seventh Son series by Orson Scott Card; and
the Seven Princes in Amber double series by Roger Zelazny. That's about
25 books right there and yet none of them copy Tolkien. That is excepting
the fact that they are complete stories, evenly paced and well written.
Tim Huck
timhuck@netmagic.net
WoT Deserves A Share Of The Market
t seems as though the people who are the biggest bashers of Robert Jordan have this preset idea of what the Wheel of Time series is supposed to be and where it is supposed to go. These same people seem to be looking at each book individually and not as a whole series, which is as it needs to be (I feel). Yes these books have a line that is similar to J.R.R. Tolkien, but is different enough to still be an extremely well done series. The Tolkien series is, in my mind, a good series to read but is a very dry, detailed read. Jordan on the other hand is detailed but not anywhere close to being dry. In one of the letters posted, I saw someone make reference to the fact the Tolkien drew his series from legends, and I agree and would like to add that I haven't found a writer yet that doesn't follow that "guideline" for writing stories. If you want to say that Jordan is a rip-off of Tolkien and Tolkien is a rip-off of legends and myths, then all writers are guilty of that accusation. But regardless, the Wheel of Time series is, to my opinion, the best series on the shelf today. If you want to go on picking on each individual book to make your opinion on the series as a whole, then go ahead, no one will stop you. Even I might agree with you even as I agree with the person who wrote that the last installment of the series was a disappointment. The fact remains that Tolkien has his share of the market for a classic series. Jordan is now claiming his fair share.
Scott Boelens
sboelens@hotmail.com
Hollywood Can't Top God
admire Evan Moore ("The Immoral Can't Teach Religion," Issue No. 154) for taking personal responsibility to raise his kids instead of blaming TV, movies, etc., for their actions. But I had to laugh at his description of what "Hollywood does best." If memory serves, some of the worst atrocities (mayhem, murder) in history have been committed in God's name; and some of the most noted religious icons were the biggest adulterers ever.
Judy Erp
judy.erp@honeywell.com
Clute Reveals Too Much
n his recent review of Revelation Space by Alastair Reynolds, John
Clute reveals more than he intends, even though the title of his column
is Excessive Candour. He shows that he has fallen victim to a malady
that is particularly likely to strike genre reviewers, a sickness which
can best be described as "Subgenre Fatigue."
These are boom times for genre fiction. Harry Potter is dominating the
bestseller lists. There's a lot to review and, alas, a lot to like.
Genre fiction is so prevalent that subgenres have blossomed that could
envelop entire publishing houses all by themselves. One could easily
found a house to publish only vampire-related work. And yes, a lot of
that vampire fiction is actually quite well written. However, one has
to get past the eye-rolling phase when confronted with Yet Another
Vampire Novel to review, or one's review of said novel is likely to be
nothing more than an extended snit about how sick one is of vampire
fiction in general, and how the latest straw to be piled upon the
reviewing camel's back is indicative everything that's wrong with
everything.
The esteemed Mr. Clute seems to have found Revelation Space to be that
straw and it apparently came down upon his back like a ton of bricks.
In this case, the subgenre is space opera, where the glut is so severe
that it threatens to sweep away the entire SF ghetto in the chain
bookstores. In fact, many of them have already relegated whole shelves to
Star Wars and its spin-offs. But the glut consists not only of media
generated spin-offs, but of high quality material by established writers,
which Mr. Clute thoughtfully points out at the beginning of his review.
In this landscape, why even bother to compete? Presumably, because even
in the most crowded artistic landscape, two writers treating precisely
the same subject can say very different things. However, one has to be
able to look at each work with a fresh eye. In a landscape crowded with
quantity of the quality that Clute describes, even the most inspired
reviewer can become jaded, bored and experience a default reaction of
hostility to Yet Another Subgenre Novel. This has clearly happened to
John Clute in regards to Revelation Space.
The reviewer fatigue warning alarms sound off early when Clute
mentions two common assumptions of the space opera subgenre--faster-than-light
travel and the ansible (that is, FTL communication)--and faults the
novelist for not basing his novel upon these assumptions. Things reach
a crisis point in the review when Clute blandly reveals massive plot
spoilers for the novel and makes statements that suggest that he did not
understand or even closely read it, though I'm certain he did both.
It must
be noted that he does mention a number of things he liked, which, if one
reads carefully, add up to most of the novel. But in the end, he
quickly dismisses the novel, and hopefully he is taking a vacation from
science fiction entirely. I suspect that there are a few vampire novels
he could read to give himself a break from his tedium.
In contrast to Clute, I found Revelation Space to be an entertaining and
well-written gothic novel in space. The "elaborate infodumps" that he
speaks of make the journey toward the final chapter enormously
entertaining, and the limitations he puts upon his characters give the
novel a different feel from that which is commonly encountered in the
space-opera genre. Some of what Clute says is clearly untrue--that
which he calls a red herring is not, for example.
Reynolds clearly
knows his astrophysics, and his speculations are pretty interesting,
though it is his elaborate tapestries of character and setting that made
the book so enjoyable for me. While the BigThinks are an important part
of any space opera, the length and detail of the typical novel/series
suggest that it is the ride rather than the destination which is
all-important. Reynolds provides an entirely satisfying ride with an
appropriately spectacular ending. Moreover, in this age of
series- and sequel-itis, Revelation Space provides a most satisfying
one-gulp read. Yes, it leaves the door open for sequels, but one does
not close the book and tap one's foot impatiently waiting for the next
chapter.
If one does not like the novel, then it can be reviewed without
dismissive plot spoilers. One can say that the ride is boring and the
conclusion is uninteresting. One need not give away the plot in order
to do so, unless the reviewer is a broken-backed camel, wailing his
displeasure for an appreciative audience.
Rick Kleffel
gigo@trashotron.com
[John Clute's column is criticism, and as such is a deeper exploration and analysis of the novels he looks at than our regular book reviews, which attempt to evaluate books for readers without giving away the stories. --Brooks]
Star Trek Must Evolve Or Die
re any of you aware of evolution? Evolution is change and
growth, without which anything will wither and die. Are you
people trying to kill Star Trek? Drop the "Bring Back Kirk"
routine. He's dead and Trek has carried on quite well
without him. I am an old time fan, a Trekkie, and I've
embraced all the new ideas. That is, after all, what Trek is
about. I'd like to see closure on all of the characters from the original series.
Perhaps Spock gets killed by the Romulans, or sent home in
disgrace during the Dominon war. Uhura settles down and has
a family. As for the Entire "Captain Sulu" idea--lame. It
would just be a retread of the original series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. Trek is a forward
looking show; the fans should be too. Those fans who try to
force their ideas on others are doing the entire SF world a
disservice. This could be why so many true SF fans despise
those who are strictly Trek only fans. Remember that SF
existed before Trek and will live after it's gone.
Rob Morganbesser
Beowolf2001@aol.com
Trek Producers--Listen To Fans!
have had it. I am just fed up with the way Star Trek producers ignore the
pleas of countless fans, while at the same time pursuing their own murky
agenda(s). Maybe if Gene Roddenberry was still at the helm of his ship, we'd feel
differently and be obliged to follow the course set by him. Such is the
license given to series' founders, and rightfully so. But it's become
plainly obvious that Roddenberry is not at the helm, producers Brannon Braga and/or Rick Berman are not
Trek's founders, and that the current direction(s) being taken with the
franchise please Trekkers/Trekkies very little.
Here we have an organized, active, and rapidly growing fan base that is
supporting a new Trek series that centers on Captain Sulu and the starship Excelsior. People
are literally screaming for this new series--at the top of their Internet
lungs--and all folks like Berman or Braga can say is, "Well, I don't think
it will happen." Of course it won't happen. Not as long as the Star Trek
franchise continues to be piloted into oblivion by an executive crew that
seems to care very little about the fans who make the entire franchise go.
I
mean, they have the fans, they have the actors, they probably even have
most
of the stock props necessary to go with a Sulu and Excelsior show! Right
here,
right now! But no, it's still, "Well, I don't think it will happen."
I probably won't watch any new series that does
not feature Sulu, the Excelsior, et al. I probably will not encourage any
friends to watch any new series without Sulu, the Excelsior, et al. I probably
won't
even bother with any big screen adaptations of any new series without Sulu, the
Excelsior, et al.
Brad R. Torgersen
subodeon@w-link.net
Trek Should Go Forward, Not Back
ot all the Star Trek fans want an Excelsior show. Me and some of my fellow Trek fans think that an Excelsior show is the wrong idea. Trek is a good series but we have done the 23rd century and the 24th century and we know what the Federation is in the 29th century, so let's do a show that falls between the 25th-28th centuries. We are going forward, so let's not go backward in time. That would be bad. Trek is a forward-looking show. So let's look forward. Let's continue going forward though the timeline. Also, I think that they need to start doing non-canon movies from novels more.
Shawn Riley
Shawnr_2@audiohighway.net
Ear Mice Aren't Engineered
egarding Wil McCarthy's column on genetic engineering: I am disturbed by one misconception perpetuated in an otherwise interesting article. Specifically, he mentions the mice with the human ears on their backs as being examples of a form of genetic engineering. In fact they are nothing of the kind, although there has been much propaganda from the environmentalist front to the contrary.
Actually those mice were an example of something called "tissue engineering," in which "a template in the shape of a human ear was formed and then seeded with human chondrocytes, or cartilage cells. The template was then surgically implanted on the back of a mouse, under its skin. The chondrocytes eventually grew into the structure resembling a child's ear.
"Eventually this technology may help children who are either born
without ears or who lose their ears through injury."
This isn't even "xenotransplantation." Xenotransplantation involves the transplantation of an organ or tissue or part from another creature into a human, such as a baboon heart, or a pig kidney. There is a possibility that this kind of thing may be done in the future, and may involve genetic modification of the donor species to provide more compatible tissues, but that is still a few steps down the road.
"The advantage of this technique is that tissue grown from a patient's own cells avoids the problem of rejection.
"But nothing in this process involves changing the genetic structure of any living thing.
"If the mouse reproduced, no 'new' creature would be created. A
normal mouse would result because the mouse's genetic makeup was not changed."
James Freeman in his USA Today column last week did a nice piece from a lay perspective on the topic of genetic modification and xenotransplantation. As for the mouse with the ear, my source for the quoted parts above is Steven Milloy of the Cato Institute, and his site www.junkscience.com.
Otherwise the column was interesting and informative.
Andrew Millard
email withheld by request
Wil McCarthy replies:
Sorry for the confusion: the ear itself consisted of human cartilage
cells grown on a biodegradable polyester scaffolding. Tissue
engineering, yes. However, the mice were a custom breed
designed to lack both body hair and an immune system, so they
could nurture the human tissue in a harvestable condition, without
rejecting it.
