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
X-Files Thrives On Being Different
ow can one say that Gillian Anderson's episode of The X-Files was the worst one ever? Have you really been watching this season? In my opinion, aside for the two star written-directed episodes and the episode of the revelation of Mulder's sister Samantha, just about everything out this season has been sub-par and very formulaic. X-Files rose to the popularity it has because it was different from anything out there. So when Anderson tries something just a little different, within the show's boundaries mind you, she gets ridiculed. I for one liked what she added to her episode. While some of the moments, like the slow-speed shots and the music, weren't completely X-Files-ish, they were Anderson's unique touches that added to her story.
Marty Spears
giantyoda@hotmail.com
Anderson's X-Files Made Nice Break
have to disagree with Joseph Mills's Issue No. 156 letter "Anderson's X-Files Episode Stunk." First off, the music was by Moby, who is probably one of the most brilliant musicians to come out of the '90s and into the 21st century. If you have seen the last couple of episodes, you would have heard some of his other music. Second, Anderson was not overacting; I think she played the part very well. It was not her best performance, but it was good. Altogether the episode was a nice break from the usual find-the-new-monster-of-the-week formula.
Sheldon Ehli
skiweasel12@netscape.net
"all things" Showed The Real Scully
his is in response to the letter from Joseph Mills ("Anderson's X-Files Episode Stunk," Issue No. 156), a reader who editorialized on his hatred for the "all things" episode of The X-Files written by Gillian Anderson. I disagree. I thought it was very well developed. Through all the episodes of the show, there have been very few that explored actual emotional meaning to the character Scully. Mulder has always been quite well developed; with his crusade to find the truth about his sister and father. Scully had always been the side-kick and was never the topic of deep behavior, emotion, or personal background. She never got her time in the emotional limelight, and the only way she had a chance was to write it herself. I found the episode to be touching, giving the viewers a real idea of why Scully is how she is, which we never knew before. We always knew where Mulder was coming from. I think Anderson did an amazing job, and shouldn't be badmouthed just because the paranormal ideology wasn't present with her writing style.
Amanda Melton
Kay3160@aol.com
'The Worst' Is A Bit Harsh
eepers, Joseph Mills should lighten up a bit ("Anderson's X-Files Episode Stunk," Issue No. 156). To call the Gillian Anderson-directed episode of The X-Files the worst in its history is a bit harsh, don't you think? I liked it a lot, and it really spoke to me, since I'm lately having the same issues as Scully. I used to love my job, but five years later things seem so different. I guess Anderson is probably going through the same stuff. Oh well.
Pablo del Moral
pabloj@mail.internet.com.mx
Anderson's Episode Was Refreshing
, too, watched Gillian Anderson's The X-Files episode and was pleased with the camera work, music, yes even the bells, for they were integral to the plot. I found it refreshing to calmly peruse the actions that are pivotal to one's life journey. Looking at what if in a surprisingly thoughtful and entertaining manner. Keep writing Anderson! Not all viewers are speed and gore junkies.
Lia Trapp
ltrapp1@ix.netcom.com
The Trek Producers Should Quit
hat is really wrong with Star Trek? One of the things that I think is most wrong with Star Trek is how they have developed a truly interesting universe, and then promptly ignore it. In the last movie, Star Trek: Insurrection, who the hell were the Sona, and why would I care? Couldn't they deal with the Romulan/Vulcan question? What ever happened to the Andorians?
There is no depth to the writing. I confess, I watch Star Trek: Voyager, but I don't enjoy it very much. It's like watching Lost in Space all over again.
The producers of Star Trek are killing it. They need to get a clue, quit, and let other voices come in and take it in an interesting direction, for a change. At the very least, they need to listen to the fans.
Peter Horton
phorton@comp.uark.edu
Don't Blame Liberals For Janeway
hile I agree with many of his points, I take umbrage at Shane Hannafey's comments on "the liberal agenda" in his Issue No. 156 letter "Farscape Is No Voyager." As a proud liberal myself, I would like to assure the public that most of us are not out to punish the innocent, let the guilty go free, steal your children, destroy civilization or unleash evil upon the world.
My actual goal is this: a society in which we are all free to live our lives without being persecuted or judged by conservative hyper-religious types who think they know what's best for everyone. A society in which we can see past skin colors and religious and cultural backgrounds and truly guarantee freedom and justice for all. A world in which our children don't have to worry about being beaten up in school while the teachers stand idly by, or worse, watch as one of their classmates is pushed to the point of mass slaughter.
It's a lot to ask. I probably won't see it in my lifetime. But I don't think my "liberal agenda" is as terrible as it's made out to be. So go ahead and criticize Star Trek: Voyager's Captain Janeway for her foolish behavior toward the Vidiians (yes, I recognize that it was foolish), and praise Farscape's John Crichton for eliminating Traltixx, but leave liberals out of it. We don't deserve such callous and crude potshots.
Spencer M. Lease
beyondzine@mindshiftdesign.com
Excelsior Movies Might Be Best
egarding the controversy dealing with a new Star Trek series, it is becoming very obvious that a series based around Captain Sulu and the starship Excelsior is not going to happen. There have been some good ideas for series mentioned other than this one and I, for one, would like to see some of them come to light. As far as Brad Torgersen's comments in his Issue No. 156 letter "Trek Producers--Listen To Fans!" about not watching any show not dealing with the Excelsior, that is probably the easiest way to end all Star Trek shows in the future. Remember, Paramount is still a business and needs viewers and ratings in order to keep producing these shows. Having said this, I will also state that I would support a show about the Excelsior. However, if a series is not possible, why not a series of three or four movies with the Excelsior as the basis? I realize that this would not satisfy everyone, but it might be a compromise that the powers that be could live with.
Robert J Iversen
robert.iversen@med.ge.com
Why Excelsior Won't Happen
tar Trek should sit out for a few
years and let the creative juices stir and simmer.
Star Trek: Pursuit of the Evil Time Traveler (my own
title). Gee, guys, haven't you gotten it yet by the way time
travel stories worked themselves to death on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager? If George Lucas can't make
a decent prequel to the most successful movie series
ever made, do you think that you could pull off an entire
series with it? I think that it would really be
embarrassing to find yourselves compared to Time
Traxx and coming out short.
Excelsior, or as I term it, Star Trek: Sulu. Not only
won't it happen, but it shouldn't. First, why it won't--One
reason plain and simple: Paramount seems to be
convinced that it can sell anything with the label "Star
Trek" slapped on it. It's given us three successor
series populated with virtual unknowns with one minor
Name for each. And we bought into them, more or
less, enough to keep them around for their slated
seven-year contracts.
With these factors in mind, it's inevitable that
whatever concept is slated to fly, Paramount is going to repeat the process and hire another
batch of unknowns and maybe salt them with another
minor Name, someone we've seen before but would
never have imagined on Trek. Unless George Takei decides
he's going to work at virtually starting wages, an
astoundingly foolish move, he's simply not going to get
the call. Because after the letter campaigns and the
dust have settled, you're all going to go and watch
whatever Rick Berman and his crew decide to christen as
Voyager's successor.
Now to the second part, the shouldn't. If Star Trek is to become something more than just a franchise powered by its own momentum, it needs
something boldly different, fresh and new. Hikaru Sulu,
captain of the Excelsior, would have been an excellent
character choice in a series produced instead of, or
before, Star Trek: The Next Generation. But time and history have
passed the character by.
George Takei the actor, however, does have
potential, even in Star Trek. The potential, however, is
best expressed in a new original character not bound
by a future we know about, nor by the shadow of
Captain Kirk. Mark Lenard played characters of three
major races in Star Trek, two of which--Sarek and the
original Romulan commander--have a well-earned
place in the halls of Trek fame. And one should take
a lesson from Walter Koenig, who in his
incarnation as Babylon 5's supremely unforgettable
Bester, was given a much broader canvas than
he ever had as Chekov, the Russian Beatle.
Frank Lazar
fmlazar@lazarvision.com
Trek Needs Fresh Blood
ttention Excelsior fans: Please, please, please do not force Paramount to make what will ultimately be a very campy Star Trek series with Captain Sulu at the helm of the U.S.S. Excelsior. I know all of you fans out there who want it are well intentioned, but it is doomed to be worse than any other Trek series, including Star Trek: Voyager. Do the rest of us Trek fans a favor and dream up your own stories about Sulu and crew, write about them, and publish them somewhere on the Net. I guarantee they will be far superior to anything we would see on UPN.
There are many of us fans who want something new. Something we haven't seen before. It's extremely obvious that new blood and fresh thinking is needed in the Trek universe. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga are simply not able to provide it anymore. Braga breathed some new life around the time of Star Trek: First Contact, but he hasn't come up with anything other than stale white bread for the last few years.
My best advice for Berman: Release Braga, bring back Ronald Moore along with a host of new writers, come up with something interesting, and if you can't make it work right after Voyager ends, don't worry. A season or two without a current Trek series will not kill us. We would rather wait a couple of years for a quality series that is well thought out than watch crap just because you believe you have to fill a void or half-heartedly cater to some well-meaning Sulu fans. The one thing all Trek fans share is desperation for anything watchable from the Trek universe.
Erik Hauge
miracle@britannica.com
Trek Blackmailing Is Lunatic
ecently I've been noticing a new element of debate being introduced by some people, specifically Trekkies. That element isn't restricted to arguing the relative merits of a TV show, or for that matter, simply a proposed TV show; it now brings in some weird blackmailing element. "Give us this sort of Star Trek or we just won't watch." The really obvious reply to that is "fine." Who wants to count the dummy-spitting, self-absorbed, manipulating lunatic fringe among their number?
I've watched lots of Star Trek, and I've watched and read lots of SF and fantasy. And the reason I like the worlds of SF and fantasy is because, as a rule, someone with a brilliant imagination will present me with a world (or worlds) that knocks my socks off and makes me say "Oh, wow!"
I don't care what direction Trek goes in, even if I have a few ideas of my own, because I'm actually hoping they come up with something I haven't thought of. I haven't liked all of what they do on Trek, just like some passages by authors I like are disappointing, but it's their story so if overall I like it, I stick with it. If I don't, I look elsewhere. I don't belong to any watcher's or reader's groups and have no vested interests in franchises, and the beauty of that is that I, like most readers and viewers, can make up my own mind on what I like.
But I'm not gifted with foresight and I can't tell what sucks from what doesn't in advance. And since the fun is in discovering, I'm glad of that. So if some who write here (and elsewhere) are more concerned with getting their way and getting the Trek they demand than with tasting for themselves, perhaps the best we can do for them is to remind them exactly how ridiculous and infantile their calls for boycotts and ultimatums sound, and try not to laugh too loud. I hope at least they get the breakfast they demand, and the haircut they demand. Life should at least be that fair.
Chris Gordon
cgordon@primus.com.au
Strain Must Explain
just read about Julie Strain auditioning for the role of Wonder Woman. While I cannot fathom how Sandra Bullock won the part (I have nothing against her, I just don't think she fits the role physically or dramatically, unless she works very hard at portraying the strong noble warrior type), and think that Strain would be far better suited, I have to disagree with a statement Strain made about the casting. She said "It's ridiculous--you want to see someone with long legs in that part ... It's ... 2000; loosen up and hire someone that'll show their t*ts."
Now, as I said, I think she certainly has the better physical look to portray Wonder Woman. I also think she is incredibly sexy and beautiful and think her work in adult-oriented entertainment has been well done. But what does her willingness to display herself in the nude have to do with playing a superheroine? I cannot speak for her acting ability as I have seen almost none of her films (I guess those of us who don't watch B-movies much will find out for sure when F.A.K.K. 2 comes out), but her complaint, at least on the surface, seems to miss the point. We want someone who looks the part and can be the part--we want Wonder Woman done right. If Strain, and I mean no offense to her, is going to complain about her not landing the role, or about Bullock landing it, I would hope she could give better reasoning. Or at least give a deeper explanation of her statement.
Adam Goss
argF91@hotmail.com
Wheel TV Could Draw New Fans
have never perceived movies, miniseries or television series based upon a book (or a number of books) to be targeted to the fans of that literature. Rather, they are targeted to the potential fans who may not know about them or not have the time to devote to reading them.
Fans should realize that every actor, director, writer and producer has their own interpretation of what the original author intended for the story--in fact, the author himself may have a totally different intention than the fan has taken for himself. We are all unique human beings with a unique perspective. We cannot expect that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) will see things the same way that we do.
And so, I ask all you "Wheelies" to reconsider your staunch, hard-line approach to your suggestions about the Wheel of Time movie idea. Realize that any visual rendition will only be a pale reflection of the vibrancy of the text. However, even a pale reflection would be a marvelous opportunity for those of us who are not fans to enjoy some of the story.
Support the endeavor rather than attacking it. Think of the overall big picture of added fans whose interest will be piqued by the movie and choose to read the books. Think of the associates who will see the movie and desire more information--providing you the opportunity to expand upon what they have seen and encourage them to join your clique of fandom.
Evan Moore
evanmoore@aol.com
Jordan Readers Aren't Illiterate
obert Jordan has repeatedly said in interviews, and I happened to have heard him say this in person during a book signing, that he thought of the entire Wheel of Time storyline years ago. He just happens to be, as Scott Boelens pointed out, very detailed. How many books will it take for Jordan to tell the story? As many books as it takes for him to get his vision on paper. Does Tor Books love the profit they're making from that multitude of books? Of course they do, that's their business. But I sincerely doubt that is the only consideration in Jordan's mind. If he is a serious writer (and I believe he is), then his concern is the story.
But this letter is really in response to Tim Huck's rather irresponsible comments in his Issue No. 156 letter "Good Fantasy Doesn't Copy Tolkien" (although he's certainly entitled to his opinion). He says: "I'm glad I never picked any of his books." Mr. Huck, if you've never picked up a single copy of any part of the Wheel of Time, how can you possibly have an opinion about them? Also, on the one hand you decry Jordan's attempts to write a "triple trilogy" while supporting other multi-book classics by other authors.
Finally, I personally found the following comment very distasteful: "The Jordan fan base seems to be a lot older and less literate." I may be 35, but I don't consider myself an "older" reader. Furthermore, many of the people I met during that book signing four years ago were in their teens, including at least one young lady. And, finally, there is no way anyone could be illiterate when it comes to Jordan's work. Their sheer volume and incredible use of description, vocabulary, character development, and plot would be overwhelming to the "ordinary" reader.
Martin L. Cahn
editor@demensions.freehosting.net
