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
Frequency Is True Hard SF
have to disagree with Patrick Lee, the reviewer of Frequency. This is that rarest of SF movies--genuine science fiction: the hard SF problem and solution story. The inexorable laws of physics (which in the case of time travel can be very hard to understand, and subject to disagreement) are so important, they can almost be said to be the real star of the story. The problems inherent in trans-temporal communication, and how the characters deal with it.
In the present case, the paradoxical effects of passing information back and forth in time, and the frustrations of being unable to pass anything but information, is explored with intelligence and a fair degree of rigor. People who are not used to reading hard SF may not like this, preferring science fantasy. I get the feeling that Patrick Lee has not read enough time travel stories (if I am wrong here, I apologize, I mean no insult). The frustration and anxiety of the protagonists, as their attempts to solve their problem only dig them in deeper, are dealt with very well. This is a classic situation in hard SF. The contrast between the warm, fuzzy past and the cold, hard present is a wonderful device; that contrast is a result of the past events which the protagonists are trying to change. Note that the present becomes warm and fuzzy when the problem is finally solved. Even the color values change. The retention of memories of other timelines which Lee complains about is arguable--the sort of thing that different authors may honorably disagree about.
In my opinion this movie is the very thing that hard SF fans so often despair of ever seeing: a true SF movie, as opposed to science fantasy or space opera (not that I have anything against space opera). My only fear would be that if the movie is a box office success, it will spawn imitators who will not bother to be so rigorous, and science fiction will degenerate into science fantasy.
Steve Block
ironhand@stlnet.com
Farscape And Voyager: Worlds Apart
[Please note: This letter contains plot spoilers for the Farscape episode "Crackers Don't Matter." --Brooks]
have read both Shane Hannafey's comments ("Farscape Is No Voyager," Issue No. 156) and Spencer M. Lease's response ("Don't Blame Liberals for Janeway," Issue No. 157) and while I agree that Farscape and Star Trek: Voyager are completely different programs--albeit with surprisingly similar themes--I have issues of my own with the direction Voyager has taken. (So much wasted potential! Don't get me started on "The Year of Hell" that basically disappeared in a convenient, tidy little time-travel paradox!) What is it Janeway was supposed to do to the Vidiians in "Phage"? Genocide? Unrealistic and a waste of her limited resources. Voyager is alone and lost in the Delta Quadrant. They do not have the luxury of acting emotionally in these situations. What if they had destroyed the Vidiians? What if more Vidiians sought them out in retribution? Janeway needed to consider the long-term good, not the quick fix and satisfaction that destroying whatever enemies they might make may have given her and the crew. Voyager's objective is to get home, and they are trying to do that--albeit with distractions.
Farscape, while sharing Voyager's "trying to get home" theme, has a different approach. They've turned more towards survival in the second season. Killing Traltixx was a matter of survival.
As for John Crichton's murder of Traltixx, for it most certainly was murder, John was being affected. He may not have been in his right mind when he chose to kill Traltixx. He may have been less affected than the others, but he was affected. I don't think he regretted the choice once it was all over, but I don't know that he would have done it so cavalierly had he not been influenced by Traltixx in the first place. Also, Crichton had recently been through enough to scramble his brain anyway. Remember, Crichton is not from the future as the Star Trek characters are. They, while being lost a long way from home, still have the comfort of familiar surroundings, and technology they understand.
Crichton is from here and now--good old planet Earth of 1999-2000! It's remarkable that he has been able to deal with everything that has happened to him. He has to deal with aliens he never dreamed of, technology he doesn't understand, people trying to kill him, and nothing comfortable and familiar. His companions don't even understand his 20th century American pop culture vernacular!
Comparing the shows is as inevitable as comparing Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, but they are more different than they appear.
Theresa Gauthier
theresag@comed.com
We Must "Make It So"
egarding Spencer M. Lease's Issue No. 157 letter "Don't Blame Liberals For Janeway," I am amused that such a paragon of liberal ideals must fall back on the tried-and-true playground tactic of name-calling.
I can only assume that "conservative hyper-religious types who think they know what's best for everyone" is not meant as a compliment. Only tonight I watched the Star Trek: Voyager episode in which Janeway saves Kes by appealing to the spiritual guardians of
a world, and in the process learns the value of faith and trust in what is beyond the merely scannable. As a person of faith who believes in a creator, moral absolutes, and a historically verifiable messiah, I find myself in a land whose constitution guarantees and recognizes "a society in which we can see past skin colors and religious and cultural backgrounds and truly guarantee freedom and justice for all"--in fact the country whose ideals form much of what is best about Federation ideals. And I find myself often in the company of "religious types" who aren't bugged by my strange affinity for SF, The X-Files, or my tendency to discuss how faith can inform cultural topics like UFOs, the paranormal, or whether or not to evangelize aliens. They are, in a word, tolerant. Skin color and political persuasion are not a problem. But I digress. Tolerance works both ways, Mr. Lease. Incivility just makes it harder.
Captain Janeway and the Voyager crew teach us a valuable lesson, a gem that shines through the technobabble: talking about ideals is worth little without action. Or put another way, "faith without works is dead." In America, we have the foundation for your cherished ideals. We, each of us, must work to "make it so."
Weatherly Hardy
whardy@hiwaay.net
Focus on Trek's Inconsistencies
xcelsior? Focus on getting a book written; it's more than this idea deserves, but it will probably quiet you people down! Bring back Kirk--get a clue, he's dead, long live reality! Why don't you focus your attention on the endless inconsistencies and contradictions of Star Trek; i.e., campaign that the Trek franchise be held accountable to congruity. Two great examples: warp speed 10 (Star Trek: Voyager) max or 14 (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Next is the Borg sphere with the children--what the heck happened to Janeway wanting a quantum slip drive? She attacks a sphere one week to get a slip drive and then is basically handed one another week and doesn't even think to get a hold of it? I honestly think that's where Trekkies need to focus their attention.
Keith Ramsey
greenmtnsun@yahoo.com
Wither Star Trek?
f the various Star
Trek incarnations since
the original were dominated by people who were truly
good writers, we
wouldn't be having this discussion. As flaky as Gene Roddenberry was, he
had plenty of real-life experience behind his efforts
to tell stories, having
flown B-17 bombers during World War II, worked as an
airline pilot on
international routes, and later for the Los Angeles
Police Department. He
also had an appreciable host of writing credits
predating Star Trek in
non-SF and fantasy formats, where one couldn't peddle
a story simply based
on far-out concepts of setting, costumes, make-up and
other special effects.
He had to learn to tell stories that his viewers could
relate to around
characters they could identify with (and with regard
to the latter, the even
more-accomplished non-fantasy writer Gene L. Coon was
Star Trek's real
father). By contrast, one of Star Trek: The Next Generation's staff writers
virtually sole pre-Trek
writing credit was as a staff writer for, of all
things, The Smurfs, and his
prior life experience
seems to have been limited to growing up as a
middle-class kid in America and
going to school. Can there be any wonder that the
Trek genre has gone to
hell in a hand basket and that so many fans are
disappointed?
Since the 1960s, Star Trek's original fans have
grown up and done a few
things of our own. We've actually been in the real
military and on the crews
of real warships (some have fought in real wars);
we've become engineers and
even scientists; we've been embroiled in real
organizational politics; we've
had real love affairs. We are a much more
sophisticated audience, and
require more sophisticated television fare. Thus we
have thoroughly
appreciated M*A*S*H, Hill Street Blues, Cheers, L.A.
Law and even The
Simpsons (to say nothing of, say, Casablanca) to the
extent they reflect life
as we can understand it. Most of what the various Star Trek sequels have had
to offer is sadly, transparently contrived by
comparison. I honestly believe
that, as one of your other letter-writers put it,
Berman/Braga et al actually do believe that they can sell anything with
the moniker "Star Trek"
on it, and that they believe that because it is true--surely, it is nothing
more than the romance associated with the original series
that keeps so many of
the currently viewers still tuned in.
In sum, unless Star Trek eventually comes up with
some real high-quality
programming, it will fade away, and, what's more, it
will not be missed.
C.A. Palumbo
ca_palumbo@yahoo.com
Star Trek Can Only Get Better
egarding Paramount's next move, I say Sulu should stay out of it. I hate to be the one to say this but many people are ready to move on. I know we all love the original cast and original concepts, but Star Trek has become much more than Kirk and the others. I believe at this time the best thing to do is shut Star Trek down for a while and let all those mighty creative minds figure out what's next for them. Who knows, maybe we'll watch a non-Federation show. At this point I believe it should just be laid to rest. All of the Star Trek branches have made great advances into science fiction and, no matter what happens, I don't think it's going to get worse, but better.
Joe Peabody
GMJoe@99main.com
Keep Braga Off Star Trek
n the interview about the potential new Star Trek series, Brannon Braga said, "I can tell you that we are eager to do something that is completely different, that feels fresh while at the same time captures the essence of Star Trek and gets it back to where it needs to be."
I am perplexed. Doesn't he sound a little hypocritical? If Star Trek isn't where it should be, whose fault is that? Braga is at the root of all that is wrong with Star Trek: Voyager. Someone please let the suits at Paramount know that this guy is clueless.
There is still hope, though. Braga may be talking about a new Trek series, but from what I can tell, Paramount has been silent on the subject except to say that Braga and associates are developing a new series. Paramount has not okayed or bought anything yet, and I hope they don't. I would rather see Star Trek die or at least take an extended nap than see what Braga is proposing.
John Miller
john@chapel42.com
Some Fans Can't Get Trek At All
everal million fans can get no kind of Star Trek at all. While the major metros always get the best of everything the soonest, many populations centers either have no UPN station or at best have terrible reception on a station many miles away. In addition, DirectTV has no UPN or WB stations on its roster and the other networks are doing their best to pull the plug. I currently get to "watch" a flickering, snowy, ugly picture of The X-Files, thanks to the greed of the local Fox affiliate. So, UPN, if you want your ratings to improve, try to allow that precious signal to dribble out to the huddled masses.
Bob Harrison
bobh@southwest.cc.nc.us
Aliens Are Trek's Weakest Link
s a fan who actually watched the Star Trek episodes in 1968--and ever since--I strongly complain about the aliens who are, in the Star Trek universe, obviously the weakest element. They are human actors, with costumes/makeup/machine parts (the Borg) and other add-ons, but they're still humans. Really alien aliens, such as the Bugs in Starship Troopers, remain a distant dream, an unreachable ideal, for Star Trek. I believe this is because of somebody's miserliness and laziness. Is there any hope that this will ever be corrected?
Aleksandar B. Nedelkovich
abnedelkovichscifi@yahoo.com
Does SFWeekly Ever Like Anime?
was just wondering if Tasha Robinson actually likes anime, because almost every review I've read of hers totally trashes the plot and artwork of every series. The old classics have poor animation for one reason: cartoons were more expensive to make in that time. It's only been through technology in the last ten years that we have been able to create smooth, beautiful animation with rich colors.
Todd Behrmann
tbaz2@powercom.net
Cagliostro Is More Than Miyazaki
'd like to correct your review of The Castle of Cagliostro. Calling the Lupin movie a Miyazaki film is like calling Ranma 1/2: The Movie (which Viz named Big Trouble in Nekron, China) a Shuji Iuchi movie instead of a Ranma movie simply because Iuchi wrote and directed it, just as Miyazaki did with Cagliostro. Lupin, as Robinson noted in passing, was a well-established franchise in the 1970s. There were manga and anime series, and also movies, well before Miyazaki made Cagliostro. What Cagliostro did, on the other hand, was revive the flagging franchise and bring in more Lupin fans.
Give credit where credit is due. This was a Lupin film, not just a Miyazaki creation; and if people like Cagliostro, they should look into the whole Lupin series.
Emily Lee
elee@student.law.du.edu
The X-Files Has Become A Joke
his is in response to last week's barrage of letters praising Gillian Anderson's "all things." First, one letter mentioned that it showed "the real Scully" when in fact it really was Scully playing Gillian Anderson in an episode that was all about Anderson's beliefs. After all we've known of Scully, we're supposed to believe that she had an affair that motivated her to join the FBI and that she, a Catholic, had a vision in a Buddhist temple? I'm sorry, but some of us would like some real continuity in this show instead of a ponderous, self-absorbed diatribe disguised as an X-File.
At least with Duchovny's writing, he has a story to tell.
With episodes like "all things," it's no wonder this show has become nothing but a joke. At least the real fans who never wanted the show to turn into a paranormal Moonlighting/Lois and Clark mishmash can fondly enjoy the reruns back when the show was truly original. Remember back when The X-Files was about two intelligent FBI agents, one a forensic pathologist and one a criminal profiler, with opposing, yet complementary viewpoints, working to solve cases of
an extraordinary--even paranormal--nature? Wasn't Tooms a great character? How about that Deep Throat? Remember when Skinner and the rest of the secondary characters were truly utilized to the best of their abilities? It's a sad reflection on how low this show has sunk, just to appeal to a one-dimensional audience that only cares whether Mulder and Scully "did it" or not.
C. Arneil
arneil@idt.net
"all things" Not For Males
oseph Mills wrote in his Issue No. 156 letter "Anderson's X-Files
Episode Stunk": "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."
The X-Files has always had a large female fan following, as well as a male fan
following. More females watch it than perhaps most other science fiction
series. Why?
Character development. Something sadly lacking in most SF shows of this (or
any other) era.
Men want guns, monsters and action and babes in Mylar (hence "First Person
Shooter", the actual "worst episode ever," where the payoff shot for all
The males out there was Scully dressed in full Quake gear carrying a gun
not quite as large as an Lexus sedan) but the women in the audience want
character, dialogue, intrigue--something The X-Files rarely forgets to include,
and was present in abundance in "all things."
"all things" was different than most episodes, but also quite
thought-provoking and in no way a bad episode. I quite liked it in fact.
One
thing The X-Files is very good at doing is throwing curves, changing pace, and
sometimes just doing weird, bizarre things. (Anyone remember "Humbug"?
The X-Files was just another show until that episode aired.)
I applaud Anderson's directorial debut, and am looking forward to her next
episode.
Sean Huxter
sean@TurbineGames.com
Roughnecks Rocks!
he BKN version of Starship Troopers (Roughnecks: The Starship Troopers Chronicles) is absolutely wonderful. It is faithful to the original and the animation is downright incredible. It misses all the Hollywood junk that the movie contained. Animation has come an amazing distance to be able to produce such lifelike work. Even kids should appreciate the realism of works like this.
Norman Howden
nhowden@mail.cox.smu.edu
