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
Get Thee To A Bookshop!
find it hard to believe that people are writing in to defend Battlefield Earth. I haven't seen the film (and I have no intention of doing so) but much to my regret I did waste money and a limited amount of time on the "novel" a few years ago. In my opinion this is surely the worst SF novel ever. I only managed to read a couple of hundred pages before I gave up because it was making me feel physically ill. No commercial company would ever have published such a cretinously stupid book, and the vast majority of its purchasers must have been followers of Hubbard's ludicrous "religion." Only somebody with the stupidity and colossal ego of Hubbard could have inflicted this monstrosity on an unsuspecting public. I can only assume that the people who defend this book have, in fact, never read anything else. My only advice would be to get to the nearest bookshop immediately and buy absolutely anything from the science fiction section. I guarantee that whatever you buy (even a Star Wars book--ugh!) will be infinitely better than this moronic, poisonous piece of garbage.
Lyndon Rosser
lyndon.rosser@ntlworld.com
Read Faster To Waste Less Time
haven't seen the movie version of Battlefield Earth so
I'm not prepared to comment on it. I have read the book,
though, and I'm a little amused at the extremes of
people's reactions to it. It's not the best SF book ever
published, nor is it the worst. I read it ten years ago and
I found it to be enjoyable--if I read it as fast as I could,
ignoring the corny characters and the disregard for real
science. At best it's a beach book--a harmless trifle that
whiles away the time.
Randy Barrett
jrbarrett101@yahoo.com
Debating On The Edge Of Forever
ver the past few weeks I've been reading the letters to the editor with a growing lack of enthusiasm. It seems that most of the people who write in have to squabble about some topic or another, the latest being whether Star Trek is dead and if science fiction as a whole has become stagnant.
I really think that both topics are important and should be discussed, but not to the point where they lose all meaning. It's just like the Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument; these debates could go on forever without any ground being made one way or another.
Now, using Star Wars vs. Star Trek as an example, I would like to say that this argument is completely pointless. I'm a big fan of both universes and I like them for entirely different reasons. This is parallel to the "death of quality sci-fi" debate. Shows like Xena: Warrior Princess will still be popular to the masses, but so will shows like Babylon 5. The world will not end if they both exist at the same time.
The point I'm trying to make is that no amount of arguing is going to change the hearts and minds of the populace. So what if the majority likes something different? As long as you know what you like, that should be all that matters.
Micah Kenworthy
barracuda@the-lair.com
Give Us More SF Or We'll Take Rome
unny that no seems to have noticed the speculative aspects of Gladiator. If it isn't an alternate history, I don't know what is. The hero Maximus was obviously based on a real Roman general named Maximus, a Spaniard (much like the Russell Crowe character in the film) who led a revolt against the Roman Empire between 400 and 500 A.D. And Commodus in the film is similar to the real Commodus--except that he only lived for one year after the death of Marcus Aurelius, whereas the real Commodus outlasted his father by 12 years and died quite differently. The film adheres very much to alternate history tradition: i.e., what might have happened if Maximus had lived 400 years earlier? I think we should claim it as an SF film.
Dale Sproule
dalesal@interlog.com
Who Is Baile Antilles?
lthough, as some state, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace may not stand on its own, I believe that it offers much scope for speculation on the intricate groundwork that it lays out as the foundation for the story to come. Subtle details are dropped all over the place to intrigue fans who have some insight into what is to come, although the details of how and why remain a complete mystery. There is much enjoyment to be had in the speculation on who, where, when and why, leading up to what. To me, Palpatine is quite an intriguing character. Ian McDiarmid is in a class far ahead of any of his company in this film. He has created a Palpatine who is charming yet subtly underhanded, who controls and manipulates all events and characters with a skill I can't help admiring. His unabashed trickery leads to a motion for a new Supreme Chancellor, for which the nominees are himself (Palpatine), Ayyn L'Etein of Malestahre (planet of the three-eyed "goat lookin'" guys), and Baile Antilles of Alderaan. But who is this rival for Palpatine's Chancellorship? Certainly, the Republic may have avoided the turmoil to come had Antilles been elected over Palpatine (but then, no great movie either). It seems, if one connects the dots, his origins are associated with some of our heroes (and victims). What are the connections between Baile Antilles and Wedge Antilles? Is Baile Wedge's father? Sources indicate that Wedge came from a "privileged" background. There are also name and title similarities that inspire speculation. For example, Baile Organa was the foster father of Leia Organa and a strong loyalist of the Old Republic, who opposed the "reforms" launched by Palpatine in creating the "New Order." Baile Organa was also the main adviser to and supporter of Mon Mothma right after the disbanding of the Imperial Senate, until he was killed along with the rest of the population of Alderaan. Even before the rise of Palpatine, Baile's history was a heroic one: he was one of the primary founders of the Rebel Alliance and a decorated war hero (Clone Wars), who served as an elected representative to the Galactic Senate, and as viceroy and First Chairman of the Alderaan system! So, are Baile Organa and Baile Antilles (both Senators to the Galactic Senate, with other similarities) the same person? The information I've mentioned comes from observations from Phantom Menace, and the Star Wars Encyclopedia, which was published before Phantom Menace opened in theaters.
I welcome speculation, information or other input on this subject. I think this will somehow come up in the next movie.
Christian Walldorf
cnnwaldorf@webtv.net
Take Away Piller's Pens And Pencils
fter reading the reports that Paramount wants a tenth Star Trek movie, I have one very serious concern. I'd like to know if anyone else out there shares it, and it is this: Please don't let Michael Piller write it! After the less-than-satisfying results of Star Trek: Insurrection, Paramount would be foolish to let him write the next movie. Let Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore write it. While Insurrection certainly wasn't the worst Trek movie ever made (that's Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier, hands down), it definitely didn't match the level of either Star Trek Generations or Star Trek: First Contact. Make Star Trek 10 another action-oriented movie like First Contact. Use existing villains that are overlooked these days--instead of making up villains that have no background, no depth. Don't make another Insurrection!
Adam Clark
aclark@startrekmail.com
Give Deep Space Nine Its Due
n his Issue No. 161 letter "All Treks Are The Same," Tom Francis writes: "While it entertained us for a long time, at one point, Star Trek: The Next Generation is Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is Star Trek: Voyager. They are set in different places, but they are essentially the same."
I don't mean to single Mr. Francis out on this. In fact, this statement showcases a prevalent attitude among many Trek fans. Amid all the talk about the new Star Trek series, there's an old trend has been going on for many years now. Some people extol the virtues of The Next Generation and the original series while lamenting the flaws of Voyager. They say that the earlier shows were wonderful while Voyager is lackluster and repetitive. Others say all the series are pretty much the same. Everyone wants the new series to be different and groundbreaking. As usual, everyone forgets about what I like to refer to as Star Trek's forgotten middle child, Deep Space Nine.
This has been a curse that Deep Space Nine has endured since it was introduced. It has always remained in the shadow of another series. This holds true even now, after the series has ended. I suppose this was a blessing in a way. Because the show didn't have to maintain the status of a "number one" series, the writers were given greater latitude in terms of storytelling. Some of the best shows that Star Trek has ever done were on Deep Space Nine. They did a lot of things that no other Trek show has done. They were first to have two regular characters get married. There were friendships among the regulars and supporting players that were realistic and that grew over time. They had a vast number of intriguing, recurring characters that created interesting tensions and conflicts between characters. The villains in particular were very complex and three-dimensional and evolved as much as the regulars. Deep Space Nine also had sustained story arcs that continued over numerous, successive episodes.
People often gripe about the fact that Deep Space Nine took place on a station and therefore never went anywhere. They often forget that by season three, the Deep Space Nine crew had the Defiant, which allowed them to planet-hop every so often as on other Trek series. But the fact that a lot of the action took place on a station meant they could have a wide variety of different recurring characters without having to explain their presence on the station. They could also
tell stories about existing Star Trek races rather than encountering the "forehead of the week" alien race. There are a million stories in the naked galaxy. And the Klingons, Romulans, Bajorans, Cardassians and Ferengi had plenty to tell.
The original series, The Next Generation and even Voyager have their strengths and virtues. If you love one or all of these shows, more power to you. But Star Trek: Deep Space Nine deserves its due. If you never caught the show or gave up on it after the first season, give it another try.
Max Gremlin
maxgremlin@yahoo.com
Star Trek's Health Is Declining
know that many people like Star Trek: Voyager. These people believe that Star Trek is healthy. As someone who first got into classic Star Trek when it started its syndicated run, I would have to disagree with them.
One of the reasons I am a science fiction fan now is due to my enjoyment of Kirk and his crew's fantastic adventures. That enjoyment continued with Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Classic Trek was a swashbuckling space adventure. The Next Generation was a more plot-driven and mature version of the classic Trek formula. Deep Space Nine was more concerned with character development than new ideas, but it was a great show in its own way.
When Voyager started its run, I watched it religiously. It didn't bother me too much that the episodes of the first two seasons were poor. I remembered how bad the first two seasons of The Next Generation were. I also remembered the horrible first season of Deep Space Nine. Both of those shows grew out of their infant stages into very good sci-fi. Then, after I got through the fourth and fifth season of Voyager, I knew something was wrong. I didn't care about any members of this crew like I had for the crews of the previous Trek shows. Most episodes seem like carbon copies of past Trek episodes. I saw this show change the Borg from the best villains the Trek universe has ever had to just another bunch of easily defeated aliens. When the sixth season of Voyager started, it had one less viewer.
Here are the reasons why I think Trek is dying:
1) Too many Treks--With all the episodes in syndication, the movies and new episodes, there is just too much. The Trek audience cannot digest it all. This causes the low ratings.
2) Old views of the future--Many fans of science fiction literature dismiss Trek as an outdated view of the future that is similar to the stories that crowded the pulp magazines during the 1950s. Many science fictions authors now try to avoid using things like intergalactic empires, faster-than-light drive and communication. They believe that the scientific knowledge currently available has proved that these things will never exist.
3) Burned-out creative staff--Some of the creative staff behind the current version of Star Trek have been with Trek since The Next Generation. After all these years maybe they are running out of new ideas.
4) Star Wars--Many new sci-fi fans want action, action and more action. They view Trek as a bunch of boring talking heads spewing technobabble.
5) Fantasy--Fantasy is less demanding than science fiction and more people seem to like it. Even I am looking forward to the movie version of The Lord of the Rings more than the next Trek movie. I don't think the growing number of fantasy fans likes Star Trek.
Ronald Hood
jhubbub@hotmail.com
Shows Need More Than A Half-Season
wrote a few weeks ago arguing against the assertion that SCI FI Channel's quality of programming was slipping. The next week, I was proven wrong.
On May 15, SCI FI announced a decision that I heard had been made weeks before, namely the cancellation of good vs evil. SCI FI's promotion techniques pretty much guarantee a low rating for any of their shows.
How about giving a show a chance? On a minority network like SCI FI, it will take more than a half-season of episodes for people to find the show.
With the loss of good vs. evil, SCI FI lowered the overall quality of its programming, which proves that the quality is declining.
Deb Brown
MrsSpooky@aol.com
