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.
-- Scott Edelman, Editor-in-Chief
Send us your letters!
Got a gripe about something going on in the science fiction world? Want to call attention to an overlooked genre gem? Do you disagree with one of our reviews? Would you like to tell the editor of Science Fiction Weekly what a great job he does? Write a Letter to the Editor and send it in! You'll have the satisfaction of knowing that your letter will be read by thousands of SF fans. Doubtless, fame and fortune will follow (fame and fortune not guaranteed).
Still Searching For Real Androids
our review of the film Blade Runner is generally
accurate. It's a pretty good film. However, to say that it
is based on Philip K. Dick's wonderful novel Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is stretching the
truth. Yes, both works tackle questions about humanity,
and both are focused on one man chasing a group of
androids. Beyond this premise, however, there is a
huge gulf. In truth, the two works exist in fundamentally
different universes. In the movie, the Earth is a
crowded dive filled with sex and noise. In the book, the
Earth is a sparsely populated, dying planet. Most people
left for colony worlds to escape Earth's inevitable fate;
as a result, any life--human or animal--is sacred, and it
is a crime to kill even a spider.
I think Androids is one of Dick's finest novels. It
encapsulates so many of the themes that dominate his
writing--like the various "natures" of humanity and
reality. Wouldn't it be great if a filmmaker actually made
a film about Dick's novel, rather than gutting his novel and giving us a noir film that only scratches the surface of Dick's themes?
Michael Heumann
aboo@hauntedink.com
Risk Of Death Makes Great Fiction
would like to respond to James Thomas's Issue No. 182 letter "Please Don't Kill Our Heroes," in which he said that it was getting on his nerves that modern media was killing off the heroes of our youth (Chewbacca, Kirk, etc.).
While I'm sure that some of this may just be the media's way of boosting profits, I think what we are seeing is the change that every new generation brings to the culture. I remember loving the science fiction of my youth, where the hero always got out of the dangerous situation and all was set right by the end of the story.
But I found that as I got older it started grating on me. I watched the news more. I read more history. I saw that real imperfect people do fight the good fight and sometimes lose a battle but continue with the war. I saw that in the battle against evil, there are those that pay the ultimate sacrifice. To me, those were real heroes.
Looking back at my fictional heroes, I saw that the "good guys" were never forced into a situation where they had to lower their ideals to win. It became too simple to me. Don't get me wrong; I still enjoy some of it, just not a steady stream. I found I wanted the stories to have more truth to them. I wanted them to be "real." For that I had to accept the fact that I might lose some of the characters I cared about. In their fight to right a wrong, some would pay the ultimate price. For me, I loved the inclusion of death. Suddenly I didn't know if my heroes would all get out alive. The quest became more powerful because some could die. Plus, death could bring new characters to the fore and add to the richness of the stories.
Who wasn't moved by Spock's sacrifice in saving the crew of the Enterprise in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn? (Yes, they brought him back, but at the time it wasn't originally planned that way.) That was a truly heroic moment.
While many wanted a different death for Kirk, the character died in a way I think was right for him, fighting the good fight. Not dying in bed as an old man, but dying for something he believed in.
The death of Tasha Yar in Star Trek: The Next Generation helped give a powerful punch to the final episode of the series, when Picard was thrown back in time and stood with her once again. That silent moment added so much to the character of Captain Picard. "The desire to tell her of her future. Wanting to save her, but not being able to."
So while you and others may not like the killing of our heroes, done correctly it can add to their stories more than any other tale could.
Louis Sivo
scifi_reader@yahoo.com
Stories Keep Heroes Alive
ames Thomas's Issue No. 182 letter, "Please Don't Kill Our Heroes," seized my attention.
The "first [generation] to grow old with a background of dead heroes," eh? I'm not sure how to take this. Are we supposed to be only counting heroes that were created during our generation? That seems rather limiting. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, The Lone Ranger, The Phantom, Doc Savage, Sherlock Holmes ... all were created before my generation (I was born in 1968) but I don't count them any less heroes because of it.
Dead heroes are hardly unique to the present generations. Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone were dead back in the heyday of their popularity. King Arthur has been dead for centuries. So has Hercules. Part of the entire tradition of The Phantom has been based on the legacy being handed down over the ages--individual Phantoms may die but The Phantom lives on.
Also, in what sense does Thomas mean dead? The records of their past exploits certainly haven't been wiped out. If you want to get technical, most of the crew of the original starship Enterprise have been dead for some time, or did you think that all of them had survived until the time Star Trek: The Next Generation takes place? (If you want to get really technical, James T. Kirk hasn't even been born yet.) This hasn't stopped the writing of reams of stories featuring the classic Trek cast. In fact it's been a number of years since Star Trek: Generations came out, and people
are still writing stories featuring Kirk. As the line from You Only Live Twice goes, "You have a lot of energy for a dead man, Mr. Bond."
I also have a strong suspicion that the longer a character is around, especially when multiple writers are involved, the more likely it will be that someone will write the story, "Fill-in-the-Blank dies." It's one of the plots that inevitably suggests itself. And being dead was a boost for The Crow's career.
People have written (and filmed) stories involving certain characters' deaths. But they won't be truly dead until people stop telling stories about them. That's part of what makes them heroes.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
The Authorized Killing Of Chewbacca
n his Issue No. 182 letter "Please Don't Kill Our Heroes," James Thomas raised some valid
points about the recent spate of dead heroes in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. I
too was saddened by the deaths of Captain Kirk and Chewbacca, and there have
been other beloved characters I was disheartened to see go, as well.
However, I think an important distinction must be made between killing
heroes for the sake of upping the body count and killing heroes because
those deaths serve a larger role in the mythos they are a part of.
For example, George Lucas authorized the killing of Chewbacca in Vector
Prime to show that the heroes of the Star Wars universe are still mortal
beings. After all, over 20 years are supposed to have elapsed between Star Wars: A New Hope and the current New Jedi Order novels, and the heroes of the
Star Wars universe have been through dozens of hair-raising adventures in
the films and novels (hundreds, if you include the comic books). Is it
reasonable to believe that a group of six individuals (Luke, Han, Chewie,
Leia, and the droids) could have made it through all of those events without
suffering anything worse than a single amputated hand?
There is a difference between suspension of disbelief in
furtherance of a good story and suspension of disbelief because the story
has to end with all the characters alive and intact. The Star Wars universe
had become predictable because nothing too awful could befall the main
characters. The death of Chewbacca raised the specter that anyone could die, even the main characters.
This isn't new in the Star Wars
universe; it was present from the beginning with the death of Ben
Kenobi. The characters were far more vulnerable in the movies. Although
we knew the good guys would win in the end, we did not know what price they
would pay. The universe became static after the films ceased, as characters could merely be sent into retirement (à la Mon Mothma and Admiral Ackbar). By permitting Chewbacca's death, Lucas helped restore the vitality of the Star Wars universe.
Death is sometimes the only way to guarantee that
a character won't return. If Star Trek: Generations had ended with Kirk
happily retiring somewhere, even the Nexus, you know that there would have
been a great outcry from many fans demanding his return. I think we all know fans (of Trek, Star Wars, or anything else) who will
never be content to let their heroes retire with dignity. This can lead to the fictional universe becoming nothing more than a stage for a chosen few to walk upon, rather than something with an existence beyond the main characters.
Dispensing with heroes in some
definitive fashion is not necessarily an exclusive phenomenon of the late
20th century and today. Doyle killed Sherlock Holmes (and yes, I know he
brought him back, but everyone agrees that the post-death stories were
inferior); Christie killed Poirot;
the troubadours killed King Arthur (sort of); the Greek orators killed
Heracles; and for that matter some unknown Sumerian scribe several millennia
ago killed Enkidu, Gilgamesh's own hairy, speech-impaired sidekick. So this
is not merely Hollywood's doing--there is a long tradition of "retiring"
heroes in a final manner. We may be sad when they go, but I
think that we should not rebel against heroes' deaths merely because
they are gone. We must ask why that hero was killed and if it served a
greater purpose.
Stephen Rynerson
Srynerson@usa.net
Good Finish For Good Guys At Last
'm responding to James Thomas's Issue No. 182 letter, "Please Don't Kill Our Heroes." Although I can appreciate Thomas's sentiments, I think he's being a bit too much of a romantic. Sure, in the '60s, it was great to see the good guy live forever and not get killed, because so many men in real life were dying in a senseless war. Nowadays, seeing the good guy live forever is unrealistic and frankly boring. Why? Because, there's no life or death danger for the audience to enjoy, because you know the hero's gonna make it in the end.
Secondly, today's society knows better. Again, thanks to war, we know that good men die every day, so it's only appropriate that our fictional heroes live and die the same way. Lastly, like Thomas said, it's sad to see the character fade away, which is why I'm glad James T. Kirk is dead. It was his time and he died the way he would have wanted to die, fighting the good fight. In the end, isn't that how we would all like to go? I do.
In response to Thomas's question, "What would have become of James Bond if he were killed off after Sean Connery decided to stop doing the movies?" The answer is simple: We wouldn't have a slew of crappy James Bond movies collecting dust on video store shelves.
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG@webtv.net
Mature Heroes Beat Modern Jerks
agree that too many heroes are being killed off. And I, like many others, would like to see Kirk brought back for one final ride into the sunset. I also think it is idiotic for Braga et al. to be bending over backwards to bring us a new Star Trek, when what everybody wants is the old Star Trek brought back. Surely they are simply trying to toot their own horns and demonstrate their "creativity" rather than revitalize the franchise.
What everyone has gotten tired of is this incessant "modernizing" of the concept. Why have all the recent movies based on other TV shows failed? Because they tried to modernize them, making the characters unrecognizable jerks from the present rather than noble heroes of the past. Consider Lost in Space, The Avengers, etc.
If Paramount would do a show set in the original Star Trek time period, allowing for occasional guest appearances by original characters, they would have a big hit on their hands. Even The Adventures of Captain Sulu would be preferable to anything Braga and crew have come up with so far.
Which of the Next Generation films were hits? The ones with original series actors in them. Now I don't think they have to have a show that stars original crew members, but they need a show with characters like them. Characters who like one another, have values and character traits that match those of mid-America, in stories that mean something, and set in a time period where original characters could turn up. Go back to Roddenberry's idea of having scripts written by science fiction writers rather than TV hacks.
Steve LaFevers
stevelafevers@atari.net
Not Laughing With Dark Angel ...
n regard to James Cameron's Dark Angel series, lighten up, James! Cameron is
often moody, and takes his humor very seriously. In a
film format, you can put up with it, or the plot doesn't
require comic relief. But in a television show,
especially in sci-fi, it can be fatal to take yourself too seriously.
Max's character has all these smart-aleck one-liners that are supposed to
be funny, but Jessica Alba does not
have the range and experience to make the lines funny.
They fall flat every time. And none of the other
characters contrast her moodiness or seem even remotely compelling.
And don't even get me started on the "cityspeak" they
came up with. The last time any sci-fi came up
with interesting urban dialogue was A Clockwork
Orange or maybe Neuromancer. Sorry, James, you are
just "wack" if you think I can buy it without wincing.
Matthew Williams
mptw@hotmail.com
Dark Angel Lacks Logic And Light
also believe that Dark Angel has a dark future. If your basic premise is
flawed, then the willing suspension of disbelief cannot occur. An EMP surge
would not result in what that show says it did. Is there any company or
organization out there that relies on its data to perform a function or
service that doesn't have magnetic tape backups and/or disc backups that
reside in a vault somewhere? Being the vault is a thriving business. This
is why, after the EMP surge occurred, it might have taken some time (from
hours to weeks) to restore the architecture (depending on how many machines
actually needed to be replaced) of the society, but the data would not have
vanished as Cameron indicates. The show is too dark, too wooden and too
full of teen angst.
I am, however, willing to give it a chance. I said that if Max didn't smile at least once in the first show after the pilot, then I wouldn't watch it anymore. I did watch that show, and lo and behold! She smiled. I'll go show by show.
Victoria Seidel
victoria.seidel@verizon.com
Lips Beat Presidency By A Pout
effrey Gustafson ("Dark Angel Is A Democratic Freedom," Issue No. 182) seems unaware of a few facts of physics and the laws of the United States that follow thereof. It's all very well to rant on about how the "guvmnt cain't tell us what to watch," but the facts behind FCC chairman William Kennard's words are more complex.
1) Radio waves (which can carry TV signals) expand through space in all directions, crossing political boundaries.
2) Because of the interstate propagation of radio waves, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) was organized to govern the use of radio frequency communications inside the borders of the United States. The radio spectrum is considered a natural resource owned by the public.
3) The FCC auctions the use of the TV frequencies to the broadcast networks to use in sending their product to your home TV.
4) Networks buy the right to use a frequency, pay for the production of shows, sell commercial time to advertisers, and make a profit off the difference between what they pay out and what they take in.
Pretty basic, yes? Now, if a company that is leasing my airwaves from my government decides that Ms. Alba's pouty lips are more important than who will be the next president of my country, I'm going to object. In fact, I would expect the relevant official of my representative government to voice my objections. Golly, wouldn't that be the head of the FCC?
You can place Ms. Alba's lips ahead of the presidency if you wish. I disagree. I think the present system of control over the networks' use of the airwaves is a joke. They are the only winners of the high cost of political campaigns.
Juan Suros
jsuros@yahoo.com
Viewers Weary Of FCC's Antics
CC Chairman William Kennard needs to get a grip on reality. The ratings for Dark Angel and the baseball game should give him a clue that there were millions of Americans out there who couldn't take another personality or pissing contest from the government. The truly shameful thing is that politics itself, and the antics of those in it (including the FCC), have made us this apathetic.
Judy Erp
judy.erp@honeywell.com
Can There Be Too Many Mummies?
here should be less
reuse of the same old storylines and characters. Do we need another
vampire, werewolf, Frankenstein, hungry alien, mummy, or whatever other
archetype has been overplayed since the invention of cinema? There is way
too much good science fiction that has not been touched yet. Some would say that
is for the better, but I disagree. Let's try to get more real science
fiction on the screen.
I get angered when I read that Rendezvous with Rama
is being held up because the studio would rather churn out another retread. The
only movies I'm looking forward to over the next few years are the
aforementioned Rama, Ender's Game, Cosm, Nightfall and Dune. I'm
also interested in the Riverworld series on TV, but I have strong reservations
about anything becoming a series on TV.
Some of the greatest science fiction
would not be too hard or too costly to do. Asimov's The Caves of Steel could
readily be filmed within a tight budget. The same for Alfred Bester's The
Demolished Man. But the screenwriters should be forced to use the actual novel
as the bible for any script, and they should only be allowed to make minor changes, when absolutely necessary, for trimming or
clarification purposes only. There have been too many movies made whose
scriptwriters think they could improve on the author's work. Time and time
again, this has proven to be false.
Arthur Ramos Jr.
aramos@sunyorange.edu
Sincere Flattery Of Blake's 7
just saw Andromeda for the first time (third episode) and halfway through it I was bothered by a sense of deja vu. After the show, it hit me! Andromeda is nothing more than a remake of the old BBC show Blake's 7.
The similarities are all there. First there is the stalwart hero Hunt/Blake fighting against a tyranny. Second there is the treacherous first officer. In Blake's 7 he was a sociopathic genius; in Andromeda he is a tactical fighting expert and has already exhibited signs of treachery.
Blake's ship had two female crew members. So does Hunt's. Blake's ship had a sophisticated artificial intelligence that got them out of numerous scrapes. Andromeda has a sophisticated AI that appears as a hologram and saves their bacon in Episode Three.
I think Majel Roddenberry should drop the "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" tag from the opening credits. The ripoff is blatant.
Hannibal Gay
Hannibal@Hotmail.com
Help Wanted On Planetarium Passages
am a space music composer working on a concert at a planetarium. I want to have short passages read on various themes as the music progresses. Can anyone suggest something on: space pioneers, first contact, divinity in space, loneliness of deepest space, the beauty and mystery, etc. I also will have a section of sci-faiku. I only have a month, so any help will be appreciated.
Terry Hopper
terryhopper@hotmail.com
