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).
As a Modern Monster, Dracula Sucks
s historical
villains come, Vlad Tepes Dracula is not that impressive. The last century has spawned
monsters more horrible than anything imagined by writers of fiction. The historical
Dracula may have killed a few thousands, but men like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin,
Pol Pot, and Milosovich each have committed more atrocities than a 15th century
prince could even imagine. Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun caused more pain and death.
Dracula is feared because Bram Stoker wrote a good book.
John E. Nolan
roninja@bcpl.net
Tomorrow's Already Here
hile I have
to agree with
Michael Cassutt that Dark Angel is definitely sci-fi, I do think
he needs to re-examine his definition of sci-fi. Science fiction is a setting in which
plausible, yet fictional, technology or scientific understanding has a direct cause
or effect on the story's conflict or resolution of a problem. It must appear
explainable. I can have a starship run on powerful gravitic engines. I don't
need to explain how they work, but I could if it helped the story line.
Fantasy is a setting in which magic or the supernatural has a direct cause or
effect on the story's conflict or resolution of a problem. Magic just is and needs
not be explained. I can have a ship with tall sails fly to the moon, pulled by
tethered owls. Explain that one.
Much of today's "sci-fi" is really science fantasy. It combines elements of both
and is more popular and easier to write for a weekly series or movie. The lines blur
easily. Using high-tech weaponry to fight crime: sci-fi. Vampires living amongst us
controlling organized crime: fantasy. Analyzing vampire blood to develop lethal drugs
and weaponry to use against them: definitely science fantasy.
I also must add that one of the reasons science fiction is getting harder to write
is that so much of it has become science fact. Picture a love story where the main
characters chase each other all over the world. The woman leaving clues like pictures,
word puzzles, and recorded sounds of where she'll be next. Twenty years ago, they would
have been on paper and cassette tape and phone calls. Very quaint.
Today, they each have a PDA in their pocket that keeps them instantly linked: no
paper, no cassette, no phone. It almost makes you laugh at the Star Trek
communicator.
Michael Scarpelli
Archangel_1of7@angelfire.com
Debating Dark Angel
n the last
installment of the letters column, Mr. Juan Suros comments in
"Lips
Beat Presidency By A Pout" about the head of the FCC's statements
regarding FOX and NBC's failure to cover a presidential debate. "Now, if a
company that is leasing my airwaves from my government decides that Ms. Jessica
Alba's (of Dark Angel) pouty lips are more important than who will be the
next president of my country, I'm going to object."
Surely Mr. Suros is aware that two of the major networks, ABC and CBS (as well
as innumerable cable outlets), did in fact, carry the debate. As such, I wonder
what, precisely, Mr. Suros' objection actually is. Surely it's not that he was
unable to view the debate.
Is he, perhaps, objecting that those of us who were not interested in viewing
it had the option not to? Or, perhaps, he's upset that there were enough of us who
were disinterested to make it commercially viable for two networks to opt out of
their traditional roles. If so, might I suggest that Mr. Suros should consider the
fact that we, also, are owners of those airwaves that Mr. Suros claims title to, and
that it is quite in keeping with the spirit of democracy for our interests to find
representation in the marketplace, as well.
The simple fact of the matter is that the FCC does not have any
legitimate reason to tell broadcasters that they should place the "public good"
above the interests of the markets that they serve. Quite the contrary, in fact.
If the public truly wants universal coverage of the debates, those networks that
don't cover them will be automatically punished in the ratings. As such, the
government (as well as certain individuals who would like the government to
impose their desires on others) can, and should, let the networks bear the
responsibility for their own broadcast choices.
Andrew Lias
anrwlias@hotmail.com
This Is Your Brain on Politics
'm a little
puzzled by the arguments of those defending Fox and criticizing the FCC Chairman for
his comments on the airing of Dark Angel opposite this year's first presidential
debate. Changing the schedule of an entertainment program to allow the public access to
information about the selection of their representative government is an infringement
on freedom? This seems a stretch. There was never any question in the FCC Chairman's
remarks of modifying or controlling the content of Dark Angel. Nor did he
demand that it be shown at a time that would deny people the opportunity of seeing
it.
He said nothing about the content or timing of commercials distributed only by cable
networks. He can't. It's not in the FCC's control. Anyone who wanted to avoid the
debate could tune in to any cable channel, SCI FI for instance, and see what that
adorable Xev was up to while the debates droned on.
I've little patience for people who don't trust the government, don't keep informed
on it's actions, and then complain about what it does. If politics hurts your brain,
let me offer my own solution as an example. I voted absentee, turned off the tube,
and I'm halfway through rereading my Bujold collection. I've plenty of old friends
to revisit if that doesn't last me past the seventh.
Juan Suros
jsuros@yahoo.com
Real Science Fiction Survives
have often
read
Michael Cassutt's take on the perils of developing science fiction for media with
enjoyment and appreciation for illuminating a side of popular science fiction that is
rarely seen by the average fan. However, in his latest column, when he attempts to
define science fiction, I have to take umbrage at his simplistic description of what
makes something (in this case, TV shows) science fiction.
Cassutt begins with the insightful inference that by even naming the
genre he has begun to define it, but then turns his back on the inherent
logic by stating, "A sci-fi series is one that takes place in a world other
than our own, such as the future, or a fantastical past, or an alternative
history." Such a definition is a symptom of the mainstreaming effect upon popular
science fiction. When people see space or aliens, they have been conditioned into
a Pavlovian response that such fare equals science fiction. The reality is that
fantastical settings are merely an effect (and not an obligatory effect) of what
is the real basis of science fiction, that is, science itself. Science fiction
is fiction about how people and culture are affected by technology and science.
In order to talk about those technologies, writers often imagine elaborate
settings where the technology under consideration is brought to the fore, but
it doesn't have to be that way.
A simple guide for deciding if something is science fiction is to determine
what the technology under consideration is, and then to remove it. If the removal
of the dominant technology from a work does not change the plot or theme of the work,
then it is not science fiction. An example of this would be
Blade Runner.
The technology under consideration in the movie is cloning, and if you remove the
science of cloning from the story-line, the movie falls apart. At the same time,
we are immersed in the lives of various people and how they have been affected by
cloning technology. Yes, Blade Runner has a beautifully dystopic setting,
but the story could be told in terms of the day after tomorrow without all the
dark and grim cityscapes. Would the movie have been so powerful? Probably not--but
it was not the setting that made the movie. There have been plenty of dystopic
films that fail; what makes Blade Runner work is the consideration of the
interaction of the people with the technology in question.
A negative example would be Star Wars. There is no technology or science
that drives Star Wars--it is entirely setting. If you took out some science or
technology, the movie would roll along without missing a beat. Luke without a
lightsaber? He could just as easily use a high-powered gun. Han Solo without
warp? Try slipstreaming technology instead. But to the millions who have seen
any part of the franchise, it has to be science fiction because it's about space
and it's got aliens.
Cassutt stumbles when he struggles to place Max Headroom in the science
fiction genre, but by my definition, it is fiction about the science of
telecommunications and in my opinion, it was brilliantly done as evidenced by how much
of what it predicted has come to pass. Similarly, The Truman Show is a movie
about the effects of the science of telecommunication on a willing public.
The world is teetering on a voyeuristic abyss as any number of international
flavors of Survivor and Big Brother set viewing records in their
respective countries...and The Truman Show predicted it.
What Cassutt is actually describing in his column is not so much science fiction
as it is speculative fiction, the fiction of different settings. Science fiction is
a sub-genre of this, as are fantasy and alternative histories.
And why does any of this matter? Because science fiction and its fans have long
been ghetto-ized because of the perceived subject matter of science fiction--aliens
and space. Perfectly dreadful television shows and movies come out with aliens
taking the forefront, and their abysmal reviews and box office showings merely
dig the hole more deeply, so that science fiction is further associated with things
Way Out There. Good alien movies become the exception and since aliens are part of
the popular notion of what science fiction is, in the mind of the masses,
good science fiction is an exception to the norm also. When good pieces come
out, such as The Truman Show, real fans have to fight to get the work
recognized of what science fiction is truly about.
And, to be sure, I like speculative fiction. But after reading so many
letters in this forum about the death of science fiction, when what is really
dying is this average to bad speculative fiction, I would argue that if you
point out the real examples of science fiction and how well they succeed in
the marketplace--and why they are good science fiction--more good science
fiction will follow.
Fred Perry
perryf@pagesz.net
Kirk and Picard, Heroes Both
n regards
to Gloria Hoffner's letter,
"What A Strange, Long Trek It's Been, I would
like to offer a few key points that seem to have been missed, not just by her but
by everyone who has spoken up so far in the "Death of Kirk" debate.
I agree with the general principle that all heroes die in some way or another
(Okay, Sheridan from Babylon 5 might be the exception, but we'll never
really know). Some fade away in the peace of their twilight years, and some
die in the line of duty, dying how they lived. It is fitting that Kirk died
making a difference, whether it was on the Enterprise-B or on Veridian III,
and it's also not unreasonable for a man who has given his life to the service
of others to be sorely tempted by a life of peace and quiet without
responsibility--even back in the original series we heard those immortal, wistful words of Capt. Kirk: No beach to walk on.
Ms. Hoffner's letter (among others) makes a few detail errors that I
feel do not support her argument. (The least of which being that Gene
Roddenberry was called the Great Bird of the Galaxy, not the Universe as she
puts it). For one, Riker did not refer to Kirk's death at all in the Star
Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics"--Scotty thought he was in his
own time and thought Kirk was still alive. All Riker told him was that Scotty
was no longer in the 23rd century--and this episode was made before
Star Trek: Generations, before we knew that Scotty was present
on the Enterprise-B to see Kirk "die" (that in and of itself is another can
of continuity worms).
While it was true that we were not given the same time to mourn Kirk as
we had with Spock's death, there was a movie's story to be told, and it was
better for us to jump into the somewhat unknown of the future like Kirk, rather
than to linger for no other reason than to just mourn. And besides, it wasn't
the end of Kirk, not yet. The proper mourning came at the end with Picard,
a stranger who admired the living legend. To simply say Paramount rushed the
death to make way for merchandising is callous and cynical and a gross exaggeration
or misinterpretation.
As stated before, it's a matter of record that Kirk pined for a life free
of responsibility despite his love for being in the center seat, and not unreasonable
to expect him to try to grab at such a life in his later years. After all, we did
see Kirk change and grow in some ways over the course of the films. It may have
rubbed the wrong way to watch Picard have to convince Kirk to help, but who
wouldn't agree Kirk deserved to be selfish for once after his decades of
service? (Heck, even Capt. Pike from "The Cage" wanted out now and then!)
And as for Picard never taking any action, many times he did. And as far
as away missions are concerned, Riker took that responsibility and made
Picard see the reasoning of that behavior at the beginning of TNG!
And his reasoning wasn't new--there were times when Spock, McCoy, and Scotty
all had good reasons for protesting Kirk rushing in where angels fear to
tread. Picard had good reason for not always getting too personal with his
crew: professional detachment was part of his personality and what he felt
as part of the burden of responsibility of his command--and even then he
broke his own rule, getting involved with the personal well-being of all
his senior crew on many occasions. Picard also had good reason for being
cold about assimilated crewmen in Star Trek: First Contact--he
experienced a kind of personal rape at the hands of the Borg to a depth
that can't even be experienced in the real world. He is entitled to his
opinion--not to mention that there wasn't time to save that particular
crewman, his ship was being assimilated and time was running out!
There is no argument that Kirk and Picard were/are both dedicated heroes
in their own ways, with their own human foibles and repressed emotions. But it is
important that we recognize both the strengths and the weaknesses,
for that is what makes them great characters and great heroes. As it is true for
all heroes and heroines.
Adam R. Goss
argF91@hotmail.com
By George, He's Done It!
've just
finished reading a few letters to the editor dealing with the death of heroes,
mainly the deaths of Kirk and Chewbacca. Personally, I think that death of anyone,
main characters or otherwise, needs to be a possibility. The constant reminder of
mortality only serves to make a hero greater--because he does what he does despite
obvious evidence of the danger.
Recently, there has been the release of the third book in a series written by
George R.R. Martin. This book, A Storm of Swords, continues his Song of
Ice and Fire saga and breaks through the barriers that I feel too
many authors create, particularly (and especially) in science fiction and fantasy.
Characters that obviously are needed to resolve issues die before they can
make a difference, and some less-than-savory characters get chances at life
that any just reader would think unfair. Martin is brilliant in his writing, and I
can't recommend him enough.
By the end of the first book (A Game of Thrones), I was hooked. By the end
of the second (Clash of Kings), I was a rabid fan. Now, after reading the
third, I'm just getting over the uneasy feelings caused by the read
(anyone who's familiar with these books will know what I mean), and I can now
no longer wait for the next installment. For anyone that feels that SF/Fantasy
should be written "with the gloves off," so to speak, I recommend these three books.
The good guys don't always win their battles, the bad guys aren't always so evil,
and all that can be expected are surprises. And I mean "true surprises." This is not
like reading about a bunch of Hobbits that escape from peril, defying all levels of
logic. If you're tired of reading a book and being able to point to a character and
say, "I'm only fifty pages into this 1000 page book, but I already know how it will
end and who will save the day," then read Martin. You might hate it at times, but
you'll thank me in the end.
Norm de Moose
ndemoose@netscape.net
TV Doesn't Have to End This Way
n response
to Karen Kates' letter
"Preying for Prey" and the frustration she
expresses with the shortsighted and inconsiderate approach American networks
take with dramatic series, I have just one thing to say: It doesn't have to be
this way!
Having lived overseas in the UK and Japan, I can tell you that I never
saw a show cancelled on a cliffhanger in either country. The normal approach
for a series to take was to contract for 10-20 episodes in a single story arc that
was planned to gracefully end in the last episode while leaving room for a sequel.
This meant that if the show was a hit they could, of course, bring it back. If it
didn't live up to rating's expectations the network would simply not do a sequel.
I believe there are exceptions to this rule in the UK--some shows that
did, in fact end with very unresolved stories, but they are the exception.
Why can't the U.S. networks follow a similar course of action? We are the
consumers, we need to make our voices heard!
CJ Miller
carolynandrei@netzero.net
Don't Paint Claudius a Fool
was a little
disturbed by the comments from actor Alexis Arquette about his guest role on Xena:
Warrior Princess. He credits the show as having an original take on the Emperor
Claudius, by not portraying Claudius as "retarded." Claudius has never been portrayed
as "retarded." He was called "the Fool" because he spoke with a stutter and kept
quiet most of the time, largely to avoid the frequent assassinations and treachery
in the Roman royal household. The actor isn't doing the fan community any favors
by spouting off like this. Xena isn't exactly breaking new ground here. View,
or better yet read I, Claudius and Claudius the God for a decidedly
un-retarded view.
Jennifer Quail
tiepilot.geo@yahoo.com
Sympathies for Charly
first read
"Flowers For Algernon" when I was in elementary school years ago. I found it
moving because of the heavy-duty identity issues that Charly had to go through,
which were so skillfully portrayed by the author. It never struck me, though, how
unrealistic the reaction of his acquaintances was to his sudden new intelligence.
In reality, he would have been stuck in his job as janitor unless someone bothered
to pay for years of education, and he would have had a tough time getting his teacher
to date him without having a college degree!
Now, I've had to go through an experience that was the opposite of Charly's
in a couple of ways. After a long and successful career as a programmer, I
got hypothyroidism, which evaded diagnosis until after I became too sick to
work. Now, after a month of treatment, I see the light at the end of the
tunnel--as far as regaining my old powers. Alas, I can't go back to my old
work because of a year of unemployment, and I'll have to start over again
career-wise. But being intelligent and capable in a world that's already
decided I'm stupid and lazy is going to be an even tougher adjustment,
since everyone knows things like this don't really happen!
It's encouraging to me, though, to know that this book has struck such a responsive
chord with the reading public. Maybe there are a bunch of people out there who know
what it's like to go through this type of identity crisis!
Dorothy Pugh
DorothyPugh@aol.com
Kirk Deserves to Live
have seen
the long debate running over the death of heroes and I can say without any falsehoods
that it sucks. The reasons for stories of heroes is someone to look up to, root for,
emulate their ideas and live vicariously through them. When heroes such as Capt. Kirk
die for reasons not for the good of the story but rather the good of Rick Berman's new
Star Trek plans, there is a problem. The Star Trek franchise will
continue to dwindle until Paramount wakes up and finds a way to return the character,
if not the actor, to the mythos, because, Star Trek is mythos and it needs
stronger heroes than are currently involved. As to the letter
"What A Strange, Long Trek It's Been, stating that Gene Roddenberry
said Kirk had died is not correct. Never in a single episode did any character
say Kirk was dead, and even if they had it would be based on what happened on
Enterprise B. Shatner's novels take place after events in Star Trek: Generations
and they are far better stories than the glorified TV episodes that have been
Star Trek lately.
As to the people upset over the FCC reaction to Fox and NBC: they have a
right to express their concerns, and people should be glad they do, because
they are the ones who try to give some order to a highly disorganized system.
And to the others wanting some shows such as Prey to be brought back:
there was a reason it was cancelled, no one was watching it. The same people
who want these type of shows can't understand why people want shows like
Battlestar Galactica returned but not Space: Above and Beyond.
The reason is simple. In the late '70s there were only three networks and
BG was a hit. It was cancelled for stupid reasons, not because people
were not watching it. Most of the shows in the last few years are just pale
copies of each other. Xena: Warrior Princess was a spin-off from
Hercules, and it spawned shows such as Sinbad,
Cleopatra 2025, and a host of one-liner shows that had no real
stories or real characters, comic books had characters with better
backgrounds than all of the those shows combined. And if I hear one
more person say how cool the slow motion effects are in The Matrix,
another characterless movie, I am going on a postal spree. The Six Million
Dollar Man was doing slow motion effects long before the writers of the
movie could even write.
Evan Wardwell
EWardwell@email.msn.com
