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).
Editors Can Also Be Wrong
cott Edelman's editorial on the impermanence of paper has got the issue backwards. What makes paper publication superior is not its permanence, but it's economy, portability and disposability. I can take my books and newspapers anywhere I like. Can I do that with my internet sources of information? Be honest.
Until the infrastructure allows me to read my internet news fix on the bus, in line at the box office or any other place without a plug, it will remain too expensive. Print media needs no special external power source to be accessed.
The price will have to come way down on e-book readers, wireless connectivity and computers in general before we can say that internet fiction (including that which is presented as fact) can gain the same kind of societal acceptance as printed matter.
I'm a 'net news junkie too, but the internet isn't even close to supplanting print. Internet information transfer appears to be evolving a paradigm more like broadcasting than print publishing. Broadcast content is given away, and yet companies find a way of making money at it. It is not that there is too much Democracy on the internet, rather the reverse. It costs too much to take it with us. Tomorrow the "wireless revolution" may be a reality, but until then I buy a newspaper for my commute to work, even if it does ink up my fingers.
Alan Katerinssky
alank@buffnet.net
Carroll is a Land of Laughs
was overjoyed to read your review of Jonathan Carroll's new novel. First, because I didn't know he had a new one coming out--which illustrates my second reason. In my humble opinion, Jonathan Carroll is (along with Tim Powers) one of the great, and lesser-known, authors in any style, let alone "our" genre. For those who have not discovered his earlier works, especially Bones of the Moon and Land of Laughs, a major treat is in store. His prose somehow manages to pull us into his characters with the utmost economy, describe unimaginable things in very imaginable ways, and be a ripping good yarn, too.
Marc Bridgham
mbridgham@belgard.com
SFW Reviewer Was Left Behind
have just finished reading your review of Left Behind. I am incredibly saddened and disappointed by the narrow perspective of the author. Before I explain my points, however, I should inform you that I
disagree strongly with the premise of the movie Left Behind and the book series upon which it was based. I am not an adherent of the belief.
What struck me most in the review was the reviewer's inability to review the movie. Instead, he seemed more intent on reviewing the belief. When I read a movie review, I don't want to know why you agree or disagree with the religious perspective of the movie--tell me how well acted it was; tell me
how true to the characters it was; tell me how well directed it was; did the special effects and/or emotional appeals work or did they fall flat?
In reading reviews of movies like Tim Burton's remake of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow, do we hear about his "fundamental pagan belief?" No. It is simply an intriguing spin on an old tale. What about the series of supernatural dramas centering around the war in Heaven (Prophecy 1, 2,
3)--do we hear about the "fundamental angelism" in the beliefs of the directors/writers? In fact, are the belief systems of these movies contrasted to the beliefs of other cultures (as the reviewer contrasted the Left Behind movie's belief system to Jews, Islamic, Hindu and even hinting
at a blast against gays/lesbians)?
No. These movies (and many, many more) are taken for what they are--interesting tales that give us a chance to see things from another perspective.
All writers, all directors, all producers, all actors bring something to the table when they create a story. Pigeon-holing them and castigating them for their "fundamental belief" (c'mon, must you write that three times--as though it were some kind of crime to believe in the fundamentals of
Christian thought?) is ridiculous. The story of Left Behind should be taken for what it is. It is asking the question, "what if?" No more. No less.
The next time you review a movie like End of Days, The Exorcist, Valentine, Star Wars: Episode II, Star Trek: X, etc., etc., etc.--do you intend to tell me about the religious perspective (or lack thereof--which is a religious perspective itself) being drilled into me by the directors, writers, producers, actors?
Or do you just discriminate against Christians in this way?
Evan Moore
EvanMoore@aol.com
Appreciate Quality Comics
applaud James Thomas' honesty in highlighting how comics have noticeably declined in thrills and innovation, leading to the current sales depression ("SF Comics Are Not Unbreakable"). During most of the 1990s, many comic creators and publishers sacrificed great storytelling for overblown artwork and cheap marketing stunts (e.g., "The Death of Superman"). Those comics that bucked this shameful trend were snubbed by readers and retailers alike, which often led to cancellation due to poor sales. However, this creative stagnation has harmed the industry overall as most adult and child readers left comics for more appealing, less condescending fare.
Still, other Science Fiction Weekly readers are correct that there are some great comics on the racks. One of my favorites is Marvel's Black Panther, which single-handedly renewed my faith in comics. This title focuses on a self-depreciating government attaché, Everett K. Ross, who becomes the reluctant narrator/sidekick to the Black Panther, a tech-savvy, Machiavellian warrior king. In the hands of writer Christopher Priest, Black Panther reinvigorates the well-worn superhero cliches with complex characters, political satire and unpredictable plot twists. Some story arcs are truly fantastic, like the Panther battling demons like the devilish Mephisto and later the dream-weaving Nightmare to save his eternal soul. Others have a political, real-to-life slant, like the recent "Sturm and Drang" (Issues #26-29), which is equal parts Cuban Missile Crisis and last year's Elian Gonzalez debacle. With such high quality stories, Black Panther is worthy of the attention of mainstream critics like Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker, who hailed it as "a swashbuckling political thriller."
Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski has found new fame as the writer of two popular comic series, Rising Stars and Midnight Nation. The first issue of the former series opens in 1969, when a mysterious flash over Pederson, Illinois causes 113 expectant mothers to give birth to superhuman children or "Specials." Though the United States government distrusts the Specials, the general public tolerates and even reveres this new breed of human beings. This acceptance comes to an end when the corporate superhero, Patriot, secretly kills some of his fellow Specials to further increase his personal powers. These actions ultimately lead to a titanic showdown between the Specials and the U.S. Army, which has dire national and even global repercussions for decades to come. Even more so than the recent X-Men movie, Rising Stars uses superhero fantasy to
make thoughtful commentary on topics like the fragility of personal freedom, alienation and racial prejudice. With a superhero epic this great, it is understandable why MGM Studios quickly struck a deal with Straczynski to create an upcoming Rising Stars movie trilogy.
Midnight Nation is the story of police detective David Grey, whose latest homicide investigation leads to a horrific encounter with undead beings called Walkers. David literally loses his soul in the confrontation and falls into the Place In Between, a netherworld for the abandoned and dispossessed. Guided by the mysterious Laurel, David embarks on a yearlong quest to reclaim his soul and escape the Place In Between. If he fails, David will die, or worse, become one of the dreaded Walkers he fought. Over the course of David and Laurel's odyssey, Midnight Nation subtly comments on a range of issues like job layoffs, religious faith, gang violence, self-determination and overcoming your fears. Midnight Nation is the first comic since the DC/Milestone series, Xombi (a Harlan Ellison favorite), that can easily match the intelligence and creativity of
supernatural classics like The Twilight Zone and The X-Files.
Finally, there is Static Shock, which answers that age-old question: What if a
sci-fi/comic fan (Virgil Hawkins) got electromagnetic superhuman powers and became a real life superhero (Static)? This unique premise instantly distinguishes Static from countless teens who became superheroes for the sake of vengeance or guilt: Robin, Spider-Man, etc. However, Virgil's life
is hardly perfect, since he has the usual teenage concerns. Years before Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Static had to come to grips with the homosexuality of his best friend after saving him from a gay bashing ("Static" #16-20).
Hopefully, these synopses will serve as an effective introduction for those who were curious about comic books, but did not know where to begin. Comics are a medium that can appeal to diverse tastes just like novels, television, films and comic strips. But it is up to publishers, retailers and fans to appreciate comics' diversity and then make it known to non-fans.
Frederick D. Weaver
duane106@olg.com
The X-Files Should Top the Charts
here are all the X-Philes? Have they suddenly been abducted? Although I am delighted in reading the views of both Steve Madden ("Some Still Want to Believe") and Michael A. Nelson ("X-Files is Past its Freshness Date"), where is everybody else?
Fox's highest-rated program is currently the children's show Malcolm in the Middle, while The X-Files, which used to live in programming's Top 20-rated episodes on a weekly basis, it has currently fallen off the map. It didn't happen overnight; a chain of events has led up to this point.
Way back in Season four, series creator Chris Carter attempted to double his income by being both executive producer and sometimes writer of The X-Files, and then created a second program, Millennium, which in many ways surpassed The X-Files in quality, but was never given a chance, airing on Friday nights. Carter chose to keep his current crop of writers, producers
and directors, but made a bad decision: he spread his talented crew too thin. (He continued this trend with Harsh Realm and the soon-to-air Lone Gunmen spinoff.)
Working on two programs at once quickly diminished XF's quality, while Millennium only lasted three years before getting cancelled. (My yearly highlights are watching the guest-written episodes, including those written by Duchovny, Anderson and William Gibson.) Carter then chose to move the series into a new direction; culminating into a feature film. Since then,
continuity is sorely lacking. There is almost no mention of any of the events from the film, with the exception of one episode. And since Carter has straightforwardly stated, "I have no clue as to the direction of The X-Files, it's led by itself," there is reason to worry. He doesn't know
where the series is going. At one time he did, but after he decided to kill off all the bad guys in The Consortium, he kind of wiped the slate clean to start all over again, although the mythology episodes are far and few between.
And since picking up and moving camp from creepy Canada to the always-sunshiny Los Angeles, all of the sets have become monotonous. In order to give L.A. a mysterious, dark look, set decorators have over-exposed the darkness level, making the majority of the scenes too dark to view the main onscreen action.
Since Duchovny's highly publicized suit was filed and settled out of court, he signed on to appear in no more than six episodes for season nine, which shows a clear sign: The X-Files is almost finally over, readied to be expanded into feature films on a semi-yearly basis, sort of like James
Bond flicks. As Duchovny refuses to return, the show should end too. Gillian Anderson has signed on for another year, Patrick's Doggett character is good, but he's no replacement for Mulder, while Carter's status is up in the air, offering (the few faithful remaining) fans a sliver of hope for another tired season.
Episodes of season nine are too far-fetched; many are simply retreads of episodes from the first three seasons, simply changing the names of the characters. Carter offers promises he cannot keep: there's no continuity from the first movie, there's no return of familiar characters until the
final five episodes this season, the return of Duchovny seems to be sporadic, offering his precious acting time at minute intervals spread over several episodes. I've been a fan from the beginning. I'm a nine-year X-Phile who refuses to settle for mediocrity like Buffy, Sabrina, Xena or
Hercules. Surely there's more people out there who share my point of view. With hope, maybe a crewmember will pass this advice on to the higher-ups to make a difference. Let's hear it from the fans!
Matt Kelsey
Cancermatt@yahoo.com
Let Only the Bad Guys Act Bad
'm writing in response to Caryn Wesner-Early's letter that she wrote in your last issue ("SF Can Be Torture"), where she says that showing torture might be harmful to children. I think she's looking at this the wrong way. In the examples she gave, it seemed only the "bad guys" were
using torture to get what they wanted. I think this shows kids why bad guys are bad and should not be held in high esteem, regard or looked up to. However, what did concern me, and I'm glad this bothered her too, was that she said that she saw Angel, "a good guy," use torture on his show, too. I believe this is wrong. This is giving kids a mixed message. If torture must be shown, let it be done by the bad guys only.
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG@webtv.net
This Is Not Your Children's SF
his is to all of us parents that watch sci-fi in all its forms. Do not let your children watch Farscape, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, or Dark Angel!
None of these shows are meant for children much under 15 years old. The concepts are difficult and they discuss ideas I'd just as soon not have to explain to my sons; ages 5 and 9. I don't want to have to explain lesbianism like Willow/Tara on BTVS, or Cindy on Dark Angel.
Or explain why Scorpius is torturing John Crichton. Or explain why Max is so much faster and stronger then other humans (genetic engineering is just too advanced a concept for a five year old). Come on parents, control what your children watch. If you don't want them to watch something, then don't let them. But don't complain (in this forum, or any other) about the shows themselves. The shows are not meant for children. Do not let them watch!
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62@yahoo.com
Remakes Taint the Classics
s it just me, or does it seem that Hollywood has gone just a wee bit crazy with the remakes? Are they that hard up for scripts? So far they've remade Dune and Psycho, they're remaking Planet of the Apes, Fahrenheit 451 ... and even Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory. I would just like to know: What is sooo wrong with the originals that they have to be remade? I won't even get into Dune. That argument has been rehashed enough. I really don't see room for improvement on classics like Planet of the Apes. I'm sure someone will say, "well special effects have come a long way since then," but sci-fi isn't just about special effects. Planet of the Apes and Fahrenheit 451 tell their stories very well, without CGI technology or fancy animatronics. The original Apes was great, and I honestly can't see anyone else but Charlton Heston playing Taylor, or Roddy McDowell Cornelius. I have nothing against Tim Burton. I've enjoyed every movie he's directed, but how can you improve on Apes?
When the remake of Psycho came out, I gave it a chance and, I'll admit, it was well done. In fact, it was so faithful to the original, that I found myself asking, "Why did they make this?" It was exactly the same movie, only in color and with a different cast, a good cast mind you, but there was really no way that they improved the film. At least the second Dune made changes and followed the book a little better. When's it going to end? There are so many great books that could be adapted for movies and I'm sure there are great new scripts that deserve more consideration than ones that have already been done.
Next thing you know, they'll be remaking War of the Worlds and Earth versus the Flying Saucers. What I'd really like to see is something along the lines of an Exorcist scenario. Why not just re-release the originals. Reintroduce the public to good old fashioned sci-fi movies, not some puffed up version of them. These movies are classics! Leave them alone!
Julia Hayden
NluMijet@excite.com
Differences Define Buffy's Drama
pirgen's letter ("Buffy's Relations Aren't So Bold") seems to miss the goal of good dramatic stories; they've got to be interesting!
The biggest mistakes I see in the Science-Fiction/Fantasy "milieu" is when the focus of the story is on the situation (being in space, hunting vampires, whatever) vs. stories about people. One of the great strengths about Buffy, or Stargate, or Farscape or any enjoyable storyline, is that we get caught up in their struggles as humans (or human-like).
It's been my long-held belief that humanity is better defined by our variations, not what make us similar. Our individual differences have always been our strength. After all, our species' ability to adapt to a changing environment has made us the top of the food chain on this planet! Stories that include characters that are demons, vampires, aliens, are merely reflections of ourselves, seen perhaps through a twisted mirror, but still modelled from the vast variation of human existence.
You shouldn't write stories about "generic" or "cookie-cutter" characters. Those are really uninteresting. People enjoy stories about other people who are different from us. So there's no married couples in Buffy. So what? Unless they fit into the overall themes and characterizations of the show, Willow and Zander's parents would be extraneous. Maybe if they were closet Satanists, or lapsed Wiccans (could explain where Willow gets her power?) then it'd be interesting, but as "Mom and Dad?" Who cares?
Buffy's mom makes the cut because she's dealing with a very human but radically novel situation; she's a struggling single mother (normal) whose daughters are involved in supernatural conflicts. These problems make her interesting. And all the other characters are similar in that they deal with problems that we can relate to, albeit in really strange and unique circumstances. We can see them as heroes because, with all their challenges and struggles, and all the strange and unique stuff that happens to them, and defines them, we still see them succeed and fail just like anyone else. When they succeed we cheer them, and when they fail, we feel satisfaction (because they deserve it) or feel sorry for them because we wanted them to win.
And yes, sometimes TV producers use gay and lesbian characters and situations to bring in ratings. But guess what? Homosexuality is both a normal variation of humanity and can offer writers opportunities to explore issues that are common to us all (ie., relationship problems) and uncommon (social issues, etc.) that make the characters interesting.
Personally, I think Joss knows what he's doing. He's a good story teller. And frankly, that's why I turn on the TV at all. For a good story. One of the worst trends in thinking lately is that mass media somehow defines our society, rather that reflecting it. Perhaps the fact that it's "mass" media gives us the impression that the flickering images on the screen ARE our society. But these are just the stories we tell about ourselves.
Matthew Williams
mptw@hotmail.com
Good Stories Cross Genres
n his letter ("True Science Fiction is Rare"), Mr. McMaster asks if someone could explain how horror and fantasy works could be called science fiction. No need to go to Hollywood for that. We can find
an answer right in your local bookstore.
We walk in and head right for the science fiction section. Hmm. Strange. Lots of fantasy books mixed in there too. And, look right over your shoulder into the next aisle, and what will you see? The horror section. Why is that?
There's a simple answer: a proper adaptation of Clarke's Law--any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The book, TV and movie people all know this--they lump the genres together. The authors know this, as they often regularly cross genres. The congruence lies in the fact that specifics of genre give us a format for internal consistency, different sets of images, connotations and flavors. The real meat of a good story, though, lies in interesting characters and exciting, fantastic events. Farscape's John Crichton could just as easily fallen down Alice's rabbit hole, or walked through his wardrobe into Narnia, as fly through a wormhole. And on the other side he could have met Gimli the dwarf as easily as D'Argo the Luxan. Make the villain Sauron or Skorpius. The key is the rollicking good story! Thus, a great many readers like both fantasy and sci-fi, and like having them (and the similar horror genre) all in one place.
I am not offended by Mr. McMaster's comments on current book offerings, but they strike me as a bit narrow. We, as people, have myriad and diverse tastes in literature. The books written to match that mass of tastes will be as diverse. And, accordingly, no one person is likely to enjoy even as much as a simple majority of them. In buying a book, one does take a bit of a chance. The authors, editors, and publishers cannot help that. I will note that there is an option to risking your hard earned dollars, though.. The option is to patronize your local public library and let your tax dollars do your book shopping for you!
It is all too easy to sit at our computers and make blanket criticisms. Perhaps I am the old-fashioned one, but I always thought that criticism should be constructive--directed, well thought out, and carefully worded, designed to show not just how a thing is bad, but how it could be
made better. To say, "I could belch out better books," is none of those things.
It seems that lots of people are very flatly negative in these letters, be it about Star Trek: Voyager, Black Scorpion, Dune, or what have you. So certain that only "pure " is worthy. There is one proper response--Put up or shut up. If things are so bad, and it is so easy to do better, please, by all means do so! I dare you! No, I double-dog dare you to put pen to paper and do better. If any of you are correct, you can make a mint, and we'll have better stories and shows! If not, you'll learn about the creative process, and how hard it is to write good stories.
In either case, I urge you to watch what you like, read what you like, and be happy. Imagine what would happen if everything in the bookstore and on the SCI FI Channel were perfectly to your liking. When would you find time in your reading and TV watching to earn money to pay the book and cable
bills?
Arnis Kletnieks
arnis_public@wiremaze.net
SF By Any Name Is Wonderful
Michael McMaster writes ("True Science Fiction is Rare"), which I wouldn't disagree with, so I thought it was absolutely wonderful to see Star Wars and Star Trek defended over the rash of vampire shows as being The Real Thing, when so many science fiction fans see them exactly as part of the spectrum of fantasy. No offence to Lucasites and Trekkers, but however entertaining they may be they're hardly the core of the genre are they? Or maybe they are, and it's we boring old farts who read Arthur C. Clarke, William Gibson, Greg Egan and Stephen Baxter who are somewhere out off in left field.
Come to think of it, on the dust-jacket of the first copy of The Lord of the Rings I read, Naomi Mitchison (herself a science fiction writer) claimed (dubiously, I have to admit) that "it's really super science fiction." Personally, I'm not terribly bothered, but I can't help thinking that
McMaster's got a good suggestion and that someone ought to submit Childhood's End or A Case of Conscience to a modern publisher and see it whether it's bounced because of lack of lightsabers or an absence of vampires.
Andy Sawyer
asawyer@liv.ac.uk
Defining Genre Isn't Easy
ust finished reading Michael McMaster's letter ("True Science Fiction is Rare") and had a few comments.
Mr. McMaster writes: "One major thing that confuses me is how the 'horror'
of stories about vampires has suddenly become known as 'science fiction.'"
and later, "... Friday the 13th ... Psycho and many others too numerous to
mention, are now classified as 'science fiction.'" Well, Matt, if people
are classifying those things as SF, I think they're loony, and you have my
permission to tell them I said so. While it's true that there really aren't
any sharp dividing lines between SF, fantasy, and horror, I think it's
pretty safe to say that Friday the 13th is clearly horror (with, in the case
of the series, a heavy helping of fantasy.) Same thing for anyone
classifying "fantasy" as SF.
Granted, there are gray areas. Is Anne McCaffery's Dragonriders series
fantasy or SF? How about Robert Silverberg's Lord Valentine's Castle and
its sequels? Is H.P. Lovecraft's The Colour Out of Space horror or SF?
Is Howard Waldrop's work SF or just plain weird? In most cases
though, it's pretty easy to tell.
There's traditionally been a fairly sizeable crossover audience for all
three genres, so they tend to get shelved in close proximity in the stores,
the SCI FI Channel airs programs in all three categories, and so on. Just
because they share shelf space doesn't automatically make them exactly the
same. Even within SF there are degrees: someone who likes William B. Gibson
isn't necessarily going to like E.E. "Doc" Smith; those who prefer a high
degree of scientific accuracy aren't necessarily going to care for Star
Wars; etc.
In any case, just because someone says something is SF doesn't make it so.
Fortunately, SF fans (for the most part) are equipped with brains and can
decide for themselves.
As for the supposed decline in quality of SF novels, I've bought the last
several novels by William Gibson, Larry Niven, Bruce Sterling, Orson Scott
Card, Tim Powers and James Blaylock (okay, so those last two are more
fantasy than SF) and all were up to those writers' usual standards. Perhaps
I'm just easy to please.
"When it comes to a book, there is no 'off button,' so we are out the
money we spent on the book, since re-selling it still means a loss, no
matter how you look at it." I can sympathize. I find it helps sometimes to
open the book to a random page and read a bit. You can also try to find a
reviewer and/or friend whose tastes parallel your own. And as far as the
expense goes, there are always used book stores or even the library. In
fact, I propose a public service: Matt, why don't you send in a list of five
books that you absolutely loved, and five that you absolutely hated. We,
the readers of SF Weekly, will take it upon ourselves, based on the
titles you submit, to send in our picks for other books we think you should
try. Or, if you prefer, just send me the list personally, but I think you'd
get a wider selection of recommendations from the collective readership than
just me.
As for your experiment in creative plagiarism, it won't really prove
anything. There are many factors that go into deciding whether a particular
book will be published or not and the quality of the work is only one of
those factors. If nothing else, there have been 20 years worth of books
published that weren't in existence at the time the original was published.
A concept that was startlingly original 20 years ago may be old hat today.
A theme that was topical 20 years ago may seem like ancient history today.
The editor reading the book is probably not the same one who was working 20
years ago and may have slightly different tastes. I just think there are
too many variables for such an experiment to have much meaning.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
Battlefield Earth Still an Insult
id I watch the same Battlefield Earth that your reviewer did when he gave the DVD a "B?" This movie was rightly panned by most critics as one of the worst of last year. The numerous leaps that the plot makes, such as a bunch of barbaric humans quickly learning to fly 1,000 year-old jets armed with
equally old munitions and holding off advanced Psychlo aircraft, are an insult to the intelligence, the tilted camera angles nausea-inducing, and the constant use of wipes when changing scenes downright irritating. Making the movie even more irritating is the wooden dialogue and the out-right bad acting, best characterized by Travolta's maniacal laugh which I assume was supposed to show how power-drunk the character was, but only makes him sound ridiculous.
The fact that the DVD includes a commentary track that explaining the creative process can only be a viewed as a joke, not as enlightening. Giving reasons for a bad product do not elevate the product, they only serve to explain the carnage.
Anyone who loves intelligent science fiction filmmaking should stay away from this stink bomb and spend their money instead on movies which actually engage the viewer's intelligence rather than insulting it.
Matthew Appleton
mattapp@aol.com
Back to the top.
