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).
Not All TV Is for Children
n response to the letter "Let Only the Bad Guys Act Bad" let's be a little realistic here. Why should we limit every show so kids can watch them? Hey if that's what you want, go watch Nickelodeon or TV Land or the Disney channel, but good luck on finding any sci-fi on those channels. I can't speak for everyone but I like seeing a good character with a mean streak. I don't want to watch a TV series or movie where all the good characters are goody-two-shoes. Believe it or not, there is programming out there made for children just as there is programming that isn't.
Noah Vale
whiskeyandwinearemyonlyfriends@yahoo.com
Ratings Are There For a Reason
'm replying in response to Jim Gunn's letter "Farscape Should Be Flipped". He says he and his wife allowed their children to watch Farscape, when it first started, but now they can't, because the show has
become too violent. Although I understand their concerns, I'm afraid I have to label these people as "clueless parents." Why? Because, this should not have been a surprise to them. From the beginning, Farscape has been listed with a TV14 rating.
TV14 means that the show "May be unsuitable for children under the age of 14." Now, in Farscape's three-year run (so far), they have shown:
Aliens that look like Satan.
Aliens losing limbs.
People getting turned into aliens.
Aliens having alien sex (presumably without protection or birth control).
Humans getting brainwashed.
Humans getting there eyeballs poked with needles and their brains operated on.
Now, you're gonna sit there and tell me that you're just now figuring out, that Farscape may not be suitable for your 12, 10 and six-year-olds? Concerned parents like yourself nagged the bejeezus out of the government to initiate the, frankly, lame-ass TV rating system, that we have now. The least you could've done, is paid attention to it.
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG@webtv.net
Kid's Lit Has Never Been Innocent
n response to Patrick Baker's letter "This Is Not Your Children's SF" in the February 12 issue:
Alice in Wonderland deals with drug references.
Both Wicked Witches in The Wizard of Oz are killed (one by accident, one
is murdered).
All of Grimm's fairy tales involve murder, theft or pain in some way shape
or form.
Yet children can deal with these works of fiction.
Cartoons such as the Road Runner show anvils being dropped on people's
heads.
Yet this is shown on Saturday mornings.
Keeping an eye on what your children watch is sound advice. Please give them some credit. You don't need to explain to them the genetics behind Max in Dark Angel for them to enjoy the show. You don't need to explain quantum physics to them so that they can watch Farscape.
If my parents had decided that, at six, I couldn't see Star Wars because someone dies in it, I believe that my life would be missing some of the magic that came over the years from sci-fi shows and books.
Paul Liberatore
RogueJedi500@aol.com
Fox Makes the Moonshot a Mockery
orget the naked ratings grab apparent in the When Animals Attack and Worlds Wildest Police Chases specials. Forget, too, the tawdry embarrassment that was Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire? (or was it Multimillionaire?). Forget even the Alien Autopsy garbage.
Fox Broadcasting Company has reached a new pathetic low with their recent special, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? I cannot believe that, in the dawn of the new millennium, as America strives to lead the world into the information age, that a broadcaster would use state of
the art technology to disseminate such a piece of anti-intellectual tripe. I hope NASA sues their asses off for the implications that they murdered astronauts who would otherwise have revealed the "deception."
What's next? When Cities Burn, wherein they lead the drooling hordes to sack and burn New York whilst the celebrity host wails away on a violin? Shame, Fox, shame. Upon you, and all involved.
James Ellis
ellisj@cadvision.com
Printed Books Are Here to Stay
r. Katerinssky made some excellent points ("This Is Not Your Children's SF") about printed material being so
much easier to carry about with him. I'd like to add something else: printed material lasts a lot longer than disks. I've had two hard drives crash at home and lost track of how many diskettes suddenly became "unreadable." Books don't have that problem. (We won't talk about how many books were
ruined when my hot water heater rusted out and flooded the house.)
Books last, and from what I've read, it seems that we're expected to download a novel into a "reader" and watch the text we've paid for be overwritten by the next novel. When I buy a book, I expect to be able to read it in the future. I want to get my money's worth, to actually buy a
book and not pay a lot of money to "rent" it.
To circle back to Mr. Katerinssky's post, I can read a printed novel in the bathtub or on the toilet or while waiting some place or when I'm pretending to be watching TV. I was in the US Navy many years ago. A major distinction between the sailors and Marines on the USS Forrestal was the
number of sailors who carried books in their back pocket and read them while waiting in various lines. I can't picture these people carrying Palm Pilots or some other electronic "book."
Printed will last!
I could be wrong but, I've gotten the impression that the novels I could buy on line simply can't be saved once they've gone into some future "reader."
Mike Bell
mwbell@pld.com
Battlefield Wasn't So Horrible
didn't go see Battlefield Earth in the theatres because all my friends who said it sucked have about the same movie tastes as me. I did, however, rent it and I have to say, if you are watching this movie to just have a good time and not be totally anal, it was not bad! Sure, the plot was a little hard to believe at times, but it wasn't bad if you are looking to do what movies are supposed to do ... make you forget the outside for a few hours.
Think about it, if you really wanted to be ridiculous, 2001 had a nonsensical ending, and Kubrick takes 29 minutes to show someone eating a sandwich, don't get me started! And Independence Day ... sure, a piece of crap laptop that can barely surf the net without "performing an illegal
operation and being terminated" will be able to put a virus on a totally advanced supercomputer with no modem or wireless connection ... And how about the Phantom Menace, with it's overwhelming Star Trekian urge to explain away the unknown quantity of the force as "midiclorians"!? My advice? Take the movies for what they are: Somewhere to go to forget problems and trigger your imagination!
(P.S. With a name like Connor McLeod, I should know a little about this ...yes, it is my birthname, and since 1986 I've heard all about it!)
Connor McLeod
connorm@flash.net
Personal Taste Reigns Supreme
r. Kletnieks makes some very good points in his comments ("Good Stories Cross Genres"), which I do
agree with. Yes, genres are "lumped together"--but does this automatically make them "science fiction?" That was my main point, you know. Certainly, I realize that different people have different tastes, after all. You would not believe the ragging I receive for my not liking Babylon 5!
When you speak of things like "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" do you think that this would change the classification from "science fiction" to "fantasy" or would John Crichton running around in Wonderland still be science fiction?
Heavens, I won't even begin to answer that, until I have read the story. Once again,
personal taste reigns supreme! As for my comment about "belching out better books," that is one that I will stand by.
After all, when publishers print drivel that upsets the stomach, what do you expect? As a matter of fact, I have attempted to have stories I have written published. However, it is most difficult when the editors only "criticism" has to do with areas written "weird" (disjointed sentences,
"unusual" languages, etc., that are a major part of the story) and them still saying that it needs to "read right." What can you do when they turn the deaf ear and no amount of explanation can appease their sense of how proper English is supposed to be written? Where is the open-mindedness
in that, may I ask? Have you, Mr. Kletnieks, attempted to have science fiction published? Gone through more than fifteen different publishers in that attempt? Maybe I am jaded by what I read from some currently published authors, but I feel that I have that right. If you do not agree with my viewpoint, that is not a problem for me--as I frequently tell people: "We may not agree, but I
will defend your right to disagree with me!"
Mr. Tame comments ("Defining Genre Isn't Easy") that many stories are "crossover" types. Yes, I can agree with that, and many have been read with great enjoyment by me. The best guess I could manage to come up with is that they should be shelved based on the main premise/origin of the story. Other than that, I couldn't really say, since most of the books you mentioned are new to me and I would have to read them to make my own decision. As for sending in titles of books that I have absolutely hated or absolutely loved, I cannot. To me, it is either enjoyed or not enjoyed. Of course, that is a purely personal designation, so, as you have said, what I enjoy may not be what someone else enjoys. And by the way, if something is "old hat today," could you (or anyone, for that matter) please explain the sudden trend towards re-making movies/TV shows that were startingly original in, for example, the 1970s? Twenty-year-old stories... Hmmmm....
Michael McMaster
mcmaster@usa.com
Remakes Are Not Always a Waste
ulia Hayden writes, "Is it just me, or does it seem that Hollywood has gone just a wee bit crazy with the remakes?" ("Remakes Taint the Classics") Hmmm ... there do seem to be a lot of them around these days. Lots of sequels and movies based on TV shows, too. This is apparently what the movie-going public wants, or at least what Hollywood perceives us to want. If movies of this sort didn't make money, they wouldn't get made. Obviously someone is going to see them, even if it isn't Julia or myself.
Remakes are also easier to pitch to studio executives since the execs are presumably familiar enough with the originals not to need the plot spelled out for them. Hollywood tends to run in cycles and remakes just happen to be one of the trends right now. Once a particular movie hits it big, the other studios attempt to release similar films. Look how many films started doing Matrix-style fight scenes after that movie came out. Or look how many superhero movies are in production since the X-Men hit it big.
Remakes aren't always a bad thing. I think most people will agree that James Whale's Frankenstein was superior to the original Edison silent version. The familiar Bogart/Greenstreet/Lorre version of The Maltese Falcon wasn't the first adaptation of that novel. There have been many screen adaptations of Dracula, with varying degrees of success. Actually since all of those mentioned (as well as all of the movies Ms. Hayden mentioned in her
letter) existed as books before they were ever movies, are they really remakes of each other, or just different adaptations of the original source material? I doubt that anyone would seriously suggest that the Patrick Stewart version of A Christmas Carol was just a remake of the animated
version with Mr. Magoo, for instance. Or what happens when a director remakes one of his own films a la Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much?
I ultimately don't have a problem with remakes per se. No one's forcing me to go see them after all. If they sound interesting, I'll watch them; if not, well... the originals are available on video.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
Hollywood Remakes Go Overboard
'm writing in concern to not only the quality, but the originality of today's sci-fi. It's great to remake a classic for a new generation in order to bring it up to date and give it a better impact factor, but aren't we
starting to go overboard a little?
Don't get me wrong. Dune was a great idea and so was Planet Of The Apes, but what bothers me is that almost everything that's been released in the last year or is about to be released has been based on some old TV show or movie. I'm really looking forward to Lord
Of The Rings and I think we should keep focus on classic books we've all read and love, as well as original concepts. Otherwise we're going to constantly be recycling the same movies. Honestly, at this rate, six years from now we'll be seeing an X-Files movie starring Katie Holmes and Kevin
Kline or an all new Buffy the Vampire Slayer loaded with an all new pretty-faced cast of up-and-coming teen stars.
Tony Wallace
toysoldiers2001@yahoo.com
Left Behind Review Hit Target
I would like to respond to Evan Moore's comments ("SFW Reviewer Was Left Behind") on the review of Left
Behind. In his letter he chastises the author (Patrick Lee) for focusing on the director's fundamental beliefs to the exclusion of the movie itself. On the contrary, the reviewer offered substantial commentary on the movie itself, and brought up the issue of fundamental belief for good reason--because the movie itself, by the filmmakers' design, is inseparable from that issue. Left Behind is hardly a movie merely asking the question "what if"--it is a movie with an agenda and a particular set of real-life beliefs that it is advocating.
Fundamental belief doesn't come up in your average movie review, because your average movie is more or less aimed at entertaining, and the fundamental beliefs behind the movie aren't an issue. Moore's critique is flawed because he challenges the reviewer to take the movie as a straight
"what-if" movie--no more, no less. This is not a straight what-if movie. This is not your average science fiction. This is a movie fundamentally talking about and advocating Christian beliefs, and an interpretation of the Apocalypse that is key to the Christian religion. This movie was not intended to be separated from the Christianity upon which it was based.
If a movie was released that evangelized Atheism or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam, don't you think it's perfectly within a reviewer's rights to mention or talk about the relation of that belief structure to that film? Especially in what the reviewer perceived as implied criticism of other
religions? It's not like this movie is your typical Hollywood movie--they marketed it to Christian churches, for crying out loud. Fundamental belief is a core issue here.
In short, it's pointless to protest a reviewer's decision to bring up the creed behind a movie when that movie is directly related to that creed. And it's not like either the authors of the books or the filmmakers are trying to be subtle about the connection--the story has been consistently marketed to Christians as a Christian story. Fundamental belief structure clearly plays a role here, and the reviewer did the right thing by bringing it up.
Brian Guthrie
Radagast4@hotmail.com
Le Guin's Stories Are a Coagulate
n your interview with Ursula K. LeGuin she asks readers to ponder a name for a form of writing she describes as: "connected stories in one volume--stories which are separate short stories, but they have characters or theme or place or something in common. Four Ways to Forgiveness is an example of this--a collection that's actually something between a collection of short stories and a novel."
Would you please pass on to her the suggestion: coagulate. (As a noun variant, rather than coagulation).
From Websters:
1: to cause to become viscous or thickened into a coherent mass. 2: to gather together or form into a mass or group.
The operative terms being "gather together in a coherent mass."
Mary Fishler-Fisk
newpensmith@mediaone.net
Back to the top.
