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).
Fan Feelings Should Come First
have been an avid watcher of The X-Files since the show premiered. This last episode has left me extremely upset due to the demise of Agent Mulder.
One of the main reasons I have been such an enthusiast is the interaction between he and Agent Scully, and this latest episode is especially disturbing. If the producers intend to replace Mulder with Agent Doggett they are sadly misinformed, and will lose quite a few watchers since Doggett is not who I want in the show. I realize that actors sometimes want to get a change of scenery, but what the fans want should also be a consideration of the show. I can tell you right now that if
Mulder is indeed killed off, I for one will no longer be watching it.
Tammy Henry
tammyhenry@excite.com
Kids Have a Place at Cons, Too
his is in response to Robert Kruck's letter "Conventions Are No Place For Children". Did I say letter? I meant to say his vitriolic spurting. Mr. Kruck stated that the two people who brought their child were "impolite and thoughtless" and that "SF fans do not spend their time and money to go to an SF con to listen to ... screaming rug rats."
I'm sorry he feels his con was ruined, but he's wrong. Many fans bring their children to conventions, and have a wonderful time along with other guests. Most parents are indeed responsible, and take kids out of the room if they misbehave.
I have worked security at Arisia for several years now, and there have been very few, if any, problems with children. We offer professional babysitting for children 2-6 years old, at $50.00 for the whole weekend, along with programming specifically geared toward children. Perhaps Tardis 2000
did not offer this service.
Many fans bring their children so that they can experience the fun, variety, diversity and tolerance that are the hallmark of most sci-fi fans. And yes, there will probably be a few who cannot afford a babysitter, don't have one or are unwilling to let their child out of their sight. And, yes, there will even be those parents who let their kids run amuck and fail to discipline them.
But to tell them to "leave their failed genetic experiments at home?" That is cruel and hateful. It leaves one wondering if Mr. Kruck had a very bad day, or if he truly dislikes all children.
Kathy Oldham
Tuborgwolf@msn.com
Children Grow Into Great Fans
n response to Robert Kruck's attack ("Conventions Are No Place For Children") on two people who took their
"screaming, howling" baby to every event he attended at Tardis 2000, I have to say this: Get a life!
Yes, it was rude of them, but it sounds like you ruined it for yourself. Oh, and don't forget, while you may now be a self-styled adult zygote and intelligent member of the human species, you
were once a screaming rug rat yourself. That screaming baby may grow up to be an author greater than Heinlein, Asimov or Bova, or a series creator more popular than Roddenberry. Could the parents have dealt with their child differently? Yes. Did they have the right to take their child to the
convention? Yes. Get over it.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
SF Children Are Our Future
obert Kruck in his letter ("Conventions Are No Place For Children") is right that parents need to be considerate to others in regards to where they take their children. However, for Robert Kruck to make such broad and mean statements such as "news flash for all you breeders" and "leave your failed
genetic experiments at home" are incredibly over-generalized statements to be made by an SF fan.
I'm an SF fan myself and understand that there is a general public image of all of us being geeks and nerds who live in our parents' basements, wear pocket protectors, use code-names and have never seen a naked body before. For a fellow SF fan to make comments that are just as over-generalized and
untrue as the view of SF fans is the sign of just a mean-spirited person who cannot see beyond his own selfish desires and wants to punish all who are not like him. After all, it seems that most of the SF genre attempts to show an open mind to people who are not like us; shouldn't/wouldn't you expect fans of this genre would be fans because they share a similar view?
Parents please be considerate of others. Non-parents understand that it is our "genetic material" that will grow up and run the government when you're too old to do anything, so do try to stay on our good side by being polite also.
Craig
craige812@excite.com
Star Trek: Voyager Must Fade Away
n response to "Voyager Gains a New Fan": You're kidding, right? I agree that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine started off slow and technical, but after the second or third
season it became the best of the Star Trek series. The characters were well developed, the plot carried on from week to week in a way that allowed the series to stay interesting instead of typical (stuff happens and then is, at the last moment, undone) which I thought was the biggest problem with Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Voyager, on the other hand, from what I have seen--which in the last season I admit to only only watching about two or three episodes--has very transparent characters, a plotline that rarely continues over into the next episode and is definitely guilty of hitting the reset button at the end of the show. And as far as the acting goes, while some of the cast seems fairly good, some of the cast such as Janeway seems so fake it makes it hard not to laugh. The plots are mostly stolen from short stories, other Star Trek episodes and old TV shows, which seems to be the norm with most sci-fi these days. Even in DS9, which I really enjoyed, a lot of the plots were stolen. It's rather unfortunate but there just doesn't seem to be much original sci-fi anymore.
I just can't wait for Voyager to finish so something else can get its chance. Whether it's another Star Trek series or not I really don't care, but I really hope its something worth watching for a change. In the mean time I am just going to stick to books.
Noah Vale
whiskeyandwinearemyonlyfriends@yahoo.com
Capt. Janeway Will Be Missed
would like to take a moment to comment on the interview with Kate Mulgrew. I have been a Star Trek: Voyager fan from even before the series began, and my expectancy of the show was very high. I was elated that Star Trek had the brilliance to put a woman in charge of a starship and crew, and that they have explored how a woman can run a ship, a crew, be brave, tough and sensitive and still not lose sight of who she is. It has been a wonderful ride with Katheryn as captain and I have enjoyed her sincerity and frankness more than any other captain thus far. Indeed, though Voyager is plagued with lower ratings and a smaller budget than the flashy and (even more-so evident than before) hollow crew of Star Trek: The Next Generation, it has become my favorite chapter of the Star Trek series thus far.
Though I am very disheartened to know that Voyager will not be travelling with me, I look forward to the next series and have high hopes the creators of Star Trek will continue to remember that no matter how far in space you fling a ship full of people, that they are still people, and that exploring humanity has been the most interesting voyage of all.
I will always respect the wonderful actors of Voyager and how they have truly embraced and expounded upon their characters, breathing life into the pages of a script and making a starship and deep space an adventurous and accessible place to visit every week.
I have especially been impressed with Katheryn Janeway since episode one and will continue to be impressed with Kate Mulgrew the actress. I found her to be a bold, interesting, intelligent, charismatic and warm individual. It is very easy to see Kate in Kathryn and I think she has managed a smooth integration of her persona into the Janeway character.
I hope that even though Voyager is in its final days Science Fiction Weekly will continue to visit with Kate and the cast to highlight what is going on in their lives as we say goodbye to good friends.
Loretta Copeland
lcopeland@landmarkusa.com
Hollywood Remakes Can Make Sense
ust a thought, here.
With all the discussion about remakes of old movies or TV shows in your Letters column, I think some of the writers are missing the point. The idea of "remakes" is not necessarily to duplicate the predecessor. The idea can be to use the theme and characters of the original to tell another story, or to tell the same story in a different way.
Somebody once observed that nobody ever calls it a remake when another production of Hamlet is performed. With different scenery, different costumes and different actors, even the same language tells a different tale, when in the hands of a new artist. When a director announces that he/she is planning to make a new version of a movie or TV show, he/she is announcing that a new vision of the same basic idea is to be produced.
Remakes are kind of like jazz music. It's not the tune that matters so much, but the interpretation.
Bruce E. Hanson
behanson@mint.net
Matrix is Virtually Unoriginal
n response to Cynthia Garges' letter ("Originality Better than Remakes") of Feb. 26, 2001, wherein she wrote--"Why was The Matrix such a big hit? Let's examine that one for about two seconds. Maybe because it hadn't been done before? That's why all other fight scenes mirror it."
Every time I hear this sentiment--or one similar--expressed, I am always taken aback. I marvel that anybody could hold such an opinion when, simply put, there was hardly a single original element in The Matrix. Stylistically, the visual feel of the movie is a deliberate use of established comic book practices (after all, the film was storyboarded by a comic book artist). Wire-fu fight scenes have been used for over 20 years in hundreds of Hong Kong films. Slow motion gun battles involving flowing black coats and two-handed shooting are practically a John Woo trademark. And
the much-vaunted, ground-breaking, bullet-time technology was years old before the film was made, having already been used, amongst other places, in a television car commercial. And as far as the plot is concerned--A future in which artificial intelligence wars against mankind? A society whose inhabitants are unaware of its artificiality? Physically jacking into computer hardware? A prophesied savior? Shadowy men in black? White rabbits? Morpheus? Have people like Cynthia Garges, and the Matrix-evangelists out there really been insulated from practically every piece of popular film and literature ever created? To not recognize that The Matrix was an unoriginal assortment of borrowed ideas disrespects, ignores and cheapens the contributions and works of many, much more "original" artists.
Kai Camille
darthmaulz@visto.com
Oni Reviewer Misses Possibilities
have a comment on the Oni game review. Some things the author stated are incorrect.
When an opponent is down, you can do a low kick (what the reviewer calls the "leg sweep"), or an overhead punch in order to hit them. So it is possible to attack an enemy when they're down. Bungie isn't that stupid to make you wait around for them to get back up again, especially when there's
three or more coming after you.
Also, it is not difficult to shoot an opponent while they're down, but 1) if you're using a rocket launcher, you hurt yourself while you're at it and 2) why waste the ammo when you can just kick them to death?
Designed by real-live architects, the game is visually pleasing. But I didn't find the hallways difficult to navigate. They were all straightforward and if you keep going in one direction, you will eventually get to where you're supposed to be. I can only assume that this author is easily
turned around and has no sense of direction.
The doors and switches aren't hard to miss. They're readily apparent, at least to me. If you're used to playing games of this genre, you know to check everything. Every door and every terminal.
I feel that the author does not seem familiar with this genre of game, and was therefore unable to properly review it. Oni is a wonderful game and the reviewer's own shortcomings as a gamer should not be a factor in reviewing it.
Samantha Ling
ling@lingthemerciless.com
History Agrees: Pern Is In Trouble
ne has to be careful when committing something as sacred as Pern to film. And I am afraid. I have seen (and this is not sci-fi related) The Last of the Mohicans and Exit to Eden condemned to film. If you have read these books, and I assume that you do still read, can anyone of good taste endorse these products?
In The Last of the Mohicans, there is a strong interracial love story: the daughter of the English Lord is in love with the young Mohican prince. At the end of the novel, they are both dead, and the old Mohican speaks a beautiful eulogy to their love--that she will tend his fire and that he will provide for her--but they will be together forever in "the happy hunting ground." This was obviously "too hot" for "Hollywierd" so they had her in love with someone who in the novel was a minor character. And for Exit to Eden, how could they turn a story about obsession into a comedy? Cowards!
Susan Wittkopf
Badger805@aol.com
Pern Fan Lives in Fear
agree (with Diane Catanzaro, "Pern Must Be Handled With Care")--please be gentle with Pern.
As a most devoted fan to all things Pern, I await with anticipation for the new series. I do have a small feeling in my gut, a small fear that all the characters that I have come to know and love over the last 20 years will be destroyed by bad writing, editing and just plain carelessness. I know every character down to a T. So what am I to expect? That the writers will be true to the stories as we have always know them--or to make something sensational just because they can. I almost want Anne McCaffrey to make all the casting calls and write the scripts. If it is anything like what
they did to my next favorite author's work--The Vampire Lestat. (I am sorry but casting you-know-who as the vampire was horrible.) I am almost afraid to see who they have picked for these parts. I want so badly to see Anne's dragons fly, fight thread and just be alive that it pains me, but not at the price of having all my memories, feelings and dreams invalidated. Please, Please, Mrs. M--take control and don't let go!
Tina Criscione
tina.criscione@verizon.com
Verne Shouldn't Be a Secret
've been waiting for someone else to write this letter, but as it seems no one else is going to, I am taking the initiative!
So often we are willing to write letters of complaint; however, in this case, I am writing to express my gratitude for a truly unique and delightfully creative new show in the SCI FI Channel line-up. The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne is not a show ruled by conventions. It strays
far from the formulaic scripts that seem to dominate network television. After all, when was the last time you saw a show that dealt with rocket powered machines, Victorian vampires, mechanical gunslingers, time travel and the Holy Grail? Is it science fiction? Is it fantasy? Is it action/adventure? Is it historical drama? Is it camp? All of the above? I don't know. What I do know is that it is refreshingly different.
Granted, Jules Verne ain't Shakespeare, and the first few episodes had more than a fair share of "cringe" and "wince" moments. However, the interesting plots, complex characters and fantastical gadgets kept me coming back. Thank goodness, as the show has done nothing but improve. The characters (and actors) really seem to be hitting their stride. What a combination: The angst-ridden Phileas Fogg; his daring, dynamic secret-agent cousin, Rebecca; the erratic genius/ funnyman, Passepartout and the young, idealistic and accident-prone, Jules Verne. Add escapades all
over the globe (and through time) and you've got endless possibilities for adventure!
Still, I'll readily admit, this is not a program that will appeal to everyone. One has to have an appreciation for the slightly bizarre, but if you are seeking something outside the mainstream, something alternately brilliant and cheesy, something both humorous and tragic, something clever,
cryptic and occasionally outrageous, this may be it!
Andrea Alworth
gumbo_rice@msn.com
Christian Fan Defends Left Behind
need to defend the Left Behind movie. I'm a born-again Christian who loves sci-fi and I love science for the very reason that I believe that science proves the existence of God. The Left Behind movie was based on the hit series written by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins (which I might add are up to book nine in the series). The movie was marketed to us and so are the books, but I do believe that Mr. Lahaye and Mr. Jenkins did intend for the Left Behind movie to give those of you who are not Christians something to think about. It wasn't meant to be shoved down your throat. Most of us who are Christians don't believe you can win anyone to God by shoving it down their throats.
It was simply a movie about the truth in God's Word and was put out there not only for the edification of those of us already in God's service, but also as something for the general public to think about, and for them to either take it, or leave it. If you don't like what we're saying, that's fine. Those of us who aren't the "shove it down your throat" kind of Christians won't hate you for it, because it's your choice how you want to view the movie and how you want to view God's Word.
Sandy Ball
wsball@adelphia.net
Left Behind Review Seems Biased
have been a science fiction fan all of my life! I am 36 years-old. I also happen to be a Christian, and have been since 19 years of age.
I was very disturbed by Patrick Lee's review of Left Behind. I have not seen the movie yet, but I can tell by reading his review that he has a bit of a chip on his shoulders when it comes to this movie. Using a term like " ... religious propaganda ... " is very bigoted I would say! Not liking a movie is one thing but putting your little personal biased comments like that is uncalled for. He said, and I quote, "One other thing. The movie is clearly designed to reinforce a particular set of beliefs, but one can't help feeling a little uncomfortable about the implicit messages it holds for the various Jews, Muslims, agnostics and (implied) Hindu lesbians in the movie--namely, that you're all wrong, but at least you have an opportunity to convert." Well, duh!! It was written by Christians and yes it was designed to reinforce a particular set of beliefs (scripture-based ones) and yes according to the the word of God those four groups he named along with anyone else who is out of relationship with God (the relationship must be based on the scriptures) is lost and they do have an opportunity to convert or surrender their lives to Christ. There are many Christians who are into sci-fi, so I hope that someone would talk to Mr. Lee and let him know that there are people who were offended by some of his uncalled-for comments in his review.
As I said if he didn't like the movie that's fine, but don't come off with the biased "I have a chip on my shoulder with these fundamentalist Christian" comments! What comments you say? Here are the ones I am referring to:
1)"It unfolds events of the so-called End Times as prophesied in the Bible and Book of Revelation, at least as interpreted by modern-day fundamentalist adherents." I really get tired of people mimicking these media engendered stereotypes of Christians. Why couldn't he just say "certain Christians?"
2)"...Left Behind is more a filmed religious tract than an actual movie..."
3)"As a bit of religious propaganda..."
4)"One other thing. The movie is clearly designed to reinforce a particular set of beliefs, but one can't help feeling a little uncomfortable about the implicit messages it holds for the various Jews, Muslims, agnostics and (implied) Hindu lesbians in the movie--namely, that you're all wrong, but at least you have an opportunity to convert." He should have never added that "one other thing"!
Quintin Smith
quintin_smith@fcmail.com
Patrick Lee responds:
In my review of Left Behind, I chose to mention the religious designs of the film because the filmmakers told me themselves that the primary intent of the movie was to get people--Christians and non-Christians alike--to ponder the issues raised in it. Namely, is this possible? And am I prepared for it? Like the book series before it, Left Behind was created as a vehicle for putting forward a particular set of beliefs, disguised as popular entertainment.
In a film such as Sleepy Hollow--which some readers have pointed to as an example of a movie that escapes criticism for its particular world view--none of the filmmakers intended to persuade the audience that there really is a Headless Horseman who gallops through the forest at the behest of an unscrupulous witch. Rather, Sleepy Hollow and such similarly themed movies function purely as entertainment, not as vehicles to proselytize the belief that witches exist, or that ghosts walk the Earth.
To raise the issue of a film's religious intent is to invite critics to comment on it. That said, my review does not comment directly on whether or not one should believe in the End Times, as depicted in the film. Nor does it offer an opinion on whether the beliefs have any merit. Rather, my review focuses primarily on the film itself--whether it accomplishes what it sets out to do, whether it works as a piece of cinema, and whether one is likely to enjoy it, depending on what one believes.
One last point: it is a critic's duty to point out instances in any film that may offend particular members of the audience. I felt it was important to mention that Left Behind--intentionally or not--may offend some people who don't share its world view. I would do the same for Sleepy Hollow were I to believe that there were headless assassins in the audience who might feel unfairly treated.
Best,
Patrick
Blind Criticisms Are Pointless
read Kevin V. Fifield's letter ("Faith Difficult to Find in Film") about the movie Left Behind with interest. He made some interesting points ... all of which meant absolutely nothing when he wrote
"I haven't seen Left Behind, nor do I plan to." Oh, that's just what genre fans need: someone else condemning a film he hasn't even seen! Oi!
Sean Carr
spcarr@yahoo.com
Duvall's Apostle Delivers Faith
udos to Kevin Fifield ("Faith Difficult to Find in Film") for his comments on Hollywood and religion. I agree that being browbeaten with a message is not my idea of entertainment. Hollywood generally tends to go with the more spectacular aspects of any religion, eschewing quiet faith for epic battles of Good versus Evil and large scale miracles like the parting of the Red Sea.
In his postscript he asks, "If anyone knows of a film that deals with issues of faith in a way that's both enjoyable and thought-provoking, I'd like to know." For what the word of a former Methodist and current agnostic is worth, I'd recommend Robert Duvall's The Apostle. Duvall plays a southern preacher adept at starting churches who falls into sin and then attempts to redeem himself. The movie could easily have been played for laughs, with the usual redneck televangelist portrayal and so on. Duvall instead presents us with a complex portrait of a man with human failings who strives to rise above them. Religion is not mocked but shown to be an important component of some people's lives. The one scene that remains with me to this day--aside from the ending--is the scene in which a man who is trying to destroy the church is converted to a member on the spot. It's very well-played and a deeply affecting scene that shows how powerful religion can be.
In the same letters column, T. Hannibal Gay ("The Dead People See Us") mentions John Edward's show and asks, "Does that mean when I go to the bathroom I have an ectoplasmic audience? What about when I am having sex?" What, T., you don't
think that the dead crave cheap thrills every now and then? If it helps assuage your fears about showering with the lights on: from what I've seen of Crossing Over, all Edward has really "validated" is that he's a reasonably accomplished cold-reader. There are plenty of stage magicians
who can do essentially the same thing by perfectly ordinary means. Edward was mentioned in a recent column at the James Randi Education Foundation's Web site complete with a few explanations of how Edward does what he does. It makes for informative reading.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
Back to the top.
