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).
SF Can Create A Better World
cott Edelman's editorial, inspired by his recent meeting with Jack Williamson, presents each of us with the classic challenge of being science fiction fans. We can allow science and wealth to spread only to the elite upper class (of which anyone reading this is probably a member) and risk the class warfare that Scott is implying or we can be involved in helping to share the wealth generated by our outpouring of technology. The future is in our hands. The choice is up to each of us, every day, in the decisions we make in our own lives.
I'm not suggesting socialism since we know it doesn't work. But we should try to make as many decisions as possible in the hope of making the world a better place. Sounds simplistic, but a positive attitude can clarify an unclear situation. I know that science fiction has shaped my attitudes and has been a positive influence in my life.
Chuck Siegfried
siegfried1161@yahoo.com
An Homage Theory On Gunmen
ooks like The Lone Gunmen has good potential. I especially liked the subtle joke that was right in the first shot. (Which, of course, I'm about to explain, to show how smart I am. Oh, pipe down, Biff! Computer dweebs do this kind of thing. Deal with it.) Those who watched noticed the name of the company at which they were doing the Mission Impossible bit: "e-con.com." Standard dot-com name. Well, back in the '60s there was a best-selling novel/major motion picture called Seven Days In May, about a military coup of the United States. The codeword for the operation, Pentagon-speak for "Emergency Command and Control," was "ecomcon."
Both the book and movie are well worth your time. The film is considered a classic. Directed by John Frankenheimer. Starring Burt Lancaster (at his broad-shouldered, four-starred best), Kirk Douglas, Martin Balsam, etc.
Steven Dunn
SDunn@logicon.com
Matrix Stands On Giant's Shoulders
I've just finished reading Kai Camille's letter ("Matrix is Virtually Unoriginal") of The Matrix, and have to respond. Kai's criticism is that there is no originality in the film, and Kai believes that if someone watching the movie does not recognize the borrowed ideas in it, that this "disrespects, ignores, and cheapens" the work of "original artists."
All artists in all fields are inspired by what they have experienced in their lives, including what others before them have done. Isaac Newton said he accomplished what he did because he stood on the shoulders of giants--this from a man who invented calculus (that seems original to me)! I believe that making an argument based on "originality" one way or another holds no merit. It is the presentation of ideas, and art, that inspire. Why should the Mona Lisa be inspiring? After all, it's only the picture of a woman, how original is that? Anyone who appreciates art would recognize the fallacy of such an argument immediately.
As I have said in the past on the letters to the editor, all art is highly subjective, whether it is movies or paintings or music. What inspires one to appreciate a movie another may find objectionable. I thought The Matrix was a great movie, and I applaud the writers, actors and directors for a fine effort. Because someone does not like the movie does not mean that those who do like it "cheapen" other creators of art.
Steve Madden
steve.madden@smed.com
Reconstructing The Matrix
n response to Kai Camille's letter ("Matrix is Virtually Unoriginal") I have to speak up for a moment.
We are into a very central thing here: "What is originality?" In my opinion, if you take anything apart to the degree Kai Camille does, you will never see anything original. In that way, wire-fu scenes in Hong-Kong movies are unoriginal due to them only being a combination of traditional acrobatics, filming and Kung-Fu ... But that is not a fair way of looking at it, is it now? I see it like this: Originality can very well be to combine things in a way no one has seen before. This goes for the movie art as well as anything else. Take the whole trading-card game thing that popped up with Magic: The Gathering back in 1993. While the concepts of trading cards and games were in no way original, the result of the combination turned the whole industry on its head.
Well, by this measure, does The Matrix actually deserves the brand original for its combination of ideas in its visual style? No one had ever combined these elements like that before. It was a great idea! And I would dare say, an original one.
Hans Torm
hfztt@hotmail.com
The Matrix Remixed With Originality
In response to Kai Camille's commentary ("Matrix is Virtually Unoriginal"), I have to disagree. While The Matrix did borrow heavily from other sources, it's the first of its kind to combine all these aspects into a single picture. And after all, what is originality besides a unique combination of common elements? Every living thing would be "unoriginal" if that weren't the case. Yes, The Matrix did use Hong Kong fighting techniques--but in a purely American film. Yes, it did use special effects seen in car commercials--but never in movies before! I could go on, but in interest of brevity--I won't. As for the white rabbit motif--that was done intentionally to link the movie to its inspiration (not to mention allowing for a few really cool catch-phrases).
Eric "Seyon" Vogel
seyon@mediaone.net
Bring More Humor To X-Files
am saddened to see the way the quality of The X-Files has fallen over the last year. It has turned into a rehash of Outer Limits and Tales from the Darkside. Can't the alien bad guys bring some of the human bad guys back to life through cloning, accelerate their growth rate and try to revive the colonization timeline? I also miss the funny episodes. I am getting tired of seeing Scully cry; it's unhealthy for her baby. Give her back Mulder, let her have a healthy baby, and they can all live happily ever after next door to the Cigarette Smoking Man while having occasional night visits by the aliens!
Sandra Pittman
eviltwin@sum.net
Networks Must Consider Fanbase
agree with Tammy Henry´s letter "Fan Feelings Should Come First", but it never does.
I´m not a viewer of The X-Files but I can understand how you feel. The producers for a show don't always think about the fans or their feelings for a show--most of the time they are thinking how to sell a show and they believe they could change a story, change characters and replace one actor with another and then still believe the show can succeed. But I think they are wrong.
And they believe they know how viewers think and what viewers want--but they don't.
I am a Prey fan, and that show is on the SCI FI Channel now (was originally aired on ABC 1998) and they show this great program Friday nights at 3:00 am, and the fans of this show have begged the SCI FI Channel to change this, but nothing happens.
Anita Johansson
anitapalm@hotmail.com
Conventions Are No Place for Evil
t has been said many times that hatred and evil are inherently self-destructive. Robert Kruck graphically illustrates that idea in his letter "Conventions Are No Place For Children".
To be fair, I doubt that Mr. Kruck is truly evil, or there would probably not have been enough of him left to write his hateful and mean-spirited ramblings. If he's taking any convention that seriously, he really needs to chill out, back off and look in a mirror to discover if he still likes what he sees.
Although I didn't attend my first convention until I was in my early teens, I've attended many since, and worked in various roles at many more, including the duties of a department head (audio/visual) for Unicon many years ago.
I've lost count of how many children of all ages (and I proudly include myself in that category!) I've seen at such events, but one thing stands out in my memories of them as clearly as a solar flare: Over at least ten years time, the incidents of good behavior and responsible parental guidance far outweighed those few who were irresponsible.
Mr. Kruck: There is a wide selection of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing. You may want to check some of them out.
Bruce Lane
kyrrin@bluefeathertech.com
Space: 1999's Science Is Irrelevant
had a good chuckle reading David Soyka's screed on the recently released Space: 1999 DVD. Like so many critics before him, he likes to latch onto a single fault and work it to death. I remember reading a magazine review back in 1975 that offered the same sort of dissection of the physics, but a
bit less condescending. One I remember in particular: the explosion of the nuclear waste dump supposedly occurred on the "dark side" of the Moon. Other than the timeless Pink Floyd classic there is no dark side, only a "far side" which does not face the Earth. If an enormous explosion took place on the far side of the Moon, wouldn't it be thrust into the Earth's gravitational pull and not out of it? Part of enjoying science fiction is the willing suspension of disbelief.
Nonetheless, the show has stood the test of time--even if it has been buried in obscurity for most of the past 25 years. I remember wanting my cable company to pick up the SCI FI Channel specifically because they had Space: 1999 reruns. But the time we got it, the show was taken off and replaced by reruns of The Incredible Hulk. Talk about dubious science.
As for the lack of character development--a common weakness in many sci-fi outings, especially television--what character(s) were really developed over three seasons of that old war horse Star Trek? Sure, McCoy and Spock had the ongoing love-hate relationship (which made up for much of
the show's humor) but do we really know much more about them?
To continue the Roddenberry comparisons, the comment about an alien appearing in the last five minutes and reversing all the damage that was done--is this plot device not used in at least half of the Star Trek: Voyager episodes?
One final point concerning the uniforms. Would the author like pictures of how he dressed in 1975 to be shown to the world? I thought not.
Brad Karrfalt
brad@karrfalt.com
Fan Remembers Original Pern
've been amused to read about the possible revival of Battlestar Galactica. Obviously someone has way too much time--and money--on their hands. The original show pretty much defined the abyss of sci-fi.
In regards to fellow letter hack Susan Wittkopf's comments about remakes ("History Agrees: Pern Is In Trouble"), I do believe her use of the word "product" to describe two movies pretty much says it all. Product--sorta like toothpaste.
The odd coincidence of the letters about a Pern movie and the review of the first Pern novel brought to mind fond memories of reading the original stories in Analog which was edited by Mr. Hard-SF himself, John W. Campbell. I know that the movie will never equal the movie I see in my mind, particularly with those wonderful illustrations by John Schoenherr from those same issues of Analog.
But then all of this is merely the scribbling of an old phart...
Michael Walsh
MJW@mail.press.jhu.edu
Books Live Forever in the Mind
ina Criscione writes (in her letter "Pern Fan Lives in Fear"), with regards to the Pern TV 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 the feeling. I'm looking upon the rumors of a proposed Ringworld movie with equal parts eager anticipation and dread. But even if the TV series totally bombs, the books
will still exist. What's the worst that can happen: the TV series is such a pernicious (no pun intended) failure that the U.S. Government bans the sale of all of Anne McCaffrey's books within the USA, and thousands of devoted fans are arrested for attempting to smuggle the books across the Canadian border.
How is all of this likely to change your relationship with the books though? All kidding aside, the TV series certainly isn't going to wipe the books from the face of the Earth. At worst, the series will be bad enough to discourage a few people from checking out the books. But then again, given the recent debate over whether the SCI FI Channel's Dune miniseries was good or not,
who's to say that just because you think the Pern series is bad, someone else might not think it's good and check out the books anyway? I've watched movies made from Starship Troopers, The Relic, and The Phantom Tollbooth and managed to survive with my love for all of those books intact. Whether or not Pern is a success on TV shouldn't affect the characters you've known for the last 20 years in the slightest.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
Left Behind Is Not Alone
n his response to criticism of his Left Behind review, Patrick Lee states "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 commend him for this, but I hardly ever see this in action.
In Science Fiction Weekly's review of 3001 by Arthur C. Clarke, for example, the reviewer does not mention that people of faith might be offended by Clarke's obvious disgust for religion or faith of any sort. Half the book seems to be what he thinks humanity will be like, the other half what he thinks they should be like. (The plot is quite thin otherwise.)
Another example is James P. Hogan's (unfortunately I could not find any reviews as an example) books. I like Hogan's books for the hard science and interesting stories. However, it often seems that he writes his stories specifically to proselytize for atheism.
In his Giants trilogy, for example, Hogan even goes to the trouble of breaking the continuity of his own stories in order to have the "bad guys" go back in time and "create" all religions in order to subjugate humanity. Apparently he would much rather believe that humanity is naturally atheistic and is only religious because of an evil conspiracy. I am not easily offended, but I found this rather distasteful and intellectually dishonest.
My point is not to bash Mr. Hogan, but the point out that "fundamentalist Christians" aren't the only ones guilty of pushing their own agenda.
I hope I have not "left behind" our original topic.
Rob Scott
spamagnet@lagrangepoint.com
Left Behind Shouldn't Be Persecuted
ith all this debate over the Left Behind series, I figure I might as well add my two cents worth. I have read Mr. Lee's review and I'm sorry Mr. Lee, no matter what you say--you certainly sounds like you had a big chip on your shoulder against Christians. I have read the Left Behind books and yes they are designed for the Christian reading audience, so yes they are indeed based off the Bible! Big shock. But, what no one else has mentioned up yet is that every other movie and every other book ever written pushes some form of belief or another. Whether it's beliefs about sex or conspiracy theories--everything is based on a certain set of beliefs. When you read a book or see a movie, the author or film maker is asking you to take part in his or her beliefs for a while. As a viewing audience we are quite willing to accept just about everything that comes off the silver screen and consider it. Except that is when it's anything remotely Bible-based.
Now, I haven't seen the Left Behind movie, so whether the movie in itself was just badly done I really couldn't say. I assume that like all other books that have been made into film, the original book is usually better. But the point is, don't condemn the movie simply because it's based
in Christian beliefs.
Emily Blackstone
ambassador_naeco@startrekmail.com
Left Behind Too Short
am sending this message, specifically because of Mr. Quintin Smith's complaint in his letter "Left Behind Review Seems Biased". "Here are the ones I am referring to:... 2)...Left Behind is more a filmed religious tract than an actual movie..."
Left Behind as a series is set on a religious tract, so the fact that Mr. Patrick Lee made the comment is actually a very valid observation. I've read all of the books that have thus far been released, and the whole storyline is on the End Times based on the Mr. Lahaye's and Mr. Jenkins' interpretation. The movie and series are not geared toward converting people, even if it seems that way. If people interpret it that way, then it's in the eye of the beholder.
Now for my own comments about the movie and books.
I personally didn't like the movie because it didn't adhere to the book as closely as it should have. Take for example Buck Williams: in the movie he was a reporter for a CNN type of news channel, but in the book, he worked for a newspaper/magazine publisher as a reporter. And their choice for Chaim Rosenzweig was a poor choice--the actor didn't look anything like how I pictured him. And the movie doesn't really say anything about why they landed at O'Hare. The flight left from New York City, not O'Hare. And what really gets me is that Buck was never accused of not being at the meeting at the UN, or Carpathia's Multi-Lingual speech prior to that meeting. I personally think Hollywood could have done a better interpretation. A movie twice as long could actually be decent, 90 minutes is not enough time to cover just the one book, two and half to three hours would be better. It took Mr. Lahaye and Mr. Jenkins nine books to get maybe a month or two past the midpoint, and now they are trying to get the books out every six months or so to meet the demand, so a better-made movie would be more of an honor to their work.
Nathan Jones
nconantj@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
