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).
Farscape Is Getting Better By Far
ontrary to what some people have said about Farscape's demise, particularly the entry in Issue 204 entitled "New Farscape Season Needs Seasoning," I feel that Farscape is much better than before. Season 1 was good, but it didn't feel continuous. As season 2 passed, and now the start of season 3, you can see a continual story that actually started during the first season. Season 1 was about Captain Crais' pursuit of John, John's integration into new surroundings while being chased by Crais and Aeryn's acceptance of no longer being a peacekeeper. When Season 2 began, John was now being pursued by Scorpius, Aeryn was learning the finer aspects of life outside of peacekeeper violence and Crais was now accepting the fact he is no longer a peacekeeper.
Characters have evolved and gained depth. John is learning how to live in a society far different from Earth. Aeryn and Crais are learning that peacekeeper brutality is highly immoral and they are striving more to become better people by realizing that violence and overpowering others are not good solutions to life's problems.
In my opinion, Farscape is becoming an incredible epic, not so dissimilar to Babylon 5. Babylon 5's first season didn't seem like a continual story either. It wasn't until the second and third seasons that you can really understand all the continual storylines that are present in the show, just like Farscape. Both shows had storylines that ended in one episode, but the larger story, the "Big Picture", is there in each episode. Watch for Farscape's story to evolve even greater!
Tom Mills
galaxy95@bellsouth.net
Episodic SF Has Its Uses
ast week Josh Hadley ("Farscape's Arcs Improve With Age") was wondering why people don't like shows that carry on from week to week. I think they are great, but I wouldn't want all shows to
carry on from week to week. The problem with such shows is that if you miss a week you have no idea what is going on next week, and I would like to think that most people these days have better things to do then watch TV. I for one don't usually tell a friend "No, now is not a good time, I am busy watching
Dark Angel." So sometimes when you do have too much time on your hands and it's miserable outside you might just want to sit down and watch a show that you have never seen before and will probably never bother watching again regardless of whether or not you like it. For occasions such as those, TV series with no continuing story lines are the way to go because it really won't matter that you have never seen an episode before and that you will never see one again.
Noah Vale
whiskeyandwinearemyonlyfriends@yahoo.com
7 Days Should Have Its Due
ure, Frank Parker is a pig. Maybe the premise isn't the newest thing in the world. But the chemistry is fantastic. Better still, this show gives us what the early Sliders was giving us, a great "What if" series. I write this not to enlighten the masses, rather because I worry for its future. With so little exposure in the sci-fi media, I'm afraid people aren't seeing this great show for what it is, and it'll be gone without so much as a nod from our esteemed scifi.com.
Take a look, take notice. Won't cost you much more than a couple of hours of your life, and you just might like it.
Jim Pierce
jamesdpierce@earthlink.net
Jules Verne Is A Delightful Gem
agree with Andrea ("Verne Shouldn't Be a Secret"), The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne is a show worth watching and supporting. In tone it is closest to the old TV show: The
Wild Wild West. While admittedly the writing can be hit or miss at times, the cast and crew make up for (and revel in) the occasional cheesiness. It has some the best visuals and imagination on TV today, and it's right up there with Farscape and Stargate in its SFX. An armada of top-hatted vampires with rocket packs was delightfully surreal. I hope that the SCI FI Channel and the CBC will keep on making this fun show, and the scripts match the acting and effects.
David John
Daveco@seanet.com
SF-Related Research Pays Off
ust wanted to drop everyone a quick line regarding Morgan and Wong's proposed script for After the Visitation: This will actually be the second film version of Roadside Picnic (the original novella was written by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, I believe). Andrei Tarkovsky's classic 1979 film Stalker is based on the same story. I suppose both Tarkovsky and the original novella are obscure. I only happen to know this because I wrote a paper back in college on "Science Fiction in Foreign Cinema." It's nice be able to find other uses for the research that I did.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
SF Remakes Must Outdo Originals
ci-fi news seems to indicate a trend for remakes of Russian sci-fi classics. Interesting to hear about Soderbergh`s rewrite of Solaris. The Andrei Tarkovsky version of the Stanislaw Lem story is one of the greatest unseen sci-fi classics. It was recognized as the Russian 2001, and Kubrick rated it very highly. Elsewhere in the news, Wong and Morgan are making a version of Lem`s Roadside Picnic. This is far from an obscure story; it was also originally filmed by Tarkovsky as Stalker, and has many deep resonances for Russian and European culture, since it so hauntingly prefigures the Chernobyl disaster and the resulting deserted landscape of death. Neither Solaris nor Stalker receive the recognition or the airtime they deserve. They are deep, slow, powerful movies that demand as much concentration and commitment as good literature. Unlike much of the studio conveyor-belt products, these are films that you can never forget. The remakes will have to be good.
Philip Rainbird
reginbert@hotmail.com
B5 Should Bring Back Bring Marcus
ith the news of a new Babylon 5 telemovie and show based on the Rangers, all I can think is: bring back Marcus Cole. Marcus was the most famous Ranger in Babylon 5 and possibly one of the overall favorite characters of the show, so to have a show based on the Rangers and to not include him seems mad. Of course, there is the small argument that he is kind of dead, but he's not dead dead, he's just frozen in cryogenics, so I say get him out of the fridge and thaw him out.
I believe J. Michael Straczynski did write a short story which dealt with the thawing out of Marcus, but it's set 300 years in the future!!! That seems like such a cop out. Also I don't know about Babylon 5, but I know that with a lot of sci-fi television the events which take place in the books, comics and games etc. aren't actually considered to be part of the official timeline of the show, so if they thawed him out say 300 years earlier I don't see how it would be too much of a contradiction.
And as for Ivanova still sad over his death in "Sleeping In Light," who's to say he couldn't die before then, maybe the next time he dies he could actually get a funeral, or maybe they could just keep freezing him and curing him every time he dies.
Steven Frost
fathom@clara.co.uk
Major Praise for Major Ingredients
was pleased to see the review of Major Ingredients: The Selected Short Stories of Eric Frank Russell. A job well done by Paul Di Filippo. SF readers would do themselves a great favor by reading this book. Thanks to NESFA Press for publishing a collection of stories from a writer Mr. Di Filippo describes as "overlooked."
Years ago, when I first read "I Am Nothing," I felt it was the essence of the "anti-war" story. I'm sure there will be those who disagree, since it does not fit neatly into that category. It is not a M.A.S.H. era anti-war story. It is not an "anti-war no matter what" kind of story.
So why is it the essence of the anti-war story? Because it deals with the causes of almost all violent human conflict--you are weak and different, I am strong and powerful. I want what you have, therefore I am capable and justified in killing you, killing your goats and salting your crops while taking it from you.
It is a powerful story. The lonely dictator launches a war of conquest on a neighboring planet. His son serves in a military unit fighting in the invasion, and when that unit destroys a village, the little girl is the only survivor. The dictator's son rescues the little girl, and takes a fateful decision--he sends her home to his planet, to live with his father.
The dictator is faced for the first time with the tangible results of his desire for conquest--a catatonic child orphaned by his own war machine. The dictator is forced to see the little girl as his son saw her--a child that needed help after the brutality of war crushes her home and traumatizes her mind--not just "one of them."
Some would say that the story is predictable, that it is driven by "cheap emotional cues," blah, blah, blah. Probably by the same critics that labeled Russell "human-chauvanist" or "homo-sapien centric" or whatever other idiotic thing they could think of.
Don't listen to them. It is a great story, as are all the rest.
Jeff Parker
hjparker@bulloch.com
Finite Stories, Infinite Enjoyment
love this site for its lively commentary on the state of current sci-fi. So much to process. Two of the current topics intersect in one point--the originality of an idea. In science (not sci-fi) the Newton quote is generally acknowledged, that new discoveries are made on the basis of what has come before. E=mc2
did not "spring fully formed from the head of Zeus" but was built on what came before. The same can be said for a story-line. Someone said that there are only so many plots (forgive me, I can't remember who it was). Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, etc.
When I saw Star Wars the first time, my mom went with me. She fell asleep. At the end of the movie, I asked her, "Gee, Mom, how could you sleep through all that?" She replied, "I've seen that same Western a hundred times." (True story.) And when you analyze it, it is the same story that
has been told before. But that is not bad! Every story-teller has another vision of how the story will be told. And the vision must be honored. And I say hurrah to all the writers who have a vision and have the courage to share it with the rest of us.
Susan Wittkopf
badger805@aol.com
Matrix Proves Thought-Provoking
'm afraid I have to take issue with a recent letter ("Matrix Fans Defend Junk"). It is every bit as simplistic and misleading to sum up The Matrix as "Tron-meets-Star Wars-meets-Invasion of the Body Snatchers" as it is to worship it in the uncritical fanboy fashion more appropriate to Star Wars or Star Trek. It all depends on one's perspective. Mine is formed by over 20 years of reading science fiction, esoteric philosophy and beat and post-modern literature--as well as watching what passes for these things in cinema and television. From that perspective, The Matrix was an engaging and thought-provoking piece of entertainment. As the worlds of written speculative literature and visual "scifi" drift ever further from one another, I welcome the work of the Wachowskis and others that bridge that gap--and anxiously await The Matrix's sequel.
M. Martin
m-martin@houston.rr.com
Accept Plot Holes, Enjoy the Ride
n response to Alex Jordan's last letter ("Matrix Plot Dodges Bullets ") about The Matrix, I have to
disagree. While the Matrix is one of my favorite movies of all time (second only to Stargate), to say that it has no plot holes is both naive and incorrect. Allow me to explain:
1.) Why would the robots use humans to power themselves? Even if the theory behind the "heat generation" did prove more efficient than alternate forms (hydro-electric, wind, nuclear, fossil fuels, among others), it still stands to reason that they could use more docile creatures such as cows
instead of humans.
2.) Why would the first Matrix have failed because it was too perfect? Even if people refused to accept it as reality, what could they do about it? Come to think of it, why have a Matrix at all? Why not just keep the humans unconscious their whole lives?
3.) Neo sees the wall models and people textured with binary code when he becomes superman? Anybody that knows anything about computer programming knows that this is not the way graphics processing works. Rather, it's solely a 2-dimension array of data interpreted by electrical impulses sent to the screen (Or, in the case of the Matrix, the optical center of the brain).
I could go on, but I won't. The fact of the matter is that sci-fi can't exist without plot holes, because the worlds which we love to explore through movies, books, TV shows and video games really don't exist, and to make them exist we have to take certain liberties with reality. There's nothing wrong with this, mind you, it's just a fact that you need to accept if you want to enjoy sci-fi. Remember, it's not real, it exists for entertainment, among other reasons, so just kick back and enjoy the ride.
Eric Vogel
seyon@mediaone.net
A New Galactica Is Worth the Battle
was very disappointed to read Tim Dykema's words in his letter ("Battlestar Should Not Be Reborn").
Battlestar Galactica was one of those things that I just missed growing up, though I'd heard people talk about it, I never got into it. Even after I got older and was more interested in the classic sci-fi of my youth, I still did not look up Galactica.
Two years ago, I attended a local convention whose guests included several people from the Galactica cast. That was when I discovered how much one of my friends was into it. I made a vague promise that I would maybe watch it, and kept an eye out for news on the series. Last year, we attended the same convention again, and she dragged me to meet the guest of honor, Richard Hatch.
I had not watched a single episode of Galactica, nor did I really even know the plot. But then a huge screen showed me all I needed: Hatch's trailer for his proposed remake/revival. I was hooked, and Hatch himself only helped me along. He was a funny, inviting, interesting and an extremely
friendly guy. I had a chance to talk to him afterwards about what he went through to make the trailer, and he was more than willing to help a simple film student.
It was at this convention that I noticed something that is common before a revival: adamant fans. Dozens of people hung around after the talk to simply offer Hatch their support, saying they would love to see more of Galactica. They would love to see more of the premise that grabbed their attention in the late '70s. They wanted something that wasn't Galactica 1980.
Since that day, I have watched plenty of Battlestar Galactica, and gotten involved with a lot more people who loved it. I don't understand how someone could call it a blatant rip-off of Star Wars. There was no force, no Jedi Knights ... the only thing they seemed to have in common were space
fighters, maybe the dog fights if you wanted to stretch. How could you have a science-fiction show that takes place in outer space which focuses on a last-ditch effort to save mankind and not have dog-fights and fighter pilots?
Battlestar Galactica is likely being brought back for two reasons: yes, there is a market for science fiction and for remakes and revivals. They're making a live action Scooby Doo movie, for goodness sakes. There's money to be made and somebody is going to want to make it.
The second reason is the most important one: Fans. The fans have brought back shows on the verge of cancellation, have caused shows to go into syndication so that they can rewatch their favorite episodes over and over again. Fans came to Richard Hatch in droves to appear as extras, provide props and costumes and offer support. They wanted the remake, they wanted more Galactica.
And I for one am ecstatic they are going to get it, because it means I'll be getting more myself. They deserve their shot.
Chang Meiran
chang_meiran@hotmail.com
The Golden Age of SF TV is Now
ith Battlestar Galactica now in preproduction for a return to the screen, both sides are starting to come out of the wall: Side One saying, "Great! We've been waiting over 20 years!" and Side Two saying, "Why?"
Battlestar Galactica sits in a rather unique spot in the history of sci-fi television, believe it or not. If you look back the the 1960's, it was almost a golden age of televised science fiction. With The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea, Lost In Space, The Invaders, Star Trek, The Time Tunnel and Land Of The Giants, not to mention the plethora of children's shows on Saturday mornings, there was plenty of sci-fi to go around the entire decade.
Move into the 1970's. Aside from reruns of the series from the 1960's, there were five sci-fi series I can remember: Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's excellent UFO, their rather more popular Space: 1999, the ill-fated NBC comedy Quark (starring Richard Benjamin), the dismal Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and Battlestar Galactica.
Call me dense, but aside from the special effects which were obviously cloned from Star Wars, I've never made the connection between the two. Star Wars followed the exploits of Luke, Han and Princess Leia and the Rebellion against the Evil Empire. In Battlestar Galactica, the crew of a space-going battleship/aircraft carrier combo and a fleet of mismatched, raggedy ships are fleeing extermination by a bunch of xenophobic robots who outlived their creators. Okay, the Vipers could have
been prototypes for the X-wing fighters--yeah, yeah, members of Galactica's production team came from the same team that made Star Wars, but you've got to admit, it was business. Even the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Glen Larson by Lucas didn't take Galactica off the
air.
Galactica has aged badly, worse than many of the classics from the 1960's, yet when you put it next to other shows of the same period, like Starsky & Hutch or Baretta, it falls into place. The quality of the filming, the quality of the scripts are in accord with the quality the
networks passed onto us, the public, during the 1970s.
Should Battlestar Galactica be brought back? I think the point is moot: It looks to be coming whether we want it or not. The question should be: Will it be done right? I had read several accounts that no one from the original series would be included, the Cylons wouldn't be included and that the Galactica would have a "different" mission this time? This filled me with dread. This past week, however; I read in "The Sci-Fi Wire" that the Cylons would be included and that Richard Hatch would at least be consulted and that Glen Larson was to be creative consultant. This is a hopeful sign. If done right, the new version of Battlestar Galactica could be what Star Trek: The Next Generation was to the Star Trek franchise. One can hope. I know that I will at least watch the pilot and one or two episodes in an attempt to give it a chance. If I like it, of course, I'll
watch it as long as it's on. That only makes sense.
Still, we are in yet another golden age of sci-fi on television, one that far surpasses that of the 1960s. While a reworked version of Battlestar Galactica is coming, what we need are more ground-breaking series like Farscape and First Wave. Series that take us where we haven't
been before, like when we first walked onto the bridge of the Enterprise or watched the Jupiter 2 lift off. That is where the adventure is.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
Back to the top.
