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).
Moon Critique is Bounced Off
irst of all, Tasha Robinson states in her review that Bouncing Off The Moon is much shorter than the first book in the trilogy, Jumping Off The Planet. I have both books in hardcover editions. The hardcover edition of Jumping Off The Planet is 285 pages. The hardcover edition of Bouncing Off The Moon has an identical typeface and design; it is 319 pages. It is at least 20,000 words longer. But because most of this book is a chase, it is much more breathless reading than the first one. That's probably why it felt shorter to your reviewer. She should have complimented the author on his skill at making such a long novel feel so easy.
Your reviewer also makes the error of saying that thematically this is a much lighter book than the first. What the trilogy is about is given away on the first page of the first book, where Chigger says he doesn't understand why grownups act the way they do. The entire trilogy is obviously going to be about how he learns to think like a grownup. In this book, he is starting to discover what it means to take responsibility for something other than his own selfish concerns. Halfway through the book, when he has to pretend to be Stinky's mom, that's a major shock to his consciousness, and if you read the book carefully, you'll see that he's not the same person afterward. It's the major turning point for him.
Gerrold has also gotten his science right, for which he should be seriously applauded, because so many other authors just make things up as they go. But Gerrold's technology is consistent throughout, and his demonstrations of how a Lunar civilization will work are the most convincing we've seen in any science fiction book. Obviously, this guy takes the time to do the math.
And finally, the courtroom discussions at the end--particularly the part about civil disobedience--are some of the best writing David Gerrold has done in years. Even more important, his insights into the relationships of the three brothers are some of the best family-writing I've ever seen in any young-adult novel. Charles' realizations about why Bobby is the way he is was well worth the price of admission. This is a story about an adolescent actually coming to grips with some serious issues and it deserves high praise. Thanks for listening.
Dan Goodman
peskydang@compuserve.com
Tasha Robinson responds:
I did not say Moon was "much shorter" than Planet, I said it was "a fast-moving, short novel," and "a weaker book than its predecessor." Regardless of the number of pages--which is in part a function of font size and margin space, which I did not see, as I reviewed an advance proof copy--I don't consider Moon "a long novel" by any stretch of the imagination. Your mileage may vary.
I agree with you about Gerrold's grasp of scientific possibility, but I still feel that his interest in future science seems to interfere with his interest in his characters. The example you cite to prove Moon's thematic depth--the change in Chigger's character after he is forced to dress as a woman--is a very short passage compared to the pages upon pages Gerrold devotes to describing the landscape of the moon, the development of zero-gee drives, the function of emergency bubble suits, etc. As I said, I think Moon is clever, logical and well-crafted, but I also think it's shallower than its prequel. That does not necessarily mean it's a shallow book. It does mean I didn't feel it lived up to the promise of the first installment in the series.
Best,
Tasha
Futurist Corrects Editorial Past
appreciated your recent editorial on the difficulty of predicting the future and some of our past mistakes. What troubled me however was the connection made between prediction and futurists. Being a trained futurist myself from the MS Studies of the Future program at the University of Houston I can tell you that any futurist that claims to predict does not know what they are talking about. We do not predict. A responsible futurist will tell you that Futures Studies (notice the "s" on futures) is about alternative futures. There will only be one future and as an organization, society, government, race or species our collective decisions will go together to create the future. But there are alternatives and a futurist's job is to outline what choices we have, the many and varied possible outcomes of those choices, and the uncertainty inherent in even that task. In addition, the task of increasing the overall foresight abilities of the human race will go a long way towards the creation of a future we would all want our grand-children to live in. It does my profession no good to be connected with prediction as the word futurist is already sufficiently incorrectly connected with the image of a crystal ball. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response and future editions of Science Fiction Weekly.
Chris Moore
cmoore2001@earthlink.net
Galactica Is A Sleeping Giant
remember well sitting in the theater watching Star Wars for the first time with my brother-in-law. He was the only one in my family who would go with me to see a sci-fi flick. I was excited! It was not the storyline that took me by surprise, but the fact that it was a space adventure
thrilled me. I sat with my dad many times watching the original Flash Gordon battle the evil Ming the Merciless and loved every episode.
Months after Star Wars, I went to see a movie shot by Universal Studios in Sensorround. It was called Battlestar Galactica. It was thrilling. I was blown away not so much by the special effects, but by the plot line, the story itself, the last hope of humanity possibly being snuffed out of existence. It was a holocaust of very real proportions. The movie portrayed the very core of human courage. That is what made me an everlasting fan of this show. More so that they brought it to television in '78. At the top of the charts in its category, Galactica was taken off the air. Good reasons have never been explained to cast, crew, or fans.
Rarely were the re-runs shown on television and when they were, I was there. Delighted that the VCR was invented, I sat and waited for my chance to grab up a few of my favorite episodes to cherish.
As time went on, I became caught up in life and left Galactica back in the shadows of my mind. Then, one night while at work, out of boredom I suspect I typed one name into the computer's online search engine--Richard Hatch--I don't know why, I hadn't thought about this man in quite some time. I was thrilled when something showed up on the screen. "At least," I thought, "he's still alive." And was he!
Being the champion I always thought him to be, Richard Hatch had spearheaded a campaign to resurrect the old Battlestar Galactica. How thrilling! I became immersed in the prospect of seeing it again. It was not for himself. God knows that he has been keeping himself busy. It was for
the fans, for the love of the story Galactica told, for hope....
I saw his trailer and I was hooked all over again. Not only did I see the trailer, but I met and spoke to both Mr. Hatch and Jack Stauffer at a convention. Friendly, dedicated to this project, they made me believe that it was possible to bring back Galactica. I looked forward to seeing "The
Second Coming." Not just myself, but the hundreds of fans around me stood in support of this man's work, of the volunteers that came to work, of the professionals that gave of their time.
Now, we are told that the team of Singer/DeSanto of X-Men will be doing a "reinvented" version of Galactica in 2002 for television. This could be disastrous! I remember the glory of the first television show, but I also remember the blunder that was the last attempt--BSG 1980! I can't help but wonder if this will be another 1980 all over again. These two have not even seen Richard Hatch's trailer. They say in their interviews that "they are fans, they know about the mythology, about Count Iblis, but they have ideas of their own."
While it's nice to know that the remake may be in the hands of fans, I am concerned that it is not in the hands of Galactica's one and only true Champion--Richard Hatch, and that Singer and DeSanto "have their own ideas."
Like any high precision machine, if it works, don't fix it. Richard Hatch had planned to begin as the series left off with original cast, original themes just 20 years later. This cast is joined by a generation "born in space," one that has no memory of their homeworld and no real vision of a new one either. It works!
The fans are behind Mr. Hatch. I am a part of a group of fans working on a petition to support his ideas. It is amazing how easy it is to get signatures even from those who are not "regular" Galactica fans. Trekkers and Star Wars fans love his idea as well. The Galactica phenomena is not hard to understand. Its fans are die-hard because of its message. Destroy the message and you will also destroy its fandom. DeSanto calls Galactica a "sleeping giant" and it is, but she will awaken only with tender care and respect. I am concerned.
Charlene Donatello
cdlegend40@hotmail.com
Hatching Plots, Burning Books
wonder what would happen if Richard Battlestar Galactica Hatch were to meet Richard Survivor Hatch?
A loud retort, a smell of sulfur and...?
Or maybe a cable show Battlestar Survivor?
Gentlemen, your 15 minutes are up.
So once again the Harry Potter books get noticed by the loony book burners and the stunning His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman is once again overlooked. Not surprising though, the books are written way above their intellectual level. I wonder if the book burners ever heard of John Milton.
There is a special circle in Hell for those folks.
Michael J. Walsh
mjw@mail.press.jhu.edu
Battlefield Earth Not That Bad
truly have to say it: "Shame on the Razzies!" After reading review after review, mostly on how bad and terrible Battlefield: Earth was, I finally sat down to watch it. Mind you, I had not read the novel and the only information I had about the movie was what I had read in entertainment reviews and reviews in SCI FI Wire.
As I sat down to watch it, it wasn't without some fear that I had wasted my money. Yet, as the story unfolded, I found I was enjoying the movie. It wasn't that bad! Was it on the level of Star Wars? No. It wasn't. Still, it wasn't as truly horrible as all the reviews led me to believe.
It was evident that John Travolta had a great time in the movie. Was this perhaps why reviewers slammed him? Or perhaps were they just looking for any reason to slam him. I remember they did that when Broken Arrow came out and it didn't quite fall into the niche that John Travolta is
"supposed" to fall into.
As to being the "worst" movie of 2000, didn't anyone see Supernova? Now, there was a terrible movie. A complete waste of film. Or Wing Commander? Maybe that came out in 1999, I can't remember--but that certainly blows Battlefield: Earth out of the water as a bad movie. After seeing the movie, I broke down and bought the novel and have been slowly discovering how different the book is from the movie, but that is hardly unusual. I have rarely ever seen a movie that follows the novel too closely. Usually this is due to a myriad of reasons, from budgetary constraints to the impracticability of transferring some of the authors thoughts to the screen.
Still, if you haven't read the novel, there is a chance, however slim, that you might just like the movie. It's not Oscar material by any stretch of the imagination, but it's nowhere near as bad as it's been touted and it's worth suspending your disbelief for a short time. When you're done, though, go for the book.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
Story Arc SF Proves Challenging
'm going to have to agree with the longer-story-arc fans over the single-episode-arc fans (Farscape, Babylon 5). I prefer broad story arcs because I think it makes for deeper, more complex storylines and better character development. One of the things I loved about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's break from Trek formula was exactly that--you got a better idea of who these people were and a better sense of their epic storylines. Star Trek: Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager seemed to get stuck in that Cosby Show philosophy--come up with a problem-of-the-week and resolve it in a neat little package by the episode's end. For me, that leads to a stagnation in character development, and ultimately stagnation of a show.
The big studios tend to want to market shows in easy-to-digest packages, so anyone can pick up any episode at any point in a season and not be lost. I prefer the challenge of watching for subtle character changes and storyline hints over a long period of time. Mr. Vale ("Episodic SF Has Its Uses") felt that extended story arcs were inconvenient for those who miss episodes here and there. I agree with that point, but the easy answer to that problem is--tape 'em. For the few shows I really like, I set the old VCR and watch them later. In fact, in the case of Farscape, I've seen maybe 10% of the episodes "first-run" on Friday night. It's no big deal to catch up later on, plus you can fast forward through all the commercials.
Fred Ermac
fredermac@hotmail.com
The Matrix Questions Have Answers
n response to Eric Vogel's letter about The Matrix's plot holes ("Accept Plot Holes, Enjoy the Ride"):
"1.) It still stands to reason that they could use more docile creatures such as cows instead of humans."
It would be easy to argue that the increased mental sophistication not only creates stronger electronic fields, and that the subjects must be awake to focus their concentration on maintaining such complexity. Just assume that whatever we consider a "soul" is a life force of exponentially greater power than we realize. That would also explain why they need to be conscious.
"2.) Why would the first Matrix have failed because it was too perfect?"
This principle is actually spoken to in Mr. Smith's dialogue. Without some adversity to "push" against, the subjects would become passive to the point of catatonia, and their concentration is necessary to generate the proper level of energy.
"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."
You missed the point here. Neo has ascended to a higher level of consciousness, where he doesn't just know that "there is no spoon," but he can sense the software trying to make him see the spoon. By stepping outside the confines of the Matrix projection, he can not only "see" the code (remember Cypher "watching" the code, seeing, blond, brunette, redhead?), but he can now extemporaneously issue his own code to navigate the construct to his advantage.
I won't say that the concept is seamless, but buying into the need for conscious human brains is not such a stretch.
Phil Brady
pizzaburn@yahoo.com
Killing SF Icons Hurts Fans
ome on you guys ... In real life everybody dies, but why do studios insist on killing off fictional characters for no other reason than to:
A: Make your mark.
B: Take his or her popularity too seriously.
C: Bring phony "realism" to a venue that helps us all escape.
Please consider this--James Kirk can be played by another actor, so can Picard, hell, so can any fictional character. So why kill off pop culture icons when there are those of us that know writers will come along that can take a character to new heights. It is a cheap shot at fans everywhere, and a mediocre, ego-driven decision generally made by people who just don't give a damn about those of us still naive enough to want to see the good guys win.
Enough already. Kill off the morons that deprive the rest of us of new adventures with old friends.
Bob Segarini
segarini@sympatico.ca
7 Days is Enjoyable SF
n response to Jim Pierce's letter "7 Days Should Have Its Due", I have to agree. I've always watched the show before Voyager (Nowhere Man, The Sentinel, and, now, 7 Days--and Babylon 5 at one time? I have trouble remembering) and I've loved them all. They never seem to survive more than a few years though. But, as of recent, I've found that I'm actually enjoying 7 Days more than Star Trek: Voyager. Sure, it has more continuity errors than you can shake a stick at, but it's just plain fun. The actors are having a blast when they're making it, and it really shows in their acting. And who couldn't love a man who constantly has the fate of the world in his hands and doesn't refrain from sneaking out of the top-secret military base, having some booze and meeting some women?
Eric "Seyon" Vogel
seyon@mediaone.net
Dracula 2000 Was Not Out For Blood
n regards to your review of Dracula 2000: The three Dracula movies that you criticize for not being "scary" were never intended to give the audience a fright. They were intentionally focusing on the romantic, erotic aspects of the Dracula character, which many fans of vampire movies (not to mention novels) find very appealing. Anyway, let's give ultra-talented filmmakers like Coppola the credit they deserve. If he had wanted to create a film capable of scaring the pants off of the audience, he surely would have succeeded.
As for your nitpicking over the correct pronunciation of the name "Dracula," Oldman pronounces it this way in Bram Stoker's Dracula because they had sense enough to provide him with a dialect coach familiar with the Romanian language. Ergo, "Dracoolia" is the authentic, correct way of saying this word. The guys in those other films just didn't know any better.
Lisa Williams
ads_lisa@dayton.lib.oh.us
Praying for More Prey
am a huge Prey fan. Saturday was episode 13, the last one. I, along with many others, would love to see a two-hour mini-movie made to bring the cliffhanger to a close. There are so many loose ends that we would like to see tied up. There are many questions that we would like to have answered in a sequel, such as:
1.) Who put Tom in the cage? Was it the woman Walter talks to?
2.) What is going to happen to Ed? What did they inject into him?
3.) What was going to happen in October?
4.) What is going to happen to Tom? Is he going to go back to 1.6, or is he going to return human?
There are many more questions where these few came from. It would be one of the best moves the SCI FI Channel has ever made if they made a two-hour mini-movie sequel. I know that you may be asking yourself where the money for this will come from. Well, I know that there are a few shows out there that just make sci-fi look bad. Lexx and Black Scorpion are two. I think The Invisible Man and Prey are the best shows on the SCI FI Channel. I am asking, please SCI FI, please, please tie up all the loose ends.
Mandy Engle
gunslinger_sk@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
