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).
Tribes 2 May Bug the Unwary
thought it was mighty generous of Eric T. Baker to focus on the many positive and enjoyable aspects of Tribes 2 considering that it suffers from some of the most daunting technical problems of any PC game ever released.
A brief scan of the forums of Tribes 2 fan sites should give many potential buyers pause, as hundreds of T2 owners discuss, decry and whine about the many bugs and bug fixes associated with this game. Many new T2 owners are angry, with good cause, about yet another game released in a somewhat uncompleted state.
One thing Sierra's done that I find particularly funny is to automatically force an update of the latest Tribes 2 patch every time you log on. Automatic patching is a good feature, especially for the technically-challenged consumer, but it sort of points out the inherent problems with the code.
Like many new games, T2 also appears to require a massive system, superior video card and broadband internet connection to experience it's full graphical glory, which isn't a bad thing unless you've plopped down your $50.00 before realizing your system can't cope.
Is it a good game? You bet it is. Will die-hard Tribes fans patch, upgrade, spend and struggle to get connected to a T2 server? You bet they will.
Dave Adams
No address given
Buffy and Prisoner Share Silence
n David Soyka's review of The Prisoner DVD Sets 3 & 4 he says, "This episode is notable for the lack of dialogue for the first 20 minutes or so, a dramatic device most commercial programs wouldn't attempt--even less so today than then." Buffy the Vampire Slayer did this exact thing last season in an episode called "Hush." That's not surprising considering that Buffy is one of the few shows that has aired that can match the intelligence and depth of The Prisoner.
Brian Christopher Robinson
brian@dungeoncrawl.org
Disney Delays Anime Releases
was overjoyed when I found out that Disney had procured the rights to the distribution of Hayao Miyazaki's work. Princess Mononoke was released (eventually), and an English version of Laputa: Castle In The Sky was done and given a theatrical premier in New York City.
Why did it then disappear? The film was done, but there was no general theatrical release, and there has been no video or DVD release. If Disney is not even going to release the films that they have completed, what is the hope for Porco Rosso, Nausicaa in the Valley of Wind, and the rest of Miyazaki's work? Are we going to all die of old age before Disney gets of its butt and gets serious about releasing the master's work?
Greg Crider
criderjg@bellsouth.net
Kirk Was a Killer of Bad Dreams
K, what is all this crappola about fans being happy that Capt. Kirk is dead? ("Kirk Should Remain Dead") What is up with that? Kirk was the man. I am a twenty-something year-old female, who as a child, was plagued by constant bad dreams. The fact that my father tuned me into everything sci-fi, thus making me a nut, didn't make my nights any easier. But, every time the nightmares came, for some strange reason, there was Capt. James Tiberius Kirk. He battled HR Giger's alien for me. He saved me from vampires. He was my hero. I was the
only five year-old who could actually name every film William Shatner was in because, by then, William Shatner had a place in my heart. As I got older, Capt. Kirk became T.J. Hooker and then William Shatner (in the flesh, thanks to Rescue 911). Growing up, I knew that William Shatner was a stage actor.
He's part of the old acting school. Back then, actors acted with their voices, for the people who couldn't see them, and they acted with their faces, for those who couldn't hear them. He is not an over-actor, or a bad actor. He is a stage actor. And, so ... this is the element that makes Capt. Kirk unique. Captain Kirk was no punk like Picard. Picard was all mouth and Janeway was/is too friggin' ... well ... masculine and hard. Sisco was always cool, but he was never tough enough. When they killed off Kirk, they killed off a hero. Now, Star Trek is nothing more than a parody with its not-so-tough captains and way-too tough enemies. There is no balance and it stinks. Say what you will,
but ... Kirk was the man! Live long and prosper.
Anit Anes
Superhumanalienhunter@yahoo.com
Please Let Kirk Stay Literary
find I must disagree vehemently with Noah Vale ("Kirk Should Remain Dead"). As long as his existence is continued in print only, let Kirk live! When William Shatner brought Kirk back from the dead, I was dubious at best and avoided Shatner's books for some time, yet eventually, out of boredom, picked up The Ashes Of Eden and was hooked. With the help of Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, who ghost the Kirk series with Shatner, this has become a well-written, informative, witty and, yes, addictive addition to the Star Trek novel series, which has seen its share of poorly-written books.
For every Dreadnought, Battlestations (both written by Diane Carey) and The Final Reflection (by John Ford), absolutely excellent books in any format, there are many that fall flat on their faces (such as Timetrap by David Dvokin and The Cry of the Onlies by Judy Klass).
Inconsistent as the book series is, when reading it, you must remember that as far as the producers of the filmed Star Trek series are concerned there is no connection between the two. This was solidified when Michael and Denise Okuda decided not to include anything from the book series in either Star Trek: Chronology or the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Therefore; let Kirk live in the books, but let him stay there. Let the series move into new territory, touching back to Kirk only in retrospect or flashbacks. Obviously, Pocket Books sees profit in Kirk.
Keith M. Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
Picard Must Be Replaced, Not Killed
t's time to cast a new Picard? I don't think so! Keith Graf, I read your letter ("It's Time to Cast a New Picard") about casting a new Picard. I do not believe Stewart is tired of being Capt. Picard, it is about him getting paid big bucks, and he wants more money to star as the Star Trek captain in the next Star Trek installment.
Whether it is right or wrong to ask for multi-millions of dollars to star in one movie can be debated until we are red in our faces. I personally think actors are paid entirely too much money, because they know that they are going to perform sequels. So, why do they continue to demand these high million-dollar payoffs? The only thing I think it could be is greed, plain and simple.
I have a lot of respect for Patrick Stewart, because of his acting skills, but I do not believe he merits, I think it was 20 million dollars to do this next sequel. The demands for actors receiving millions to perform these sequels are staggering. Look at The X-Files, and look at how David Duchovny screwed loyal X-File fans and the writers, along with the producers, by demanding a higher salary to perform in the weekly series. This guy was a virtual nobody. I did not know who David Duchovny was before he started acting on The X-Files, and if he had not starred in that
great classic, he would be virtually unknown today.
It amazes me how these actors will ask for the stardom, then after they feel like they have made it, they want out. This can be said for both Patrick Stewart and David Duchovny.
David and Patrick must understand that they are caught up in a cult classic syndrome, and they must exhibit a certain amount of loyalty to their fans, and the genre that made them famous. So Keith, saying that Patrick Stewart or Picard should be killed off is not fair. Nobody can play Picard's role as captain, I would rather see Number One take the helm before I see a Patrick Stewart replacement. Remember, in the original Star Trek, Capt. Pike started out as the captain of the Enterprise. There were a lot of viewers that did not like Capt. Pike, so the writers replaced him with William Shatner, Capt. Kirk.
However, they did not kill off Capt. Pike, they just made him disabled in the storyline, but he gained a measure of his mobility, when Spock took him to Talos and the Aliens gave him the illusion of his mobility. My point is, there would be no need to kill off Picard, just replace him with Riker. Replacing him with another captain may not be a smart move though, because I do not believe the fans would be too receptive to that sort of move. I know I would not be receptive to that type of move. So, it is like this: Patrick Stewart wanted this role, now he has this role, and there is certain responsibility and loyalty that comes with that role, and he might want out and I doubt if he will get his wish without pissing off a lot of fans, writers, and producers of the Star Trek genre.
If he is smart, he'll take his millions, and continue to act in these sequels, unless he would like to end up like Duchovny of The X-Files. Branded as an actor that does not have the talent to warrant acting in any other roles, and be a whiner for the millions that he's received.
Virgil Yancey
Virgil.Yancey@worldnet.att.net
Zhann Should Be Brought Back Soon
agree with the need to kill off some of the older icons when the storyline has developed over the years and the children are older than the icons were when they started the series. There can always be filler stories, prequels and sequels to carry on the tradition. I strongly object to killing off cast in fledgling series like Farscape. Zhann was the spiritual glue that held them together in their moments of insanity, pettiness, emotional damage and physical hurt. She brought out their best, or at the very least, showed them that they had a "best" to be brought out when they grew up enough to admit it. They replaced her with a Shrieking Witch From Hell that has not one redeeming quality, not even the ability to act. Please! Can't someone talk Pilot into venting an airlock she just happens to be passing by. Let her shriek and melt down a quantum singularity in the blackness of space. Maybe she'll get sucked into another universe. My ... that sounds good to me. Bring Zhann back soon please.
Sandy Pittman
eviltwin@sum.net
Zhaan Deserves to Go
ard Miller's comments ("Farscape Should Revive Zhaan Now"), were misplaced and incorrect.
According to one interview at the Denver StarFest convention held April 21/22, Ms. Hey made the choice to leave the show for personal reasons. Considering that the Season Two/Three Zhaan character was slowly devolving into a parody of the strong Zhaan of Season One, it was a mercy to let the character go with good grace and honor. The Jool character portrayed by Tammy MacIntosh has great potential
beyond the "screaming brat" that she first appeared to be. At the minimum, Ms. MacIntosh has played Jool with great flair and a sure footed ability for slapstick comedy which this season is in sore need of. It short, it was a good thing that Zhaan left the show in the manner that she did. Her character was not a positive presence since the end of Season One. Jool will be a welcome addition.
Tom Francis
tomf@neca.com
Trek Fans Should Try Other SF
have been a fan of Science Fiction and Fantasy as long as I can remember. I started my wondrous journey watching shows like Lost In Space, Superman, Batman and Star Trek. I also started by reading authors like E.B. White, Roald Dahl, Madeleine L'Engle, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E.
Howard.
As the years went by my taste and interest have matured but my love for speculative fiction has remained. Now I would rather view 2001, PI or The Lathe of Heaven again than sit through another unoriginal episode of Star Trek. Currently, I read authors that not only entertain but also challenge your way of thinking. These authors include Octavia Butler, Ursula K. Le Guin, John Varley, Samuel Delany and Philip K. Dick.
We should always continue the process of learning and growing, but too many Science Fiction fans are stunted. A vast number of people become fans of Science Fiction because they develop a love for Japanese animation, video games, Star Trek, Star Wars or some other simple-minded pleasure. Then
instead of sampling what other pleasures Science Fiction has to offer, they continue to just enjoy whatever interest brought them to fandom. Later on their love of Science Fiction disappears because they figure it is just kid stuff.
There are also the long-time fans that know nothing about Science Fiction that was not in a television show, video game or movies. The only books these fans read are media tie-ins and adaptations. Many of these fans use Science Fiction as an escape. There is nothing wrong with this. Life is hard and we all need to escape and forget our problems sometimes. These fans should also seek out Science Fiction that enriches their lives by forcing them to look at life through different viewpoints.
Wouldn't it be nice to hear more fans discussion subjects like Kim Stanley Robinson's version of Eco-economics, Ursula K. Le Guin's humanist philosophy, Robert Heinlein's conservative views or Samuel Delaney's use of mythology? You are more likely to hear fans at conventions and on the Internet discussing the ever-popular subject of which is better Star Wars or Star Trek?
I am not trying to belittle these fans. I just would like to make them think. So that maybe when they are in the bookstore looking for that fast Trek snack they will also picks up some more nutritional brain food.
Ronald Hood
jhubbub@hotmail.com
Hollywood Should
Recycle Good SF
have to agree with Gloria Hoffner ("Red Planet Makes Fan See Red") and Susan Wittkopf ("Recycling Doesn't Always Make Sense") about writers who don't know anything about science or science fiction, and producers who recycle trash. The solution is staring Hollywood in the face: recycle good science fiction, real science fiction, by genuine science fiction authors who know the difference between SF and Fantasy. We paying fans couldn't care less about the creative egos of hack screenwriters. Delve instead into the already existing treasury of good science fiction: recycle that!
Steve Block
baronsb@swbell.net
Help Save Earth: Final Conflict
lthough it no longer airs in my area, I am an avid fan of Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict. Recently, however, fans of E:FC have heard that actors Robert Leeshock (Liam Kincaid) and Leni Parker (Da'an) might be leaving the show before its end. This would be tragic, not only to the fans, but to the show as well. For many fans, either one or both of the aforesaid characters are the sole reason for watching. The show's quality has been degrading, and although we still love the show, without Liam Kincaid or Da'an, it would no longer be worth watching.
To quote one fan:
"This show used to be my fav--during its second and third seasons. Now it's 4th. I dunno, I've become quite disillusioned (is that the right word?) with the show. I've lost a lot of faith in it. I record it, and watch it later--it's no longer worth staying up for. I usually end up watching the episodes a few weeks later. In fact, there are a few episodes I've recorded and still haven't watched. It's sad. Last year that would have never happened. The last episode I truly enjoyed was "One Taelon Avenue." (Limbo was a great episode but I had some major problems with it.) The more episodes I see now, the more problems I see. It's sad but it's the truth."
If that's the way she feels now, do you think she'll continue watching without Liam Kincaid or Da'an? I seriously doubt it. She has a life to live, as do many of us. A petition is currently going around, requesting that the producers of Earth: Final Conflict put these rumors to rest by having Leni and Robert stay on the show. Its homepage can be found at www.angelfire.com/scifi/lenidaanpetition, but the petition itself can be found at www.PetitionOnline.com/leni/. Anything you can do to help us spread the word and prevent the utter destruction of our show would be greatly appreciated. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter.
Katie Nolan
voyager171@yahoo.com
Verne is Stuck in Scheduling Hell
'd like to weigh in on the opinions expressed ("Jules Verne Is a Moving Target" and "Jules Verne Fan Fumes") by concerned viewers of The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne. I took a chance on the program in January because the concept looked intriguing, and I've really been enjoying the romp. Verne is wonderfully fun; the principals are attractive, well-written, and play nicely together, and the character interactions are surprisingly subtle and deep for the kind of light-spirited entertainment that this is.
Having a program to look forward to every week is an unusual experience for me. I hate to think that I might lose access to this show because it's not being given its chance to find its audience. The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne is an intelligent program full of intelligent play in the spirit of the Golden Age science fiction adventure story. The SCI FI Channel has proven in the past that it's capable of recognizing quality programming, and I can only hope that somebody at the network will wake up from the nightmare of the scheduling Hell they're putting The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne through before it's too late to buy the second season.
Keep the Aurora flying.
Susan R. Matthews
foxndrgn@gte.net
Jules Verne is Lost in Late-Night
This is the SCI FI Channel, not the T&A channel. It figures. I stumble across Jules Verne on Friday nights and am intrigued. I actually hadn't watched the SCI FI Channel in a while. Jules Verne got me interested again.
It moves to Saturday nights. No problem. I like the show. In fact I'm starting to really look forward to it. At first, I can't figure out exactly why I'm hooked on it. Maybe it's the 1800's/cyber-punk look, maybe it's the rich visuals. Maybe it's just interesting to my imagination. I love Jules Verne (the author) ... this show was piquing my curiosity.
And then...
And then...
Where did the show go? It moves to the barren wasteland of late night infomercials. Why? What did it do to deserve this treatment? Is it worse than Black Scorpion? Please ... if Joan Severance was in Black Scorpion, I might see you're point, but Black Scorpion is crap on a stick. It's down-right awful. And you prefer it to Jules Verne and the expansion of your imagination?
If this is the best your programming gurus can do, SCI-FI is toast. Listen to your devoted fans. Bring Jules Verne back to the promised land and out of TV hell.
Ian Cruzen
icruzen@mediaone.net
SF Suffers From Hollywood's Greed
mericans are suffering from a greedy Hollywood, a Hollywood that is cranking out more and more vapid programming simply because it is easier to squeeze in more advertising in a pointless program than in a program that actually has a brain. Have you noticed how short some programs have become? Star Trek: Voyager and Stargate SG-1 have suffered greatly from too many ads. Both programs have had some great ideas, but couldn't make them work because of time constrictions. The result is a rushed and stilted episode with a "crash" ending. Science fiction demands at least part of your attention to understand the story. It doesn't "do" well on television anymore because there isn't enough time to develop and complete the story. So we, the American viewers, are stuck with an increasing amount of junk TV. TV meant only for the purpose of bringing you one more ad, the same ad you saw ten minutes ago, the same ad you'll see in ten more minutes. I am sick of this, so I'm watching more and more PBS, the company that brought me the delights of Dr. Who, Blake's Seven, and Red Dwarf, with no advertising!
P.S. I do not have, and never had, cable. I am speaking from what I see on free TV. Please support your local PBS station. It is a last bastion of quality TV for those of us who are still cable-less!
Jandl Ray
cookies5@mindspring.com
Special Unit 2 Isn't So Special
've watched the last two episodes of UPN's new show, Special Unit 2, and I have to say I really like it. It's directed with style, the script is witty, the effects are impressive, the scripts are fun and the cast is excellent. It's a cool show, but it has one huge problem.
It's been done before.
Back in the late '80s, Tri Tac Systems, a small Michigan-based games company, produced Stalking the Night Fantastic (retitled in later editions as Bureau 13). It was a role-playing game in which the players took the roles of operatives of Bureau 13, an ultra-secret agency of the Justice Department, created in 1862 and assigned the task of hunting and neutralizing destructive supernatural beings. The game was written with a quirky, humorous style that emphasized fun over drama and retains a strong following even now (further details can be found at www.bureau-13.com). Some years later, best-selling SF author Nick Pollotta penned a trilogy of authorized novels based on the game, which again trod a fine line between drama, action and absurdity (though the books have been out of print for some time, they are now being republished by Wildside Press at www.wildsidepress.com/).
The parallels between the two properties are almost too numerous to mention, the differences purely cosmetic. Given the uncanny resemblance between SU2 and B13, one has to wonder how original the show actually is? I'd like to see Special Unit 2 succeed, but perhaps the producers should give credit where credit is due.
Lucas Priest
preacher151@hotmail.com
7 Days FAQ Helps Fans
want to thank Chris Halliday for his input ("Fan Offers 7 Days FAQ") on to some of the "rules" of 7 Days. I've watched the show for about a year now and never gleaned these rules from what I saw. Good call! I have to say, I'm still worried about the show's fate. This Special Unit
2 show, which is abysmal in my opinion, has usurped its slot. I'm hoping they're saving 7 Days for off-season, but then it loses its Star Trek: Voyager lead-in status. UPN being the weak network it is, 7 Days needs all the help it can get! Hopefully we'll get some good news from the recently hot commodity that UPN has become with its acquisition of Buffy from the WB and being eyed greedily by Rupert Murdoch's media monstrosity. Maybe they'll be kind enough to remove wrestling and stop pre-empting 7 Days and Voyager.
Jim Pierce
jpierce@cris.com
Thermodynamics Law is Not Broken
fter reading the comments the last couple of weeks ("Don't Believe Everything You Hear" and "Thermodynamics Is Not an Issue") regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics and The Matrix, I had to respond to the comments I've heard. Several issues were raised, and language such as "more" energy was required for the machines, or "where" did the energy come from for the machines to feed the humans, etc., was used in these comments. Essentially,
the argument is that since using humans is very likely a highly inefficient use of gathering energy, the premise of the movie could not be believed--"the second law of thermodynamics was violated."
These are misleading and inaccurate statements. First, there is no such thing as requiring "more" energy to use humans as batteries. Energy is conserved. The issue is transforming one form of energy into another form that is usable, despite the inefficiencies. Automobile engines convert the kinetic energy contained in combustible fuel and convert it into heat which powers the engine via an electrical spark, which in turn is caused by the battery which provides the spark, which itself is provided energy by the alternator which restores the energy to the battery. This is not the most efficient use of the actual fuel itself (what is it, 40 or 50% efficient due to heat loss?--I forget the numbers), but the point is we do not concern ourselves when we drive of the efficiency of the engine outside of engineers
trying to make it more efficient because of fuel costs.
The same premise holds true for the machines. Because using humans as energy sources may not be the most efficient use of energy, nor the easiest means to procure that energy, does not mean they would not use that energy to maintain control over humans. Further, we don't know exactly what energy the "life force" provides the machines. We only know the machines use that energy.
There is no actual sci-fi in the concept of inefficient use of energy sources. The sci-fi itself would be that the machines would be getting 100% efficient use of the kinetic energy within each human. The sci-fi is also, of course, that sentient machines gain that control over humans in the first place. Remember it is science, and it is fiction.
As for the nutrients required to feed the humans, the movie did explain that humans were recycled back into the system. As energy is being consumed by the machines, the machines would eventually have to account for that energy loss, and the energy lost through inefficiency. There are two explanations here. First, at some point in the future humans would no longer be a sufficient source of energy for the machines (that's reality in our world right now). Second, the machines may be able to gather enough
light from the sun, albeit not much, to account for the energy losses. However, there is a critical point where the energy will no longer be sufficient to supply the need. Would that stop the machines from using the energy available? Do these same issues prevent us from using inefficient forms of energy, such as fossil fuels? Even in nuclear reactors, we are only using the huge amounts of energy to convert water into steam to turn turbine engines and thus build a charge which can be used. How much energy is lost in this process? Imagine if we could gain 90% efficiency, or lose only 10% of all energy, in such a reaction!
Why should the movie address all these issues, particularly when the assumption is that those who read sci-fi would at least know about the conservation of energy, as well as the fact that every conceivable detail could not be answered in two hours?
Steve Madden
Madden@smed.com
WB Should Know Its Show Business
o paraphrase Calvin Coolidge--The business of show business is business. When UPN took Buffy from the WB, it was because they offered Mr. Whedon and Fox more money. Reading the WB's reaction to this "inauspicious" move is like listening to the whine of a sore loser. It seems they expected some loyalty from Mr.Whedon. Capitalism leaves little room for such sentiment. Seeing the rest of the UPN's line-up, one can see why the executives at that network were desperate for a sure fire hit. With the exception of wrestling, UPN does not have a show that attracts a wide audience. It is hardly the Tiffany's of television.
John Nolan
roninja@bcpl.net
Farscape is Not The Muppets
was very disappointed with Al Smith's letter "Muppets, Robots and Kids Must Go; to me, his comments typify the narrow-mindedness and unwillingness to accept the fantastic that I have seen in every sci-fi hater I have ever met. Starting with "Muppets," there are no Muppets in Farscape. From the Henson.com Web site, I find the following:
In general, the term "Muppet" is used to refer to puppets made by Jim Henson's Muppet Workshop in New York. These tend to be fuzzy, cute and lovable. The puppets made by Jim Henson's Creature Shop in London and Los Angeles tend to be more realistic or scarier and are not generally called "Muppets."
While as a member of Farscape fandom's Friends and Defenders of Pilot, I may find the larger of the two animatronics "cute and lovable," neither Pilot nor Rygel nor any guest alien is a Muppet. They are in fact the next step from putting prosthetics onto a person--omitting the person and just
using the latex. The presence of the 2' dominar and 8' navigator serves to make the show more realistic, not less. Or do you really believe that every alien species averages 6' tall, with two arms, two legs, and one head? Honestly, this was my only gripe with Star Trek, that everyone looked the same.
Mr Smith also voices that he does not care for robots. Robots are currently constructed to do simple labor tasks, such as manufacturing. How reasonable is it to think they will not be used in the future to accomplish other menial tasks? C-3PO was essentially a large, paranoid laptop computer,
and R2-D2 a mechanical mechanic. If you're going to have something there with a specialized task in which that something is put at risk, why not use an easily produced robot to do the task? Countless other reasons to accept the plausibility of robots in science fiction exist. Again, they ground the
medium in reality and logic.
As for the complaint against kids, how else does Mr. Smith expect a race to continue to exist? We can't all spring fully formed from our fathers' heads. Children exist. Granted, many of them are far too cute, or too smart, or too loveable and well-loved, and not every show needs a token child character, but without them at the very least appearing from time to time, once again, believability is lost.
Many elements must come together to form a believable world in science fiction; the ones above form only part of the possible picture. Not every show or story needs to include these things, however, without elements of these sort, the idea of science fiction is lost, and we are left with the
standard fare. I have read Heinlein, albeit many years ago now, but I recall a certain amount of strange science in his works, equally odd if not moreso than non-humanoid aliens, mechanizations, and juveniles.
Farscape is, in fact, not a good series. It is a fantastic series, and the Nielsen ratings speak to its merit. I find it far more believable than much of the other fare spoon-fed network and cable viewers, and never miss an episode. The animatronics do not detract from this, nor are they the only factor. The writers have given us, the viewers, characters we can care about, and it is this that makes the show good. Mr. Smith and others like him need only set aside their prejudice of "puppets are for kids" and watch the show, and others like it.
I do not say, mind you, that all sci-fi is good. However, our friend Mr. Smith only gave us one show by name, and so to only this show I can respond. (Movies, believe it or not, are different creatures. And of these, he names only two, both of which I have not seen in ages, although I seem to recall
several robots in Blade Runner.)
In closing, I would like to end with a response to this statement: "When you get rid of these three poisons of SF, it can actually ascend to towering heights of originality and beauty."
I fail to see originality and beauty in stagnation, sterilization and homogenization.
A. Leigh Cassel
lexwyvern@rocketmail.com
Muppet Madness Makes Bad SF
note regarding Mr. Smith's letter in Issue 209, "Muppets, Robots and Kids Must Go--Amen, brother! But the worse sin of all is using any of the above for plot contrivance.
Remember Battlestar Galactica and that stupid robotic dog, Boxxy? And the kid--Noath Hathaway if I remember correctly. Anytime that bunch appeared I knew what was going to happen--either kid or robot or both were going to wander off, do something stupid and then setup some sort of knuckle-headed excuse for laser blasts.
I have the same problem as Smith with a great deal of SF and entertainment in general. For about 80% of anything I see, within five minutes I usually figure exactly what is going to happen. (I usually can't concentrate on Muppet Maddness long enough to bother). Surprise me and I'll be happy. Let's think The Sixth Sense; the last movie that featured a kid that actually worked.
Bob Harrison
bobh@southwest.cc.nc.us
Children in SF Are Not the Problem
egarding Al Smith's letter ("Muppets, Robots and Kids Must Go) in your last issue: First off, Farscape has at least two Muppets, as far as I'm aware--I believe Pilot was also built by the Jim Henson workshop. That is your definition of "Muppet," yes? Because quite frankly, I don't think Rygel is anything like Kermit the Frog. I'd also point out that Yoda could be considered a Muppet. I must have missed your plea to get rid of him.
At any rate, on to the bit that truly annoyed me.
Children can be perfectly intelligent. The fact that you were reading Heinlein at nine is proof of that. And yet ageism remains rampant in our society. Children are constantly belittled and insulted; when we speak to them at all we do it in condescending tones. And then we wonder where all the kid geniuses are. Where's the next Mozart? Where's the next Einstein?
I'm willing to bet no one spoke to Mozart in condescending tones.
But I digress. The problem isn't that children are featured in some SF stories and television shows; it's that they aren't given fair treatment. If they're not brats or simpletons they're irritating know-it-alls who really don't know as much as they think. And the message is almost always the same: children should associate with other children; they should act like other children; they should, in short, stuff themselves into the box society in its infinite wisdom has prepared for them. Children are constantly hit with this message on all fronts. I daresay most eventually begin to believe it. So they surrender their math abilities, they give up trying to learn anything beyond the table scraps their teachers throw them, and finally they allow themselves to be assimilated and they turn into adults who think children are somehow subhuman. Grownups always know best; we are in charge; resistance is futile.
When featured in stories that treat them as individuals, as perfectly intelligent human beings, children can be interesting characters. Too bad they don't often get such treatment.
Spencer M. Lease
beyondzine@mindshiftdesign.com
Muppets are More Than Puppets
In last week's Letters section, someone went off ("Muppets, Robots and Kids Must Go) on a minor rant about Muppets in Farscape. I, for one, honestly don't see what the problems with Muppets are. Muppets are far cheaper than CGI, allowing them to be used as regulars and more regular guest aliens for far less than CGI aliens (and freeing up much more of the budget for starships and other CGI scenes). Secondly, they allow a more realistic interaction with the human(oid) characters, since there's an actual object and voice to act off of in real time, right there on the set. Third, Muppets allow greater diversity in the cast by including a truly alien aspect--can you imagine any human beings acting in Rygel's or Pilot's roles? Exactly. Muppets allow Farscape to get away from the "forehead-of-the-week" alien effect and create more unique and non-humanoid aliens, in my opinion adding greater suspension of disbelief to the series.
And finally, the Farscape cast members themselves have said that the Pilot and Rygel models are so realistic in their motions and voices, especially facial expressions, that if often feels like they're interacting with a living creature and not just pretending. If the cast members themselves feel that way, and they've got the fandom and view base to prove the effect, Muppets must be doing something right.
Come to think of it, the word "Muppet" itself may be misleading and casting an unfairly "kiddish" connotation on the process. If the word "animatronics" were used instead, would some people feel better about it?
Chris Mullane
cdm55@accessus.net
Back to the top.
