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).
Star Trek Became Ryan's Express
ould the series finale of Star Trek: Voyager been more fitting for a show that had turned into a star vehicle for Jeri Ryan? I have tried to give the Seven of Nine character the benefit of the doubt, but when even the finale turns into a Seven story, I give up. People will argue that it was a Janeway story, but why did Janeway come from the future? Because they lost Seven on the way home. And what was with the romance between Seven and Chakotay? That made no sense whatsoever! The romance between Tom and B'Elanna was developed over years--we were emotionally invested in that relationship. Seven's romance
with the Commander seemed to come up overnight. One date with the holo-Chakotay and she's ready for a full-fledged love affair! That was so lame. I wasn't emotionally involved with that romance that made no sense so I could not understand the future Janeway breaking all the rules to come back and save Seven. Oh, yes, there was some reference to Tuvok's disease, just as a secondary thought!
The writer's could have done so much better by Voyager. They could have done better for years now, but even in the series finale they couldn't help but trash it up with Seven. Good thing Jeri Ryan is dating Brannon Braga, isn't it? A sad ending to what could have been a great series.
Laura Monroe
alienlady@bigfoot.com
Voyager Fan Finds Finale Phenomenal
he grand finale of Star Trek: Voyager was totally awesome. I thought the writers did a heck of a job of writing this story for this finale. It seemed like everything in the finale was thought out, and I felt like there were no open ends to the finale.
The entire crew made it home, and Janeway did not have to worry about any more of her crew dying while they were so far from home. I know some of the people that do not like Star Trek: Voyager, will say that the Janeway in the future had to rescue Janeway and the Voyager crew from the past. So, what?! The important thing about the series to me, is that they made it home intact.
Also, when you think about it. How many of us would love to go back in the past and save someone in our life that we deem an important part of our life? I wish I could, because I would do it in a heartbeat. I think the way Voyager ended, leaves the door for the new series Enterprise wide open. I could not think of better way to start the fall season than to come off of the high of the Voyager's season finale.
If the way Voyager ended is an indication of how good the new Enterprise series will be this fall, all I got to say, is, "bring it on!" What a ride I experienced and I enjoyed watching Voyager for all of these years.
Thanks to Janeway and the Voyager crew, they truly went where no man or woman has gone before, but they made it back home!
Virgil Yancey
virgil.yancey@worldnet.att.net
Voyager Ending Bodes Ill for Future
just saw the last episode of Star Trek: Voyager, and like the whole series, it was somewhat of a let-down. Once again we have a cheap time-travel plot, and once again the ship is put in an impossible situation, but "new technology" is brought in to save the day. Why couldn't this series just have had more low-key episodes where problems were solved through the ingenuity and cooperation of the crew, rather than the latest techno-babble? With writing like this, I'm not looking forward to Enterprise.
Bob Cusolito
bc03865@yahoo.com
Sarcasm Greets Star Trek Finale
he Star Trek: Voyager finale was fantastic. The writers certainly outdid themselves with this "heartfelt" final episode! The two Janeways were certainly an original idea along with the two different timelines. Why, that has never been done on any Trek series, has it?
And the depth of the character dialogue. Admiral Janeway's preference for tea over Captain Janeway's love for coffee was by far, a poignant moment. And let's not forget Seven's noble sacrifice of the ending of her relationship to Chakotay. She didn't want to hurt him ... brings a tear to my eye. What a touching and emotional scene.
And finally, the last scene when the crew makes it home, could you not feel the happiness and excitement erupting on their blank faces? And who would have thought that baby Paris would be born right when they made it back home. I was so surprised! Such original script writing! These people have a great future in store!
Oops, time to wake up--this wasn't really the Voyager finale ... just a cruel joke played by Q!
Joe Vance
joevance@yahoo.com
Voyager Set A Course for Home
ou printed so many disparaging letters about the Star Trek: Voyager series finale ("Voyager Finale Fails Fan," "Star Trek's 'Endgame' Casts Shadows" and Voyager Finale Finds Fans Frowning"). Am I the only one who enjoyed this show? You had one viewer mention that Janeway had already lost more than 22 crew members prior to this. Incorrect. The number of crew lost, after she destroyed the Caretaker array, was in the low single digits. Another viewer complained about the forced relationship between Chakotay and Seven. There was indeed some foreshadowing, at least for Seven's feelings. An entire episode in fact, less than a month ago.
Temporal anomalies notwithstanding, the opportunity to retrieve the crew did not occur earlier. Admiral Janeway could not have prevented Voyager's journey and could only intervene when there was in fact a way home. She couldn't move prior to the encounter with the Borg nebula hiding the Trans-Warp Hub. And we've seen in earlier episodes how far Harry will go to get Voyager home. Is it any wonder that at some point Janeway, upon discovering the new technology, might come to feel the same way? It was a closed loop in time; Babylon 5 fans take note. Didn't Babylon 4 do much the same thing? The loop closed when Babylon 4 went back in time and Valen was "born" to inspire the Minbari's future generations.
The ending of Voyager's journey was sudden, jarringly so. But, Janeway's "deer-in-the-headlights" expression while talking to the Admiral was priceless. If you think about it, their actual arrival home, so suddenly after seven years, would have been just that abrupt, just that anti-climactic. Nobody went wild because they were all still in shock, but they were after all a disciplined crew. At first, I felt let down. Now, I think they ended it appropriately. The show was about the journey. Let the fans, books and movies tell us about the Maquis, the renegade other crewmembers and the two former Borg. Personally, I thought the ending was very well done. I could be remembering incorrectly but I seem to remember that Janeway sat down and said, "Set a course for home" at least once before. Wasn't that the last line of the series premiere?
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@mail.com
Sisko Shouldn't Be Ignored
n some recent letters in regards to the Star Trek: Voyager finale, some fans noted that in the newest promo for the newest series that they listed every captain in the known Star Trek universe except Sisko. What's up with that? I think that Mr. Berman should explain the obvious snub of a character that I and others feel was much more developed then many of the others captains featured in the advertisement. If Mr. Berman reasons that he wasn't a captain of a ship and I would like to say, "hogwash" to that--for the Defiant was no clunker of a ship.
Not with that cloaking device.
M.C. Silva
MSilva6260@aol.com
Tech Support is Not Black & White
lack & White received a good review here. I bought that game myself about
a month ago. For the first week, it worked very well, but then it had a major problem: It started to crash every time that I tried to save it. As if that wasn't bad enough, I contacted its technical support. They promise to handle any problems you might encounter in their game, but the reality is
that they never do. I waited over a week but they didn't respond to my email. They did, however, send an auto-response message that included all the answers to common problems (that were already on their Web site.) After another week, several more emails from me, and after their auto-response sent me several more answers to common problems, they finally responded with the advice to make sure that my drivers for my soundcard and video card were updated. I followed that advice, but it didn't help. I let them know that, and they never responded back.
So basically, the Black & White game has no technical support--and they lie when they say that they offer it. I'd suggest that you check out a game's tech support and include that in your future ratings of computer games. I'd certainly appreciate it myself. After all, how can you play god
in a game that won't even let you save games in it?
P.S. The whole trouble started when I got the Zebra avatar from the riddle quest. Just thought I'd warn you guys in case that bug is in all the copies of Black & White!
Julie Roth
misty_jaguar@yahoo.com
Buffy Stakes Viewers Heart
'm so disappointed that further separation will be the result between Buffy and Angel. Last week's season finale where Buffy ended up dying for a noble cause brought lots of tears for me. Then when I watched Angel, and he immediately knew something happened to Buffy upon seeing Willow, that made my heart constrict. I was emotionally upset to the point where I couldn't sleep. I kept wondering about Angel's reaction. How will Buffy be back? Will we see another crossover?
Now I understand that there won't be any crossovers. As a faithful viewer, the thought makes me literally sick. My heart broke when Joyce died. No crossovers will be worse. There is no greater love than what exists between Buffy and Angel regardless of who attracts them on their own shows. Can't something be done? When Buffy and Angel are together, it's like a breath of fresh air where there was a vacuum before. My emotions soar. Please Joss Wedon--don't separate them even further. You have a good thing between the two characters. Don't kill it off.
Charlotte Benjamin
lilylangtree@icehouse.net
Buffy's Move Is Not So Bad
he news about Buffy the Vampire Slayer going to UPN has caused quite a stir among the fans, as has apparently the news that there will probably not be any future crossovers. In regards to the switching of networks, in everything I've read it seems that the biggest change is going to be that they are going to have more money to work with. If that's true, I don't see the problem. I have to agree that both shows can work completely on their own, for two reasons: they both represent some of the best writing on TV currently, and they both have top-quality casts and crew. I, too, will miss the crossovers, but I do not feel they are critical to either show. Besides, we all can be pretty sure that when The WB drops Angel (and I'm sure they will) UPN will pick it up and we can have the crossovers back. Keep up the good work Joss--keep me guessing; I've never been able to predict you yet!
Pat Grant
riciatargan@hotmail.com
Spoiler Suggestions From Down Under
fter reading this week's news section of Science Fiction Weekly, I am rather concerned about the lack of spoiler warnings before articles that discuss plot details of a particular show--as not everyone lives in the United States, we may not have seen that episode yet. For example, this week's issue contains a massive spoiler for the season finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is yet to air over here in Australia. I think it would be common courtesy to include some kind of warning before major plot revelations are given. I read the news section to read about behind-the-scenes details--not to be spoiled by future plot developments! Also, in discussion forums it is considered good netiquette to include spoiler warnings, so perhaps you may want to consider them. Just a thought.
Todd McNeil
toddmc@dingoblue.net.au
Lexx Must Be Promoted
askia, a great deal of classic and recent SF/F literature has children or adolescents as characters, often the hero. I think what most people are objecting to are the stereotypical cute or precocious kids on TV. In books and movies, there is more room to stretch out; thus we can have the "quest" type of story where the adolescent finds and fulfills his destiny. These are often gripping and compelling tales, because they reflect a common archetype. However, on series television, this sort of thing is difficult (although certainly not impossible).
Now, my question is: why isn't the SCI FI Channel promoting the upcoming Season 4 of Lexx more? For my money, Lexx is one of the best SF/fantasy series ever made! It's expertly crafted, from the writing to the design, and it's certainly never predictable. There are eager Lexx fans counting down the days until the season premiere--why not try to persuade more people to enjoy it?
Molly Schneider
smolly4@qwest.net
It's Tough to
Teach SF Literature
enjoyed your editorial ("Science Fiction Is Supposed to Be Fun") in the latest Science Fiction Weekly. You've nailed the central problem in teaching any kind of literature square on the head: how do you teach it without killing it? For every student who is turned on to the literature because of the literature's quality and the enthusiasm of the teacher, there are students who hate it by default because it is being taught.
I taught The Time Machine in my high school science fiction class, and I know that some kids loathe the book now, and this is a novel that I loved from elementary school. It breaks my heart. Thank goodness I'm teaching SF and not fantasy or I might actually make some kids hate The Lord of the Rings.
When I was in junior high an English teacher had us read The Pearl for six weeks. I finished it during lunch the day he handed it out. To this day I can hardly pass the book in the library without a shudder.
It's a tough problem to solve. Sometimes the literature can overwhelm even the most reluctant student's fears. I've had almost universal success teaching Heinlein's "All You Zombies."
At any rate, thanks for the editorial.
Jim Van Pelt
VVanP@aol.com
Teach Love of SF Genre in Class
loved your editorial ("Science Fiction Is Supposed to Be Fun"). You are right about science fiction being fun. I discovered the genre while I could still measure my age in a single digit by watching Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Josie and the Pussycats in Outer Space, Battle of the Planets and The Black Hole, some in my living room, some at the nearby movie theater. I didn't discover written science fiction until I was in college, but I always thought of it as the written form of those beloved childhood memories, so I always read it for fun. I will never forget the sense of wonder I felt reading Rendezvous with Rama for the first time as the brave crew explored the inside of that fantastic vessel. Or the joys of crossing two wonderful genres in The Caves of Steel and its sequels.
I guess the best solution would be if teachers and professors learned to use courses in genre fiction to teach a love of the genre rather than teaching in the same dry style as they do Dickens, Melville or Shakespeare. Actually, I was fortunate in that most of my Literature teachers, both in high school and college, seemed to enjoy the works they were teaching and were able to convey that interest to me. For example, I will never forget discovering Frank Stockton's famous "The Lady or the Tiger" as a high school freshman reading a story assigned as homework. And my teachers always seemed to do a great job of pointing out some of the stuff in Shakespeare that misses the eyes of the casual 20th (and 21st) century reader. Keep up the good (and fun) work.
Amy S. Farmer
amysfarmer@hotmail.com
Blame Policies for SF Autopsies
have a few comments regarding your editorial, "Science Fiction Is Supposed to Be Fun." All writers, regardless of genre, write to be read. Most writers write to be read while entertaining the reader with the world that they have created and peopled with characters. Many write to be read and to exorcise their inner demons; deliver some form of a message; question our assumptions; experiment with the limits of language, conventions, and structure
while at the same time entertaining the reader. However, some do write so that their works will be read and analyzed.
Ah, it is the rare creator who writes with the sole purpose of having their works subjected to the autopsy of literary criticism. Such writers do exist and tend to be largely unknown outside of the small network of similarly minded folk--for good reason as their works, while full of symbolism and meaning, lack any real elements of story. The majority of high school students will be fortunate enough never to come into contact with these works--undergraduate students of literature will be less fortunate in this regard, but it is a risk that goes hand-in-hand with their choice of discipline.
Nevertheless, one can safely say that the vast majority of literary works (be they novels, short fiction, poetry or plays) were created by their author(s) with the intention that they would be read/performed and found to be entertaining. That said, anything that is a work of literature--and that includes science fiction--is fair game for literary analysis.
The fact that science fiction now finds itself a subject of literary analysis has little to do with the efforts on the part of some SF writers and editors to "make SF more respectable." While these individuals did have some initial impact and continue to be an influence, the real force lies within the halls of the Literature and Popular Culture departments in universities throughout North America. Science fiction as a literary genre has become increasingly more and more relevant to the everyday "mundane" world. As you illustrated in your editorial in Issue 130 ("Learning to Live a Science Fictional Life"), we now live in a world where that is science fictional--the boundary between science fiction and the "mainstream" has become blurred. This, more than anything else has created the "rush" toward respectability.
However, in regards to the literary analysis of science fiction--there has been no rush. Way back in the distant era of the mid-1970s when I was in high school, we did some science fiction works in English (literature) class. Mind, we only did those few works that had been stamped acceptable by the gatekeepers: Huxley, Orwell, Wyndham, and Clarke--all British (there really wasn't much in the way of Canadian SF at that time) and no work published after 1960. The only thing that has changed over the past 25 years is the range of titles which teachers can select from--that range is much wider.
The problem is not that science fiction is being studied in high school, the problem is how science fiction--and any form of literature for that matter--tends to be taught in high school. In general, literature is taught much as you described in the editorial--perhaps the only change being that students are permitted to read ahead if they so choose. Most of the English teachers that I had at high school worked from the dissection model that you outlined. I did have one teacher who didn't. He taught us that although there are allusions and symbolism within a literary work, this was not the reason why the work was written. Shakespeare, Dickens, Atwood, and Wyndham did not write their works to produce literature--which is good for you--but to entertain.
However, this teacher was a maverick. He was young and bucked against authority. All the blame cannot be placed on the teachers of high school literature classes. A large portion goes to the policy makers who decide what the curriculum is, what the goals of the curriculum are, and what novels are acceptable to use as examples to illustrate the material to be covered within the official curriculum. And it is here where the root of the problem reside.
Neil Jamieson-Williams
klatha@digitalgraffiti.com
Not All Teachers Kill SF
here will always be those who look for the easy way out. Since Cliff Notes, or whatever, don't exist for these stories ("Science Fiction Is Supposed to Be Fun"), those too lazy read look for someone to do their work for them. These children have existed for decades, and guess what, they will exist long after you and I have left this Earth. Those who love to read, will do so, regardless of education, those who hate, will avoid it. But, what the teachers are doing here is the right thing, not the wrong thing.
Having read most of what is on your list, I disagree that the sole intent of the authors was "to have fun." Do you really think that Miller wrote A Canticle for Leibowitz just for fun? Might he have had ideas about the Renaissance, the nature of life and death, war and religion, just to name
a few topics? In fact, all the books mentioned have a lot to say about government, humanity, nuclear war, philosophy, religion and a host of other issues that face mankind. The books do not exist specifically for fun. I use Miller's tome as my example because that was the first book I read
that I truly understood and followed the author's references and plot lines. And, yes, it was assigned from an English class. Thankfully, we didn't have to stop at the chapters. But, the point is, I understood and enjoyed the novel more due to being taught to notice those things. It remains one of
my favorites to this day.
But, even in your case, the teacher was trying to teach how to read. By showing how to notice and enjoy foreshadows, plot development etc. The problem she/he faced was keeping everyone on the same page to keep the discussions relevant to learning how to enjoy a novel. I, frankly, would have read ahead and masked my knowledge!
Yes, one has to enjoy what one is reading, but, if I only read for fun (mindless entertainment, like most TV), and not an exchange of ideas, thoughts, philosophies and other ways of looking at the world, well, then, the fun would be gone and I would return to TV.
For those who don't like to read, or have never been taught how to enjoy a book (education's failing), then they will come to people like you looking for short cuts. If teachers want to use classic science fiction (that no current titles appear on your list is disappointing in its accuracy) to teach children how to read, and they learn to enjoy from it, this is all for the better, not worse. In fact, it compliments the writers that teachers have seen the value of their work.
Selecting science fiction will not have effects on the young readers. If it opens their minds further, then any effects are actually beneficial. Do not assume all teachers teach in the manner you were taught. Again, I am not sure they were off the mark anyway. But, your column makes this dangerous assumption. If you wanted to talk about your poor English class, that is fine, but, don't assume all classes work this way.
It is too bad you let a poor (in your judgement) teacher ruin for you the actual purpose of reading. It is not only for fun. Fun is derived from knowing how to read. Based on your column, you missed the point of the whole class.
Dave Kopp
dkopp@se-tech.com
SF Lit Fan Looks to Future
just read your editorial ("Science Fiction Is Supposed to Be Fun"), and I have to add my hearty agreement. The rush to make SF (and fantasy to a degree) respectable has poisoned the genre's sense of fun somewhat. As with your example though, this applies to non-genre fiction as well. It seems to be a problem faced by any decent work of literature, and I doubt it will go away until the general quality of English teachers jumps up a notch or two. Anyway, here's to the future, to a whole generation of teachers who might actually appreciate the books they give their kids. (Not that that will solve the problem of just plain lousy books, those rafts of Star Trek novels, etc.)
Dan Cooper-Vince
KingDanVII@aol.com
Appreciate the Gift of Good SF
n your editorial of May 29th in Science Fiction Weekly ("Science Fiction Is Supposed to Be Fun") you comment on the fact that students are writing you asking for SF Cliff's Notes because SF is being taught as school curriculum these days. They are being asked to read and analyze the writing of our favorite authors. You take a position that this is a bad thing, because SF "should be fun."
I have to take exception with your implication about what is and isn't fun. I have no objection to the idea that "SF should be fun" but I disagree with the idea that speculative fiction addressed as literature is not fun.
I've read every book on your list, and loved them ... loved them. But they are not all light reading, and they should not be. Some works require you to dig in and apply yourself. Some works show us our own world through the lens of SF in a serious and complex way, and do ask a little more of the reader and are proportionately more rewarding. Consider the works of Gene Wolfe or Samuel Delany. Not cotton candy, not necessarily light and fluffy, but deeply rewarding as literary adventures for a sophisticated reader. This is grown-up fun that requires effort and can involve some frustration, as
does anything worthwhile.
What I hear you implying in your editorial is that you mean "fun" as in the bubble-gum crap that has largely comprised SF in the last 10 years or so. We are crusted over with fluffy novels, harlequin romances in space ships, and the dreaded media-tie-in garbage that clogs the shelves. SF has fought a long hard battle for acceptance as a literary art form, and we should be loathe to give up an inch of that ground. But it slips away on the slopes of the candy-brained stuff the new fans feed on.Students who study the old masters now may not get the immediate gratification they might get from the next episode of Buffy or from the next R.A. Salvatore fluff book they read, but they will be exposed to the best that SF has to offer. The precious few who later understand the great gift of these works will look back on the tedious assignments fondly and with affection, realizing that they were in fact having fun, but didn't realize it yet ... Don't rob them of that pleasure.
Tell the students to read the damn books, and write the reports.
Brad Gibson
bgibson@valubond.com
Dune DVD Delivers the Goods
recently purchased the SCI FI Channel's Dune mini-series on DVD. I am finally able to comment upon what this board discussed several months ago! Let me first say that I am one of those (few?) who enjoyed the first movie. It was dark. Brooding. Ugly and beautiful. It was visually stunning. Yes, it was hokey. I mean, let's face it, sound waves as the "ultimate weapon"? Still, I enjoyed it.
However, the depth of character development, the sweeping storyline were missing. I found those aspects in the new rendition. The world of Dune opened up to me in more depth and detail. Combined, the two visions of Herbert's writing make me want to actually face the voluminous writings of the master
himself. (No, I've never read it.) I'm not qualified to say whether either (or neither) of the stories
measured up to the written work--though few movies ever do. I am qualified to say that I enjoyed each one for what they had to offer.
My only disappointment, really, in the mini-series was that the Harkonnen were portrayed as simply "just another politically motivated ambitious house." I much preferred the dark, evil, completely debased version in the first film. I wanted to hate the Harkonnen in the miniseries--but I found
myself laughing at them and wondering how they managed such an incredible web of intrigue with their simplistic overtures.
The wiles of the princess, however, were much better than the first (wherein she was relegated to the role of narrator and "strangely dressed woman in the background").
All in all, I must say, "bravo" for both attempts. Together, I have a vision of Dune that has spurred my desire to tackle the multi-thousand pages of text. In the end, isn't that really the purpose of a movie? Entertain, give a taste, and encourage the viewer to dive into the written word to enjoy the real experience of the story...
(At least, that's what a good movie is to me...)
Evan Moore
EvanMoore@aol.com
Some Star Wars Viewers Don't Get It
hat is the deal with people who don't get it? As far as Star Wars: Episode I not being good: are you blind? Look, this is simple--it works just like yin and yang. If you believe in light when you turn on a light switch, then you also believe in dark. You can't have one without the other. Episode I is what--history right? As compared to parts IV through VI? Maybe you're one of those folks who doesn't like history. That's what Episode I is. That's what all of the new movies will be. The groundwork that lead up to Star Wars, the complete framework. If you don't dig that, then you weren't a fan to begin with.
What are you saying? George Lucas forgot how to be good? I've been an artist since I can remember, at 27 it's easy for me to see how mostly young people don't get it. So think about it, if you don't like The Phantom Menace then logically you can't like the others. It's all part of the same story, not individual ones. They work together synchronously. I'm all for everybody having their own opinion.
But what I see mostly is folks who think Jar Jar was based on a racial stereotype. These are the folks who need to not see the movies in the order of there release. Only in the correct order (I-VI) should this younger generation view the saga. Ever hear someone say they read a a great book but one chapter just didn't cut it? Either you like the whole story or you don't. How many people think that one Star Wars book could make it on its own without the other books movies and comics? It couldn't, because it's a giant saga. One organism, take out the heart, lungs or stomach and it wouldn't last very long.
Oh, and what's up with people who say the special effects don't make it a good movie. Well, guess what rocket scientist? Your absolutely right. The effects are a vehicle, a way to make a point. If you're watching for the special effects (which the nay-sayers are, I can assure you) then you don't get what sci-fi is all about.
Owen Albertson
oalbertson@ec.rr.com
Keep Earth: Final Conflict Alive
ith the exception of the original Star Trek, most of the creations of Gene Roddenberry have had seven-year runs. Please do not let Earth: Final Conflict perish before its full lifespan has come. There are still many strange and wonderful tales to be told in this saga, but if the present producers have their way, the multitude of fans will never get to see them. I agree with Ben Rogers ("SCI FI Should Save Conflict") that it would be wonderful to see one of the headlines on the SCI FI Wire announcing a new lease of life for this entertaining show. The present producers of this show seem to have forgotten that they are in the business to entertain, and have cut away too
much of what made the show a pleasure to watch. Please help the people who enjoy this show, of which I am only one humble voice, to regain a treasure which may soon be lost forever. Thank you.
Tina Farrell
Tinafarrell1017@aol.com
Back to the top.
