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).
Heroes Like
Xena Deserve Better
o any who saw the series finale of Xena: Warrior Princess (if you haven't yet and you're a
fan, don't read this. SPOILERS ahead. Better yet, don't watch it. Ever.)
Writers and executive producers Robert Tapert and R.J. Stewart should be shot, drawn and quartered and then boiled in oil. And then the real torture should begin. Thank you so bloody much for killing Xena for the finale. May you never produce another TV show again.
Those of us who watch fantasy become very attached to our heroes. They inspire us, and make us feel that the world could be a better place. We identify with them, and wish we could be like them. There is plenty of drama in these series without killing off those whom we hold dear. In the case of the Xena finale in particular, it's a cheap excuse for writing "serious drama," and a slap in the face for the loyal fans who watched and supported this series for six years. OK, she finally gets to be kissed by Gabrielle on the lips, and then she gets killed. A great message to send to the gay women fans (who initially boosted the ratings of the show) on the night before Gay Pride Day.
There has been a rash of this over the last few years. The death of Buffy on the season finale (yes, I know that they're bringing her back next year, but we just don't need the angst!). The death of Buffy's mother (the only person other than Giles who's older than 20-something, which adds richness to the roster, and give us 40-something fans someone to identify with.) The death of Zhaan on Farscape. For those of you who followed the series Forever Knight, they spent the last season killing off every single primary character except LaCroix. Highlander: The Series killed off Richie, and Highlander the movie killed off Connor, both unnecessary. Babylon 5 (my all time favorite series) killed off many, but the death of Sheridan in the final episode was too sad (OK, he was taken away by Lorien to "beyond the rim," a device inspired by legends of King Arthur being taken beyond the mists), but the effect on Delenn was the same. The list goes on.
There is a primal concept that these writers just don't get--we watch television and movies to escape from the horrors and disappointments of everyday life. We don't need our hearts torn out in the name of drama. I've had enough deaths of people very close to me in real life. I'm just sick of it. I'm sick of it being used as a regular plot device in fantasy and genre shows, in their pathetic attempt to gain "respectability." The quality writing of these shows (without killing the main characters) should be all they need for "respectability."
Loren Polans
darklyng714@yahoo.com
Xena's Ending Was Sad But Sensible
his long message contains SPOILERS about the Xena finale. This is for all you Xena fans out there that are "riled" (as other media has put it) about the ending to the show:
Get over it!
Okay, more seriously now ... a lot of other media (I have not seen anything here on SCIFI.com yet) have mentioned that a lot of Xena fans are upset that the titular character was killed off. Even worse, fans are upset that she was "shot full of arrows, beheaded and burned" and that her spirit was whipped, etc.
I agree it wasn't exactly pleasant to watch Xena's demise in this fashion, but did any of you "riled fans" pay attention to what was really going on? More to the point, did you bother to watch the ending?
The entire run of Xena has been about the character's continuing evolution from "evil" to "good." When she was introduced on Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, she was evil through and through, but was set on the right path by Herc. In the premiere of her own show, she meets Gabrielle and the bard-to-be continues to lead Xena down that path.
Perhaps "evolution" isn't correct since she's been "good" for the entire series; in truth, the show's run has been about her redemption, setting right what she, herself, made wrong in the past.
That's exactly what the finale was about. The Japanese town had lost 40,000 souls to the demon lord guy because of her actions in the past. When she learns that the only way to destroy him and free the souls is if another "ghost" does the deed, she knows what she has to do.
And that is why she sets things up in the first hour to take on thousands of archers and other warriors on her own. She is sacrificing herself and is one of the most noble things she could ever do.
As for the beheading, that is entirely in keeping with the ancient Japanese environment. And it was Gabrielle who was instructed to, and carried out, the burning of her body so that her ashes could be used to resurrect her at the top of Mt. Fuji.
What many fans may not have picked up on was that Xena was told that although she would free the 40,000 souls if she defeated the demon, her resurrection would cause them to be lost souls rather than being allowed to go on to whatever proper rest they were supposed to enjoy. Xena stopped Gabrielle from resurrecting her as a noble sacrifice.
And, most importantly, she tells Gabrielle that if there was one purpose for their journeys together it was to bring her to that point--to be able to sacrifice herself for the greater good. It was an absolutely fitting ending to the Xena cycle. Some may see the whole Japan storyline as contrived and I can't say I disagree too strongly with that--I would have preferred that the story be set in Greece somehow. However, it was a spectacularly filmed show.
Finally, before I read anything else about this myself, I want to speak to the whole "Xena should kiss Gabby" thing. I'm sure fans noticed the scene toward the end on Mt. Fuji where Gabrielle "kisses" Xena. However, it wasn't a kiss--she was passing some "fountain of youth" water to Xena's spirit. So, except for verbal expressions of love in a more generalized sense, we have no declarations of a sexual affiliation.
To me, Xena and Gabrielle were best friends who loved each other and would die for each other. Sex was winked at and we were teased, but nowhere in the series do I remember any obvious statement of a physical relationship. They didn't need that. It was a refreshing look at a Thelma & Louise kind of relationship without all the angst. These were fully realized women who could show as much love for each other as--my goodness, Hercules and Iolas (whups! did I spell that wrong?).
It was a buddy show of/for women and I, for one, think the show ended on the right note--with Gabrielle carrying Xena's ashes in her arms and her spirit in her heart.
And who says Xena won't ultimately be resurrected someday? Stranger things have happened on that show.
Martin L. Cahn
editor@demensionszine.com
Xena's Creators Destroyed a Dream
as no one complained about the last Xena show? (Warning: SPOILERS ahead.) It was a horrible way to end the series and I was very glad my children didn't watch it due to the gruesome and graphic way Xena was "killed." What a letdown after six years of viewing! It totally destroyed what could have been an endearing legend. I also wonder if it didn't all come from male revenge.
Beth Layell
blayell@mounet.com
Xena Alluded to An Anime Ending
id anyone see the series conclusion of Xena: Warrior Princess?
(SPOILER alert.)
Somehow, Xena had been killed. Just as Gabrielle was about to revive her, Xena's ghost appeared and made her stop. Xena said that if she came back to life, many souls would be lost, so for the greater good of all, Xena chose to remain dead. The two comrades shared a tearful farewell, then Gabrielle set out on her own, with Xena's promise that "I will always be with you."
Did anyone see the conclusion of the Cell Saga on Dragonball Z?
(SPOILER alert.)
Earlier, Goku had sacrificed himself to stop Cell blowing up the Earth. When the Z Fighters used the Dragon Balls to wish Goku back to life, Goku's ghost appeared and made them stop. Goku said that if he came back to life, the Earth would be threatened by his enemies. So for the greater good of all, Goku chose to remain dead. Goku and friends shared a tearful farewell, and Gohan was left with his father's promise: "I will always be with you."
Am I the only one who noticed this?
Edward J. Wood
EdWoodJr@WebTV.net
Conan Lives On In All of Us
agree that we cannot, in a deeper sense, "make Conan go away" ("We Cannot Shake Him Loose") because such power-fantasies appeal to our most deep-seated human insecurities.
Perhaps, then, Conan (and all his literary bastard children) may at least serve as a kind of warning: "There is a crude, regressive part of you that wants to be Conan. Be careful not to let it out, for it is bound to destroy you."
After all, a bank robber sees himself as a kind of Conan the Barbarian--until he gets caught.
p.s.: Conan is the best-selling monthly comic-book here in Norway and no other Scandinavian country ... I guess he fits in with the nationalistic Viking myth.
A.R. Yngve
pan_krator@go.com
Robert E. Howard Was Not a Racist
ike others here, I took objection to John Clute's decidedly unscholarly comments ("We Cannot Shake Him Loose") on Robert E. Howard in his review of "The Conan Chronicles."
I don't wish to revisit the excellent points Leo Grin made in his letter ("Robert E. Howard Was Only Human"). But I am compelled to comment on Clute's response to Grin that Howard was a "feverish" racist, and that he had a "visceral contempt for black people."
Clute apparently reached this conclusion by reading only Howard's Conan stories. But Howard wrote many non-Conan stories in which blacks and other non-whites appear as honorable and sympathetic characters. In "Black Canaan," for example, blacks are treated with respect. To be sure, the "n" word appears, but this was realistic dialogue at the time. It is true that Howard generally accepted the ethnic stereotypes of the period, but this was common not only in the pulps, but in much of the mainstream media during the '20s and '30s. I used to collect Life Magazine, and I had an issue from 1939 with a photo feature called "Watermelons to Market," in which blacks were stereotyped to a degree that would be abhorrent today.
The same ethnic stereotyping can be seen in Edgar Rice Burroughs, an author contemporary with Howard and far more popular at the time. The "n" word appears throughout Twain's Huckleberry Finn, considered by many to be the greatest American novel. It is simply wrong to apply today's standards to writers living in past decades. This doesn't make their acceptance of incipient racism right, but it's unfair to single Howard out for criticism in this regard. I challenge Clute or anyone to show me
anything in Howard's writings that condones racial hatred.
Even L. Sprague de Camp, who definitely had an anti-Howard agenda, wrote that "Howard was, if a racist, a comparatively mild one by the standards of his time."
Robert Saunders
bobweb@ezwv.com
Howard's Values Reflected His Times
just wanted to add my thoughts about Robert E. Howard in regard to charges of racism, sexism and homophobia ("We Cannot Shake Him Loose," "Robert E. Howard Was Only Human" and "Claims Against Howard Reprehensible").
First, I'm of the opinion that, for a southerner who died in 1936, Howard cannot truly be considered a racist in any really meaningful sense. Born in central Texas nearly a century ago, he did inherit his share of the prevailing prejudices, but I've read nothing to indicate that he felt any sort of active hostility towards blacks or other ethnics. He did at times utilize ethnic stereotypes, then staples of pulp fiction and the vaudeville stage, in his fiction, but was also capable of portraying ethnics sympathetically. His story "The Dead Remember" tells of blacks wronged by whites. A black protagonist, Ace Jessel, appears in several of his boxing stories. Howard's Puritan adventurer, Solomon Kane, finds a spiritual mentor in the person of the black shaman, N'Longa. Blacks do also appear as antagonists in his fiction, and Howard did give vent to misanthropic bitterness on occasion, but in a calmer moment he would write, " ... I lived to a straight and simple creed/ The whole of my worldly span/ And white or black or yellow I dealt/ Foursquare with my fellow man." Howard lived in a different historical era, and was by no means perfect on this score, but I do feel the need to place the damaging charge of racism in some sort of perspective. My view is that he was less hobbled by racial prejudice than the average individual of that time and place.
Such prejudice as Howard did feel may also have been mitigated by an attraction to black women evident in some of his fiction. Howard's sexuality has also been called into question. Evidence of his actual sexual activity is present in two poems ("Love's Young Dream" and "Song from an Ebony Heart") that recount visits to brothels. These make it clear that he derived little satisfaction or pleasure from these experiences, and suggest that he only availed himself of brothels when the typical youthful male cravings proved too uncomfortable. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that his frustrated longings were sublimated into his fiction. Still, I don't see how Howard could be said to possess some sort of "virgin" mindset or was frightened by sex in some way.
In regard to "sexist" portrayal of women, it must be noted that the damsel-in-distress and the femme fatale are conventions as old as storytelling. Howard did feature capable, strong-willed women in his fiction, not just as female warriors, but as heads of state. To suggest that Howard should have peopled his fiction with nothing but women of this type smacks of "politically correct" dogma. In regards to lesbianism, I suspect that Howard (like many another man) regarded it more with titillation than revulsion, but would not have expressed it so in writing to the more priggish Lovecraft. And he was, after all, writing in an era when homosexuality was less well understood. Again, his views were more in keeping with commonplace, respectable attitudes of the day.
Charles Hoffman
chuckhoffman@netzero.net
Conan's Publisher Clarifies Howard
have just been catching up with John Clute's review ("We Cannot Shake Him Loose") of our two-volume set of Conan stories, and the interesting exchange of views with Leo Grin ("Robert E. Howard Was Only Human"). As publisher of the books I wanted to add a couple of points.
First, the books as they appear are in some ways a fusion of two separate projects. I acquired the rights in the stories when we were planning the Fantasy Masterworks series. When I'd done so I discovered that Steve Jones had been working on a similar project. Well, Steve and I--and Jo Fletcher, with whom I've put together the whole list--have all known each other for ages, so it was a simple and logical thing to do to bring Steve in to edit our books. Steve and I both very much wanted to same thing: to free Howard's Conan from the mound of pastichery and exploitation which has risen around him, and show the stories for what they were--for better and, sometimes, worse (I can't pretend to be other than acutely uncomfortable with Howard's racial attitudes, but sometimes one has to decide that the text is what it is, and go with it; if you can't do that, you don't publish it at all).
But I think it's true to say that Steve would rather have arranged the stories in order of writing, whereas I wanted to put them in order of internal chronology, and as the publisher I get to have the last word. Steve is a scholar, and in this context I'm not: I am aiming to bring the stories to a whole new generation of readers, and it seemed to me that it would make most sense to them to read them in the order which most closely approximates the curve of Conan's career. This of course makes difficulty for Steve, trying to trace in his afterwords the development of the stories, when the order in which they are presented is quite different, and of course you can argue that the other order of presentation would have been better. If ours lacks scholarly coherence, that's my doing not Steve's.
It is a matter of acute embarrassment to me that the first book is full or errors: to be technically accurate, it's not a failure of copy-editing, but a slipshod job of typesetting followed by an apparently non-existent job of proof-reading (by a proof-reader who will, indeed, never proofread for us again). We are in the process of re-proofreading the book prior to reprinting (and I'm delighted to say we are reprinting), and I would be glad to have any listing of errors from any reader, be it one mistake or a hundred. I'm glad the second book seems to be of the professional quality we'd usually expect.
Malcolm Edwards
Managing Director
Orion Books (incorporating Gollancz)
MJE@orionbooks.co.uk
SF Literature Is Fun Indeed
ack in the '70s, at the beginning of a ninth grade education, our English teacher outlined the reading assignments for the coming year. He warned us, before announcing the three books we would be reading in his class, that his choices were based on the available number of copies from the schools arsenal of reading material. He had sympathy for those students that had already gone through any of this year's reading assignments in their previous English classes, but they would be forced to relive the experience as the schools budget lacked enough variety to accommodate discerning tastes.
We would be reading Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes, Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. Not a bad selection of books, really, though most of the class was now groaning. It seemed, if they had to relive the experience, at least they would express their displeasure to the rest of us. Leaving little doubt to those of us whom had not read some or all of these books what treats they thought we had in store.
I had read Flowers for Algernon a few years before this class, on my own, and did not mind the imposition of re-reading it again. I thought I was lucky to have the chance of dealing with this work in depth, but I soon realized how wrong I could be.
My ninth grade English teacher, Mr. Rose, finished off reciting his teacher's schedule by insisting we do our bimonthly book-reports on works we read ourselves, nothing from movies or television, and under no circumstances did he want us to write a book-report based on some silly science-fiction pulp. Books about the future, which we could know nothing about, were banned in his class.
To be fair, he also outlawed Harlequin-Romance styled books, comics and pornography. I took exception to his hard and fast rule against SF and asked Mr. Rose for clarification. I knew Flowers for Algernon had won two major SF awards, the Hugo for Best Short Fiction in 1960 and the Nebula for Best Novel in 1966 (tied with Babel-17 by Samuel R. Delany). Thinking my English teacher could use a little education on that subject himself, I proceeded to elaborate on these facts to the whole class. His reaction was far less than gracious.
Daniel Keyes, Mr. Rose told us, was not another Harold Robbins or Jacqueline Susann masquerading as a giant writing some popular literary tripe. He was not a writer of trashy space opera filth poisoning the minds of today's youth with his twisted visions of a never-to-be-seen future. He was an author of a great work, worthy at least of appealing to the discerning tastes of school board trustees, who authorized the purchases of many copies for our school. How dare I cast shadows of doubt on this great book by insinuating that the subject matter was some sort of sci-fi abomination? Shame ...
The truth was we were both championing Daniel Keyes' work and reputation for our own personal motives. I wanted to be able to write a book-report from the staple of science fiction books I had read. Mr. Rose wanted to dispel any notion that Flowers for Algernon could be associated with trash literature for the same reasons the publisher of that novel had the "fiction" imprint placed on its spine instead of SF.
Yet, does what you label a book really matter? Flowers for Algernon is a great read whether you called it speculative, fantasy, or just plain fiction. What does matter is that you enjoy reading it when your mind's-eye browses through its pages. That you are awed by the "tour de force" Daniel Keyes has achieved in writing it. Not what the marketing strategies were in appealing to a large mass readership.
Such petty quibbles about genre should have been put aside, but when you are dealing with a mundane English teacher and his SF prejudices, despite the truth, there is not much you can argue with that won't be reflected on you and your grades.
Yes, science fiction should be fun ("Science Fiction Is Supposed to Be Fun"). It is not the books that prevent the students from enjoying the usually well-written prose, but the ill-informed teachers who are suppose to guide their students through its pages. They have more than a responsibility to ensure we understand what we read between the covers of any given book. They have the responsibility to make sure we can enjoy what we read. Given how they treated mainstream literature, however, I also wondered if that is why I started to read SF.
While I sometimes like watching SF in movies and on television, reading SF is a much more satisfying experience. The written word is less likely to disappoint me, as the visual media tends to do this on a regular basis.
Science-fiction authors demand a lot from their readers. They compel us to consider their complex and in-depth ideas. They challenge us to rethink our commonly held beliefs and widely accepted misconceptions. And they labor hard to make it easy for us to understand such lofty subjects as 'Relativity' or to imagined the complexities of inter-dimensional time travel, without the need of a degree in hyper-physics or having our intelligence insulted in the process.
SF provides a natural mental high that mainstream literature can not reach. Understanding the hidden metaphor or symbolism behind a protagonist's red dress may impress mainstream academics, but it pales in comparison to the implications of chaos theory and the dystopian (or cacotopian) time paradoxes that can be caused by the death of a butterfly in prehistoric times. Adding metaphors and symbolism to that would be redundant.
Mainstream literature hides its well-thought-out meaning in a mosaic of symbolism, while SF strides for the clarion approach. Although some clever people try to invoke metaphors and symbolism in SF, the best stories leave such trappings behind. SF writers express symbolism best through showing the clear implications of causality, not by muddling the truth in some literary slight of hand.
Regardless of my love for the genre and my efforts to uphold the truth, it does not, sadly, always set you free, and I spent that afternoon in a detention class to contemplate my crime against mainstream academia.
I am glad that SF is now appearing in more English classes than ever before. Cliff's Notes be dammed. I wish to believe that SF will make mainstream education fun because people are now reading more SF, and not just because publishers are clearing old author's backlists at discount prices, making these books more economical for school boards to buy.
'Cause, what fun would that be?
Brian L. Raney
brian_l_raney@hotmail.com
Full
Disclosure Is a Good Idea
s always, an interesting editorial ("You Launch My Rocket, I'll Launch Yours"). I wish I could remember who it was who told me that being a writer and a reviewer was a dangerous mix for exactly the reasons you stated. A couple of years ago I started reviewing for Tangent Online (which, by the way, is a Web site that's a great service to the field). At the time I thought it was a good idea for me because through the reviewing I could learn more about what makes publishable fiction work, and I learned a lot.
I still have more to learn, too, but I'm not reviewing the magazines there now. It's not so much that I'm worried that other writer/reviewers might be bothered or flattered by something I wrote, but more that I submit stories to almost all of those markets at one time or another. A negative review might torque off an editor who has my story on his desk right then, and a positive review could look self serving. For example, I reviewed Analog once and mentioned that I thought the selection of editorial material and stories was nicely done, but later when I looked at it I thought someone might just think I was sucking up to Stan Schmidt.
Every writer has to decide what is best for him or her. Andy Duncan has done some reviewing, and I think that he's a very astute reader. I'd hate to lose him or numerous other writer/reviewers because of my squeamishness, but for me, I'm staying away from reviewing the markets I submit to. I told Dave Truesdale at Tangent that I would feel comfortable reviewing anthologies, since that would avoid most of the problems.
Oh, for the sake of disclosure, Tangent Online has reviewed my work and so has Andy Duncan. Even though they generally say nice things about me, I still like them.
James Van Pelt
VVanP@aol.com
Anakin More Annoying Than Jar Jar
'm a huge Star Wars fan. Have been since the beginning. And I've read a lot of Jar Jar bashing here at Science Fiction Weekly ("Darth Maul Passed Sith Final Exam," and "Some Star Wars Fans Do Get It"). But honestly I found "the kid" way more annoying than Jar Jar. I think people tend to cut Anakin a lot of slack because he becomes Darth Vader and thus is an instrumental
part of the story, unlike Jar Jar who is just along for the ride. But to me, playing a character that becomes Darth Vader deserved more scrutiny then Jar Jar's rather insignificant comic relief. I mean, little Darth says "yippy."
Twice. Has anyone read the script? Was "yippy" actually written there? I can deal with the occasional "Carrie!" and parsec mistake, but words like yippy and golly gee whillikers have no place in Star Wars. I wanted to smack that kid every time he opened his mouth. Yet George Lucas has inferred that it is critical to the Star Wars series for the audience to take a liking to this innocent little boy before he later goes through a transformation into something hideous and evil.
Okay, so maybe I can deal with some crummy dialog. But I found the character confusing, too. Was he a head-strong prodigy that built C-3P0 and kicked ass in the pod race? Or was he the bumbling idiot that was witnessed in the Inspector Clouseau-like "What's this button do?" ending. That somehow explained why an entire army of troops ceased to function. Did he inhale toxic fumes during the pod race that made him stupid or something? That's my explanation.
Thomas Huff
thuff1@alumni.umbc.edu
Episode I Tells Wrong Tale
didn't realize Star Wars was still such a hot topic for discussion ("Darth Maul Passed Sith Final Exam," "Episode I Questions Probed" and "Some Star Wars Fans Do Get It"), so I'll jump into the fray.
I was disappointed in The Phantom Menace because I thought they were telling the wrong story: What we got on the screen was the flash and the fights and the cutesy marketable characters (Jar Jar, the Pod Race, the Naboo fighter, the battle scenes), but that wasn't the interesting story line here. The interesting story line was the political intrigue: Senator Palpatine's engineering the removal of Chancellor Valorum and his own ascension, his plotting with the Trade Federation, and his hidden role as a Sith master (actually, Palpatine was the central character of the film). That was the story I wanted to see, but I guess that wouldn't have been nearly as marketable (just as the Tom Clancy novels, and the films made from them, are wonderful, but offer no opportunity for tie-in merchandising).
My other difficulty was with the short-sightedness of the Jedi Council. They fret and fume over the reappearance of the Sith--evil Jedi they can fight and defeat. And they hem and haw over the possibility that Skywalker is the prophesied one who can bring balance to the Force (and if they're all the light side, wouldn't it be obvious that, to bring order, he must lean more toward the dark?). And yet in all that chest-beating and wondering, they never once worry over the fact that there's a creature (and perhaps an entire race) that is immune to the effects of the Force?! Watto hovers around telling Qui-Gon that his Jedi mind tricks won't work, and indeed, they don't. Seems to me that something outside the accepted power structure, in which the Jedi are at the top, would be the single most dangerous element to their continued existence, yet it's blown off as a throw-away line.
That's why I wasn't pleased with the movie.
Ian Randal Strock
ian@lrcpubs.com
Reader Seeks Novel Salvation
've essentially exhausted most of my options in trying to find a particular sci-fi/fantasy book that I read while in elementary school (circa 19 years ago). I'm guessing it's out of print by now. I hope someone out there will know what I'm talking about here.
Story synopsis: OK, my memory is fuzzy at best, so bear with me. There are approximately 12 worlds united by some sort of star gate. Each world has a population ruled by an immortal overlord. The overlords travel through the gates to a "central" location for the purposes of meetings, I think. Some sort of disease-like "disturbance" begins moving through the gates and their respective planets causing the closing of the gates as well as rendering the respective overlord insane/incapacitated. One of the last overlords (a winged creature) sacrifices his life to take on human form as his world dies and its gate is shut down. He winds up on another planet where he searches for the cause behind the madness. He also learns to live as a mortal.
Well, that's about all I remember ... Anyone have any clues?
Please feel free to email me. Thanks!
H.S. Rapoport
hrapoport@palomar.edu
Heinlein's Secret Lay in Stories
was very happy to see Adam-Troy Castro's review of "Have Space Suit--Will Travel." It's nice to see attention paid to the classics. Of course, he was wrong about just about all of it.
Heinlein's great talent was storytelling. Even his books that get all of the physics wrong and have hackneyed plots (e.g., Starman Jones) are fun to read. His occasional forays into fantasy (Glory Road), horror ("Unpleasant ... Hoag") and soft porn mystery ("They Do It With Mirrors") prove that he could have written in any genre he wanted to. He chose sci-fi because of the
ideas.
I will never understand how anyone can rate the derivative Stranger in a Strange Land above his later juveniles like Farmer in The Sky, Citizen of the Galaxy, or Have Space Suit--Will Travel. Calling these novels lesser Heinlein because they were written for teens rather than adults
ignores their quality. They do lack the sex of Heinlein's "adult phase" but their storytelling is not inferior.
The ideas in Will Travel are very well-thought-out. Heinlein gets special relativity wrong, and assumes some sort of space folding to make the story possible at all, but the rest plays out very realistically. The characterization of the mother and father things, the organizational details of the soap contest and the lengths to which Kip must go to to talk to a "representative human" from 1,000 years in the past are amazing writing. The chapters containing the jail break on Pluto, the trial of humanity and the way the alien civilization chooses to make contact with Earth all have better writing and more ideas than (allegedly adult) modern works like The Quiet Invasion or the last dozen books by Ben Bova.
What has Mr. Castro been reading to make him think anything written lately is of a similar quality? I've been reading the Jupiter series, for instance, and not been very impressed. If Will Travel is a "B-" I would be very curious to read the name of any juvenile (a.k.a. Young Adult) novel that he would consider an "A."
Juan Suros
jsuros@yahoo.com
Adam-Troy Castro responds:
Any writer with a large body of work has highlights and low points within that body of work. This is true even of a writer as consistently entertaining as Heinlein, and there's plenty of room for debate on how to rate the individual specimens of his canon. Even The Number of the Beast, which many of his otherwise ardent fans find next to unreadable, has its supporters; this is what makes horse races. As for me, an accurate reading of my review should reveal that I don't actively hate Have Space Suit--Will Travel, and in fact admire its many virtues. I just find it much more formulaic and therefore not nearly as interesting as some of Heinlein's other works.
Regarding Juan's other implication, based on the citation of a recent novel by another author, that there hasn't been that much recent SF of similar quality, I can only say that interesting and challenging work is all over the place if you're willing to look for it. Some works the same side of the street as Heinlein while possessing considerable virtues unique to the individual author; some carves out entirely new territories. My problem is not a lack of names to cite, but such a wealth of them that I don't even know who to name first. You can (and should) respect the classics while still recognizing quality in what came later.
Best,
Adam
Writer Seeks Reader Reaction
recently sent one of my e-published novels, The Pet Plague, to an agent for prospective representation in the print world. I was told that while I had created a good novel of the early Heinlein type, unfortunately there is no market for this type of science fiction any longer. I find that hard to believe. For example, Stephen Gould's Jumper and Wildside fit the same
description and were both bestsellers. Would the editor or readers like to comment on whether there is still a market for novels like Heinlein wrote in the '50s?
Darrell Bain
dbain@lcc.net
Altering Narnia Is Disrespectful
am not a Christian, so I can't speak to Mr. De Vito's contention ("Narnia Religious Message is Clear") that altering the Narnia Chronicles would be blasphemous, but I will agree that it is certainly disrespectful.
I am certain that few writers would disagree that their works are, among other things, legacies. As such, even though I, personally, am not very fond of the religious message that C.S. Lewis was attempting to convey, I will add my voice to those who insist that it was his to convey and that altering them in order to make them, supposedly, more palatable for a modern audience is no less offensive than a suggestion that we rewrite Shakespeare's tragedies to grant them all happy endings would be.
Narnia, like any other composition, cannot be so neatly extracted from the intentions of its author, the intentions of publishers and their marketing departments not withstanding.
Andrew Lias
anrwlias@hotmail.com
Narnia Should Not Be Messed With
on't mess with Narnia! One day, during my fourth grade year at Germantown Elementary in Annapolis, MD, I wandered into the library to find a book. I was very bored and was hoping that perhaps a good story might provide an escape.
I saw a very busy librarian over by one of the book shelves. She was determinedly organizing returned books and placing them back on shelves when I walked up and asked if she could recommend a good book to me. As young as I was, I did not really think to give her any details beyond my desire for a "good book."
Without even looking at me, she glanced at the nearest shelf, reviewed titles for about two seconds, grabbed a book, and placed it in my hands. "Here," she said, "this is a good book." I looked at the book in my hands. It was called, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. I thanked the librarian and walked off. A short and simple exchange, but the impact of that simple request changed my life in a major way.
Not only did this book (as well as the other Narnia books) ignite my imagination and shape my literary tastes forever, the message of the book inspired me to seek a God just like the Aslan character in Lewis' books; one that is both powerful, yet deeply personal. When I discovered, after
rapidly finishing the first book, that there were SIX others to read as well, I was ecstatic.
Since that day, I've read them all numerous times. At one time, I owned two boxed sets of the Chronicles or Narnia, and I plan on continuing to read these books for the rest of my life.
So, you can imagine how I felt after reading the SCI FI Wire story, "New Narnia Push Coming," published on June 28, 2001, which states that, "HarperCollins said it plans to commission new Narnia novels by unidentified authors." Why would they want to do such a thing? Why would HarperCollins do this? Simply put, it's all about money. HarperCollins wants another Harry Potter empire, which is exactly what C.S. Lewis would not want.
Here is my very basic message to any publisher or author who thinks they can add to the Narnia series: Don't mess with Narnia The genius of Lewis can't be duplicated by anyone else, no matter how accomplished, and I like to think that any GOOD author would know better than to tamper with Lewis' work this way.
Go ahead and manufacture Narnia toys, games, maps, illustrations, excerpts, etc., but leave the series itself alone. Make a major motion picture if you want, but this series is complete and perfectly balanced, and any thought of continuing this series in any way shape or form is, at best, entirely ridiculous.
If HarperCollins tries to mess with the series this way, then perhaps it's time to start a movement to boycott their products and services. Please do not let the almighty dollar rule us to the point where we are willing to butcher such superb literature.
David Flanagan
david.flanagan@home.com
New Narnia Changes Are Insulting
want to say the C.S. Lewis books should not be altered. The Narnia series is wonderful reading for children and adults. The series is complete. It takes you from Narnia's creation to the fulfillment of that world. Any attempts to alter the series or add to it would be insulting and degrading. Lewis was a Christian. He wrote all of his books with that in mind. Every book he wrote builds the Christian faith. For more information about this story please check out this Web site, www.worldmag.com/world/issue/06-16-01/cover_1.asp.
Geoff Gentry
ggentry@triad.rr.com
Croft Critiquing Requires Craft
hat in the world is going on? First I would like to congratulate SCIFI.com on a excellent web page. I have not been here in a long time due to the site's predecessors which were very disappointing (due to the lack of information that they contained on anything that I wanted to look up).
All right, I'm sorry, I know everyone deserves to have a opinion and voice it ... but please (I am begging you) stop ripping movies, shows, etc. apart unless you know some background information on it. Such is the case with the new movie Tomb Raider. Beatrice Caldwell ("Tomb Raids Reader's Patience") writes " ... her attempts at having 'attitude' seemed a bit forced. For instance,in one scene, riding to the auction on a motorcycle, walking in with muddy boots, pulling up a chair for her feet, while dressed in black leather, and wearing dark sunglasses. In a word, I'd called that overkill ... "
I am sorry, but as a Tomb Raider fan (since the game originally came out) I have to say that as far as I am concerned that is the exact sort of thing that I would expect from Lady Croft. That scene personifies her take-charge, no-prisoners, don't-care-what-other-people-think attitude. If your
info about Laura Croft comes solely from watching the the movie once or twice and listening to the reviewer clips (on TV), I would like to request that you (nothing against you, Beatrice) spend the time and talk to someone who has substantial info and then feel free to critique the show or movie. I only write this because some people are "intellectually challenged" and therefore assume that you are an authority on the subject and blindly follow your opinion.
Steven Duvall
dotcool@hotmail.com
Tomb Raider Is Just a Movie
just finished reading some of the reader remarks ("Tomb Raids Reader's Patience" and "Tomb Raider is Fluff and FX") re: the Tomb Raider film, and while I do agree that more could have been done plot wise, I fail to understand why sci-fi fans can't sit back and just enjoy a film for being, well, a film. I was brought up around two film critics (my grandfather and my aunt), and all my life I've heard films being criticized for being too fantastical and not realistic enough. Pardon me, but film was at its hey-day when movie goers went to the theaters to escape the real world, and not to have it repeated to them in all its realness, on the big screen. As a sci-fi fan, I watch films with anticipation of the escapism and not the repetitiveness of life. So, to all those who didn't enjoy the film because it lacked more of a plot, that's fine. But to those complaining about enlarged lips and nonsensical character actions ... it's a movie. Movies shouldn't always have to make sense. The beauty of it all is being captured by the fantasy and enjoying it for two hours before exiting the dark theatres and entering a world where people like Lara Croft, sadly enough, don't exist.
Anit Anes
Superhumanalienhunter@yahoo.com
A.I. Touches Hearts and Minds
ust commenting on your A.I. review. I caught an advanced screening of the film on Monday, and have since defended it with others who have seen it. Many think that the third act is what brings the movie down, and the misconception that the advanced robots are aliens acts as a catalyst for that. What's wonderful about the end is how easily it can be misinterpreted--and although the movie felt like it could have ended between the second and third acts, fulfilling Danny's wish to be a real boy so he could love his mother could not have been done any other way. I was troubled the third act mainly because of the voiceovers. They brought me out of the story, and told me everything instead of showing me, which was something that made the experience passive. After seeing all the negative reviews, I'm glad to see someone who did love the movie as well as its individual pieces. A.I. stays
in a certain place in my mind that many movies rarely touch.
Richard Karpala
MrSalads@aol.com
Trek's Canon Has Been Misfired
rdinarily I don't respond to letters critiquing my own missives to Science Fiction Weekly, however, I feel that I must reply to Mr. Boudreaux's letter of June 25 about my criticism of Rick Berman's treatment of the Star Trek canon ("Time Travel Saves Trek Canon").
Mr. Boudreaux's lackadaisical attitude of "it's only a show" is precisely what contributes to the declining quality of science fiction. Attention to continuity/canon is not "sad devotion to that ancient religion," to borrow a line from another sci-fi franchise, rather it shows that a creator actually cares about the product and the fans. A consistent canon, whether in Star Trek or anything else, demonstrates that the writers and producers are thinking about more than just filling out 44 minutes of time, they are thinking about how the characters will grow and change, they are thinking about the consequences of events that happened episodes, or even seasons, earlier. This is not to say that the new series must have a truly on-going storyline like Babylon 5, nor does it have to acknowledge absolutely every point of continuity in the 35 year-old franchise. But it is not unreasonable to expect the creators to stick to at least the rough outline of the franchise's canon.
If Mr. Berman wanted to make a series set prior to the establishment of the Federation, that's fine. That era has not been particularly well fleshed-out by the previous series or movies, so there are lots of story possibilities there that would not conflict with canon at all. However, the record of ships named Enterprise is one detail that actually has been established! Why couldn't the new ship be named Valiant or Bonaventure or something else? It's like Mr. Berman sought out one of the few pieces of continuity for that time period just to stomp on it.
As for Mr. Boudreaux's suggestions about time travel or alternate universes, I'd be willing to accept those explanations if those were the premise of the show. For example, I have no problems with continuity discrepancies in Dr. Who, because it's a basic tenet of that series that the time stream is not linear. And of course Sliders, another series I've enjoyed, was based on the idea of alternate universes. But in those series the premises offer an explanation for discrepancies, while in the case of the Star Trek franchise Mr. Boudreaux seeks to use them as excuses for sloppy work by Mr. Berman, et. al. Thus, even if it causes Mr. Boudreaux to label me as not having a life, I stick by my insistence that at least a modicum of deference be shown to canon unless a reason for the divergence is clearly offered by the creators of the series themselves.
Finally, rather than bore the readers of Science Fiction Weekly with further debate about this esoteric subject, I would invite Mr. Boudreaux to e-mail me with his rebuttal, if any.
Stephen Rynerson
Srynerson@usa.net
A New
Enterprise is Possible
am afraid I must correct Mr. Benton's letter "No Room for New Enterprise." While it is true that a number of ships that bore the name Enterprise were displayed in the ready rooms of Enterprise D and E, those displays were by no means complete. In addition to the ships displayed, there was one additional aircraft carrier (ironically perhaps the most significant real ship considering that it was the Big E of WWII fame) and
no fewer than five prior ships that bore the name Enterprise (two during the American Revolution, one during the war of 1812 and two additional ones in the latter part of the 19th century). Since the display of ships in the Enterprise ready rooms is nowhere near complete, I think the fact that it does not appear in the show is not necessarily contradicted by the show. Also, of course, many details about the new show are still new ... perhaps this Enterprise actually precedes Starfleet and is an Earth ship.
Bill McHale
wmchal1@umbc.edu
Trek Embraces
Infinite Timelines
n answer to Sean Huster's "Admiral Janeway Murdered Millions," quantum mechanics says that every decision that you, I or anyone makes sets up a new timeline. The waitress Shirlene down at the local diner, or the grime-encrusted wino Alfredo who lives under the freeway underpass can change the
timeline just as we can.
This is a hard concept to get your mind around. An infinite number of timelines going on based from certain decision branches for all of us and presumably for any other species living in the universe. Does Shirlene fill the ketchup bottles and put them on the tables or leave them on the wait station? Does Alfred finish his bottle of Mad Dog before he urinates on the traffic below or after?
These outcomes and their aftermath are all the result of probabilities. This is what caused Einstein to reject Bohr's explanation of quantum mechanics by saying God does not roll dice with the universe. The arguments by Bohr and others show that probably He does.
In any decision, the new timeline diverges with you and me in it, but the old one goes on as well with you and me in it. There are billions and billions of timelines some with you and me in it, and some where we are dead or never existed at all. So the universe in which Janeway does not go back in time and Chakotay and Seven are dead, Tuvok is crazy and the Doctor marries a babe is still there. There are also now a multitude of new outcomes in which the Borg win and in some Janeway wins. If Sean or anyone else is interested, Larry Niven has newish book out entitled Rainbow Mars that deals with this very subject of diverging timelines.
I hope this explanation clears Janeway as a mega mass murderer. In some timelines, Shirlene is the new Empress of the American Empire and Alfredo has a clean cardboard box and a bottle of Mad Dog that magically refills self.
T. Hannibal Gay
Hannibal@Hotmail.com
Paradoxes Can Be Paradoctored
ccording to the great Robert A. Heinlein, a paradox can be paradoctored. In "Endgame," Admiral Janeway actually creates the paradox. By simply confronting her younger self, she changed history and perhaps
Voyager might have made it home without losing Seven of Nine and the other crew members that died in the Admiral's universe. She also managed to deal a crippling blow the the Borg. By now, the Borg should realize that although they are immensely strong and technologically advanced, humans can
kick butts far more thoroughly than Species 8472.
I watched "Endgame" twice, and found that it was better on the second viewing. I myself would have enjoyed it more if they would have followed up on Voyager's return to Earth and forced Janeway to explain to Starfleet how Voyager obtained technology from the future of an alternate reality. That would have been fun.
It was fitting that Voyager returned to Earth at the end of the series, giving closure to the saga. I know I'm not alone in my support of the series, though I know many people despised it. I need to add that in the written history of Star Trek, there was a space vehicle called Enterprise before the Constitution-class starship. This ship was also pictured in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Supposedly, this was a ship designed for a Gene Roddenberry project that was
never produced.
Still, nowhere in the history of Trek is there anything that says there wasn't or couldn't be another Enterprise. My objections would be calling the new Enterprise a starship. It has been stated many places that the Enterprise of the original series was the first starship. Let's
keep this in mind. First things first--let's see what the new series looks like and how it's written before we make a judgement.
It could be the best Trek franchise ever--we only have to wait and see. Oh, and don't forget that the first season of the Next Generation wasn't that great, yet went on to be awesome.
Keith M. Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
Scully is X's Main Attraction
K, so everyone seems to be a tad bit mad at Duchovny for leaving the show ("X-Files Season Finale Was Rushed"). But, I say ... who cares? Scully was always my reason to watch the show. In the beginning, I fell for Mulder's vulnerability and I too looked forward to the answers to the obstacles he encountered whilst on his quest to find the truth and Samantha. But, when Season 4 progressed, Dana K. Scully became a stronger figure and a bad@ss and I embraced her. Now, all I can look forward to is another season with Scully at the helm, doing what she does best: keeping hope alive. So to all the Duchovny fans who are peeved ... in the infamous words of "Big" Bill Shatner, "Get a life!"
Crowley Fischer
FischercC@Yahoo.com
Back to the top.
