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).
SF Literature Is Not Snobby
rian Raney's on-the-mark letter ("SF Literature Is Fun Indeed") on literary snobbery towards science fiction calls to mind the famous couplet of Kingsley Amis:
"SF's no good!," they bellow till we're deaf.
"But this looks good."--"Well then it's not SF!"
Web sources indicate he published this nearly 40 years ago. While SF has grown in acceptance since then, literary circles still look down on it unless it's from what they consider a "serious" author--such as Doris Lessing, Paul Theroux, or, uh, Kingsley Amis. And while it's true that a stroll through the typical SF/F book section vividly calls to mind Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap."), that same law applies to so-called "serious literature" as well--and SF has the advantage of not being pretentious to boot.
Bruce F. Webster
bwebster@bfwa.com
A.I. Projects a Powerful Story
am truly pleased at your review of A.I. A.I. is the best genre movie that I have seen in years. Spielberg's directing, the acting, the Kubrick influence and the powerful story all made A.I. truly magnificent. I almost cried during the movie due to its impact and beauty. However, the greatest part was being able to think about the multiple layers within the story. That has not happened in a long time with the recent flow of big-budget science fiction movies, which are very entertaining but not very deep.
A.I. has depth indeed, but I found it very accessible (excluding Act 3, which scares some people off). It was accessible due to the emotional performances and the use of Pinocchio, a story everyone knows. The only problem is the average 21st century adult is out of touch with his or her childhood imagination. A.I. was not just a retelling of the fairy tale: there are so
many different themes weaving around throughout the movie. I'll point out some not-so-obvious elements and questions that I have been pondering (SPOILERS ahead, I'm afraid).
1. The Virgin Mary: A very interesting theme was the use of the Madonna and Child in a unique way. This is seen in the interaction between Monica Swinton and David at beginning and end, the "chapel" in Rouge City, and in the Blue Fairy. Check this out; it's very interesting.
2. Tragedy and Loss: What could motivate a man (in this case, Dr. Hobby) to mass-market a facsimile of his own son? This is a startling question. If you could, would you bring back a lost loved one? Sure you would, but why put him in a box and sell him? Grieving parent or mad toymaker?
3. A Twisted Pinocchio: Dr. Hobby says,"I guess I'm your Blue Fairy." This is actually untrue. The Blue Fairy gives real life, but the mad doctor can only give artificial life. He is a dark version of Gepetto who deludes himself that he is a god (he even lives at the end of the world). This, to me, is startling. In the future, man can play God and people let him.
4. Prometheus and Jesus: The symbol for Cybernetics is quite interesting by itself. At first it seemed reminiscent of Prometheus stealing fire from Mt. Olympus and giving it to man. Also, it reminded me of a crucifix. Maybe playing God is the final sin of mankind: creating our superior.
There is much more than these observations. A.I. requires a brain. Paying attention to the myriad of images and themes makes it even more interesting. I was amazed and I hope you were too. Thank you.
"To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."
--William Blake
Matthew Marquissee
artoo622@aol.com
A.I. Couldn't Keep Its Focus
just saw A.I. yesterday and in some ways wish I had kept my money in my
purse. The actors were fine, the special effects were stupendous, even most of the storyline was good--up to a point. But the director couldn't seem to make up his mind whether he wanted to make social commentary about the state of humanity (especially toward minorities of whatever kind) or whether he wanted to wax maudlin about love. If he had stopped when David was in the helicopter looking at The Blue Angel it would have been a much better movie--and in so being would have been much more emotionally satisfying and truer to the human existence.
Wanna L. Hite
Sholise64@aol.com
Questions Remain Unanswered in A.I.
read your A+ review for A.I. and I added it to the many reasons I had
to see the movie. I was not prepared for the Kubrickization of a Spielberg fairy tale (or the Speilbergization of a Kubrick downer). Great acting, great effects, beautifully photographed--but where on Earth did the story go? [Warning: SPOILERS following.]
David's tale wandered all over the place in search of a satisfactory ending. Along the way Speilberg/Kubrick introduced a mish-mash of set pieces and questions without reasonable answers. ...
Why did I get the impression that the audience at the Flesh Fair didn't really care about how mechas were a threat to society and were more interested in car wrecks--sorry, mecha wrecks?
Why was it necessary to actually introduce physical elements of Pinocchio? And when did Coney Island move to within swimming distance of Manhattan?
Why did the cartoon Dr. Know (voiced by Robin Williams) sound and act like the genie from Aladdin?
How come Joe reacted so guilty to a crime that we were supposed to believe he didn't commit?
With everything else to discover in underwater/ice Manhattan, how did the mechas/aliens (another question unanswered) know where to find David? It wouldn't be the first place I'd look.
A.I.--very artificial but not intelligent. I was very disappointed. Spielberg should have let Kubrick rest in peace. Or is it the other way around?
Jim James
jimjames2001@hotmail.com
A.I. Creates Opposing Opinions
didn't read Patrick Lee's review of A.I. before I saw the film, but I found that he and I agreed on several points. The film is sure to generate debate, as both I and my Dad--who I had to almost drag into the theater to see the film--had polarized views. I felt that A.I. is possibly one of the best films, let alone science-fiction films, to have come out in recent memory--if not ever. My Dad, on the other hand, found it dull, and when I asked him what he specifically found wrong with the film, he said, quite literally, "Everything."
I'm not surprised at my Dad's reaction. He's said he's not really a science-fiction fan, and admits to not having much of an imagination for the sort of tale that A.I. is. It's disappointing, but I have a feeling that many drawn to the film because of Spielberg may well end up being alienated if they lack not only the type of imagination demanded by Kubrick, but Kubrick's requirement of patience as well.
Justin Graham
jgraham_70@hotmail.com
Time Travel Must Follow the Rules
any people responded to my letter in issue 216 (July 11) "Admiral Janeway Murdered Millions", both in the Web pages of Science Fiction Weekly, and in my personal e-mail box. I apologize if I didn't respond to each one individually.
Most assumed I knew nothing about time travel, little about Star Trek and that I had it all wrong about the diverse timelines that are caused by every decision ever made, even by, as one writer replied: "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."
To which I have to reply, yes, sure, but they don't do it on purpose, and they are not aware of the alternative timelines they are creating. The timelines then diverge, and do not affect one another. They are not callously disregarding the current timeline, the people who were born and are living now who wouldn't be if the timeline changed, and going as far as to break the law to alter what has already happened. They are not murdering anyone, but Janeway did.
One writer wrote: "You must just not understand the concept of time travel." To which I reply, yes, I do, the problem with the Voyager episode is that I was actually thinking about the issues, whereas their writers were not. Of course, part of my purpose in that letter was to evoke a strong reaction. But I still believe Janeway, as written, was extremely callous and in fact genocidal in her actions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm inviting discussion, and am happy to follow through. But how much do you know about me? How much should you know before you can say "you must not understand the concept of time travel?"
I have been reading science fiction for about 30 years. I understand practically every version there is to time travel, and the implications of each.
I also know that they are just theories (only one of which I believe to be true--but that's irrelevant. I can be flexible within a system of fiction, as long as rules are set out) and if a TV show (or book, or movie, or play, whatever) is going to use time travel, it must set out some basic ground rules.
Isaac Asimov was once challenged to write a science-fiction murder mystery, the challenger thought the task to be impossible. He said it was in fact rather difficult because no matter what element of science fiction was used to commit or cover up the crime, must be thoroughly explained at the outset, otherwise you would be cheating. It would be cheating to bring in a matter transporter at the last minute, unless you had previously established that matter transport existed. And by explaining that, by establishing it, it must be done carefully as not to arouse suspicion in the reader that the solution might indeed involve such technology. He wrote The Caves of Steel, which I believe is the first SF murder mystery, or at least Asimov is quoted as boasting that honor.
Same goes for time travel. Ground rules must be set if you're going to use time travel. While the ground rules in Star Trek have involved divergent universes, "Mirror, Mirror", "Yesterday's Enterprise," etc., any attempts at true time travel were used to alter the current timeline, not to create another divergent timeline or continuum. Many episodes deal with going back and changing the current timeline, and very little mention is made of tangential timelines. Otherwise, why would Janeway even bother?
She would know that in some other version of the time divergence, in some other tangent, they did make it home safe and sound, and she would be content with that knowledge. Why then would she go back and change her own timeline when she knew things worked out fine in another timeline?
But the show sets its own ground rules right there. She decided to go back and change her timeline. To make it so her Tuvok isn't suffering in a mental institution. To bring back her Seven of Nine. To make her Chakotay happy. To rescue her 20 red-shirts. If the rules are as you say, then she would know she can't do what she's setting out to do, because all she would be doing is causing yet another timeline split. But a timeline that surely already exists somewhere in the continuum. Again: Why bother? Her Seven of Nine would still be dead. Her Chakotay destroyed, her Tuvok still in a mental institution. Her 20 red-shirts would still be dead. Don't you see? Her actions would mean nothing unless the assumption is that she is changing her own timeline.
Her decision to go back and change her timeline shows how the Star Trek universe considers time, and the effects of time travel. That decision sets the ground rules. That, and incidents in past episodes, all of which deal with changing an existing timeline to fix something that in (usually) one person's mind, (often the captain of a Federation ship, acting on his or her own) is broken.
So instead, she went back and altered the current timeline, invalidating millions of peoples' lives. Snuffing them out as if they had never existed. "But they didn't exist" you will rebut. "But they did!" Janeway saw some of them. Some of them grew to be 10 years old by the time Janeway decided to delete them from the continuum. Diapers, loose teeth, braces. The whole nine yards.
Not important to Janeway, though. What was important was that she go back, murdering millions, just to get three crewmen back safe and sound (and yes, another 20 red-shirts.)
Think about that for a minute. You may argue that those people still exist in their own timelines. Perhaps they do. But Janeway can't believe that.
When the older Janeway went back and met the younger, she couldn't even care less whether or not she got back safely. Because she knew that her actions would erase her timeline completely, and it would all start over, with the younger Janeway who got home safely. Why would she be willing to sacrifice herself and millions of others just in order to do something that natural selection within the divergent timelines (in your theory) already did? For every decision made, a new timeline forms. So in countless other timelines, she's always been home and dry. With that fact given, her motives speak volumes.
As to my knowledge of Star Trek:
I have seen every Star Trek episode many times, yes, even the god-awful ones. ("Herbert! Herbert! Herbert!"; "You're a grup!"). I have seen every Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, yes, even the god-awful ones ("I just want to be human" --Data; Wesley saves the day (yawn) yet again). I have seen (with perhaps a few exceptions) every Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode. I have seen all the movies repeatedly. I stopped watching Voyager after season two. It was too painful.
I originally thought Seven of Nine would be a good addition to the show, as I really like the Borg concept, but it bogged it down so badly it was hard to watch. The casting choice was unfortunate. Jeri Ryan has one good thing going for her--a damned good agent.
If you want to learn more about the theories of time travel, I recommend Larry Niven's series of short stories/essays entitled "All the Myriad Ways" in which he publishes essays on various science fiction concepts including matter transport, and why it would be impossible--or at least very difficult--dealing with not only the physics, but the moral implications of the various theories, which in one case involves deleting one human and making an exact copy on the other side ... Is the person still the same? He also discusses how Superman and Lois Lane could never conceive a child, for various reasons consistent to the fiction of that universe. He also discusses the implications of myriad timelines where for each quantum division of time, universes split and diverge. It's hard to find, but if you can, get it. It's not only intelligent, thoughtful, scientifically sound, but also darned funny.
The issue with "Endgame" is ground rules. Once set, you must stick by them or you are cheating your audience. Janeway understood the rules. She was going back to change her timeline, not someone else's. Otherwise her efforts would be futile, and she would really change nothing. She would certainly not sacrifice her life to do something that's already been done in countless other timelines, with no affect on her own timeline, or her own friends. It would be pointless, and a waste of effort. So in doing this, she understood that she would be erasing her own timeline, and all the people in it, and starting again from the point where Voyager turned away from the nebula. Thus, millions of children were not born, millions of relationships never forged, millions of peoples' lives completely altered, for her own purposes. How heinous is that?
There. I hope I've cleared that up ...
Sean Huxter
sean@turbinegames.com
Finale Should Have Finished X-Files
es, yes, I know that we have all heard the tale of The X-Files season ender; but I feel like commenting myself. [Warning: SPOILERS ahead.] As of the ender, Krycek is dead and Mulder and Scully are kissing over Scully's, and most likely Mulder's, new baby. The child is normal. All is well. When I first saw this episode all I could think was, "No!" as I was still all hysterical and distracted by the death of my most adored Alex Krycek. After a week of calming down and reading the posts on my mailing lists, I returned to normal. That is where I had my realization; the fatal fall of The X-files came not when that third shot hit Krycek, not when Mulder and Scully finally kissed, but when Chris Carter in his divine wisdom announced that there would be a next season! That is when I, and many others, realized that the show was dead. Let me support this theory by asking a few questions.
1) Who is the villain?
2) How can Carter possibly write Mulder out if the character is never seen again?
3) How can Scully appear in every episode if she is at home w/ a child?
4) Who will stay to watch a show that should not be carried on?
Think about these questions now. With the unnecessary murder of Alex Krycek, The X-Files no longer has a clear or compelling bad guy. Alex Krycek was the one thing Carter really had going for him till the "incident" in the parking garage. The character could very well have breathed some life into
the show and kept long time fans tuned in. But no, Alex is dead and gone. (Not even the most creative person alive would be able to work around that type of injury, not realistically anyways.)
Next point, the disappearance of Mulder. David Duchovny has already said that he will not return next season, not even for a cameo. How does Chris Carter plan to work that one out when the last thing we saw was Mulder and Scully kissing over what is most likely their child? I have thought a lot about this and can't think of a thing (which is the only reason I'll be watching the season opener). It has also been released that Scully will have a part in every episode. The woman just had a child and her last nanny switched her medication; she is not exactly going to have the time or energy to be chasing anomalies across the country in such a condition. You work that one out.
Finally the question of who will watch. Were it not for my curiosity I would never watch the show again, or at least not regularly. Look again at the final episode. Were it to be the final episode ever it would be wonderful. It took care of a lot of loose ends and ended as we all thought it should, happily ever after. As a finale it would have reigned on high above other enders. It could have been damn near perfect. The major characters positions would have been acknowledged and the show would have ended as it was meant to--Mulder and Scully together, happily ever after, the end. Chris Carter could have been the god of TV shows and we all live happily on analyzing the reruns. This is not to be. Carter is going to drag the series on, prolonging its death when there is no need to. Krycek is dead with no hope of return, but he is the lucky one as it is all downhill for The X-Files now; the show has finally jumped the shark with its decision to continue for one more agonizing season. God help Carter, he's going to need it.
Rachel Gorr
green-lady13@home.com
New Enterprise Follows Canon
'm responding to Stephen Rynerson's letter, "Trek Cannon Has Been Misfired." At first, I was going to respond to Mr. Rynerson in kind with a personal e-mail, as he suggested, but I felt that Trek fans needed more proof to show that Rick Berman isn't trying to "discard Roddenberry's
canon."
According to some new press releases about the premise of Enterprise, it will take place in the year 2151. The series will revolve around a military upheaval that ensues, after humans begin to explore the galaxy, that results in the formation of the Federation. It has also been hinted at that this conflict will involve the Klingons. If this is true, then Berman is following Roddenberry's canon.
It was established in Star Trek: The Next Generation that the Federation was founded in 2161 (they even named a poker game after it called "Federation Day," wherein all aces, 2's and 6's are wild. "A woman's game," according to Worf.)
This suggests that by 2151, there was no Federation, but there was a Starfleet (yes, there is a difference).
Also, in the original series, it was established that the Federation was involved in an "uneasy peace" with the Klingons. This suggests that there was some sort of skirmish, conflict or even war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. This is also hinted at at the Khitomer Conference in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
Secondly, as far as rewriting history is concerned, Gene Roddenberry started that practice himself (after all, it was his idea to give Klingons forehead ridges and Romulans eyebrow ridges, in order to make them look "more diverse" and "more alien"). So, to say that Berman alone is responsible, is unfair in the extreme!
Furthermore, it has been said that Kirk's Enterprise was the first "starship" to bear the name. If you'll listen closely to the first season of the original Series, you would hear Kirk say time and again, and I quote, "This is James T. Kirk of the spaceship Enterprise." She would not become a "star" ship, until Season 2.
So, what does all this mean? It means, that this new "old" Enterprise we'll be seeing will not be a Federation starship, but rather, a Starfleet spaceship. (Again, there's a difference).
And, lastly, neither I nor do any sci-fi fans have a "lackadaisical attitude" towards sci-fi, otherwise we would not still be interested in it. And even if we did, it would not be the cause of sci-fi's decline. That fault lies with hack sci-fi writers (the creators of Lexx come to mind). In other words, "Don't blame the followers, blame the gods, for followers can only worship the scriptures that are handed to them."
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG@webtv.net
Trek Film Shows New Enterprise
have been reading the discussion "Trek Cannon Has Been Misfired" and "A New Enterprise is Possible" of the name Enterprise for the ship in the upcoming Star Trek series for some time now.
I happen to also catch a repeat playing of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It seems there is
an interesting scene where Commander Decker is showing the V'gr probe the rec deck. Among other things he shows it a set of drawings of all the ships named Enterprise. Between the drawings of the Space Shuttle and the Constitution-class ship, there does indeed to be one other.
Sorry, nitpickers.
In reality, I think this is a concept drawing of a ship design for the Phase II ship ... but fascinating nevertheless.
Brian Paxson
BPaxson01@aol.com
E:FC Fans Hope for Intervention
read the report on the glitter campaign for Earth: Final Conflict ("Glitter Protest Aimed At Earth")with interest but a bit
of a sinking feeling. As insightful as the article is, it gives the impression that E:FC fans as a whole wish to petition Tribune Entertainment to restore the actors and characters. Many are not.
Why?
Because Tribune hates the fans.
Perhaps "hates" is an exaggeration, but their apparent disdain for the people who have faithfully watched their shows, and the actors who mesmerized the fans, has alienated many people. A lot of us do not want our favorite actors subjected to such treatment again; the Leni Parker Fan Club president, in fact, has requested that we not demand Ms. Parker's return so long as Tribune produces the show.
In fact, a greater number of fans are pro-SCI FI Channel, hence the rapidly-growing site www.geocities.com/shahariath that asks the SCI FI Channel to gain the show and produce something with those beloved actors. (In fact, it's now backed by the official Italian Star Trek club ... )
In short, every E:FC fan hates Tribune and many of them would welcome intervention from the SCI FI Channel. While we may "glitter" Tribune, we are far more likely to "glitter" people who are willing to hear our words.
Lisa Solinas
jsolinas@erols.com
Fan Felled By Xena Finale
just watched the Xena final last night. [Warning: SPOILERS following.] I will miss this exciting show. I think I watched more of Xena than I did of Hercules. As I was watching it I really enjoyed how the character of Gabriel had evolved into a more well-rounded person. She was strong and not afraid to fight her own battle. It almost makes the death of Xena make sense (so Gabriel can reach her highest potential and live her life doing what she wants and not always worrying about what Xena would like to do) ... I did say almost, didn't I?
I really enjoyed the fighting scenes that Xena had--especially the last one when she put on her signature outfit to kill the evil spirit. Now to why I wrote this letter ... why did Xena have to die??? I just didn't see the reason for it. I sat feeling cheated somehow. I felt like there needed to be another episode to end the show. I will never understand the brutal killing of a great woman. The writer would have us think that all the good Xena did wasn't enough to free her souls or enough for some good angel sent by God to give back her life, because of her selfless sacrifice. I know people who liked the ending would say, who do I think I am? I am the person who sat up every Saturday night until 12:30 a.m. and watched every episode. I sat through the death of the Greek Gods, which marked the beginning of the end of the show.
And while I am at it--what made them fast forward 25 years into the future? Killing Joxer really was a great idea (not). And why did they waste so much time on that Eve lady? Where was Xena's daughter at the end? I think the show should have ended with them walking together talking about their next adventure and how much fun they had in the past few years, like Hercules did. That is all I had to say about the final show--it was such a let down--I cannot believe it is over and how it ended.
Dewayne Stewart
ipha4@yahoo.com
Tomb Raider Kicks Tail
omb Raider: Yes, I thought the movie lacked a strong plot. Perhaps the special effects
could have been better too. But some of the attacks I've read ("Croft Critiquing Requires Craft," "Tomb Raids Reader's Patience" and "Tomb Raider is Fluff and FX") also lack in creativity and thought. I watch movies the first time to enjoy, the second to analyze.
And for those of you with snappy comebacks; yes I have seen it twice.
First attack I can remember was, and I'm paraphrasing here: " ... why didn't the bad guys put guards at the back entrance? Couldn't they hear the plane fly overhead dropping a vehicle?"
Duh! This scene was obviously saying, "Men are stupid and Lara is a more experienced tomb raider who is using hints that her father left behind in his travels to the country." If they didn't know of the entrance's existence, how can they send guards, hmmm?
Let's see, I guess that just leaves the father instance and the auction scene. Just one question on the father--I guess everyone mourns differently or something because I always remember and sometimes cry on the day of my mother's passing. Talk about cold remarks ...
The auction scene. I liked it. I happen to love motorcycles and I love her "attitude" because it undermines the stuffy environment she was in. This is Britain folks, I would expect this kind of behavior to be refreshing. I like the "this is what I'm dressed in, this is my attitude, if you don't like it ... " you know the rest.
I'm expecting a sequel to make up for the lack of weight the film had. But I'm not going to kill it on the spot. Besides the soundtrack kicks tail!
Candice Price
pricevp@yahoo.com
Hollywood Copies Previous Copies
n the comment on the arguments raging about the likes of Star Wars, Voyager, etc., being merely copies of previous stories, I would like to say that this will always be the case whilst Hollywood and its ilk keep to the axiom of "If it works, copy it."
Of course, this mode of thinking isn't the sole domain of movies and television. Innovation is scary, it might not work: the cringe factor then kicks in, in a lot of industries and governments. This is why books will always have a place in society and not just because an author has time to explore characters and themes. It is because most authors have the courage and imagination to jump into the void unfettered by a committee of bankers, shareholders and pollsters who constantly worry about the bottom line and common denominators.
To prove this, just look at the shows aired that use noted authors to script them; just look at the popularity of spin-off books that use the basic premise of the original movie/TV show as its backbone only and then look at the number of productions that fail when sequelled because of a lack of originality.
But I also have to say that not all copies are boring disasters. They work because of stronger storylines than the original, ironic twists to the tale and some times just an hilarious comic adaptation. In this forum we are talking about fantasy anyway, so unless the version you are watching is just too stupid for words, just kick back in your favorite chair and enjoy it.
Steve Boyce
sboyce@goconnect.net
Publisher Pummels Lewis' Narnia
ll right! That's it! Now you're stepping on turf you do not belong on! The turf I'm talking about is the "C.S. Lewis, Chronicles of Narnia" turf. I am a born-again Christian, but I'm also an aspiring Christian fantasy/scifi writer. As a Christian, I'm angry that HarperCollins would have the guts to even think about changing the Narnia Chronicles. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's blasphemous, but as a writer, my blood boils whenever somebody decides to come along and take liberties with another writer's ideas and beliefs that they have placed in their books.
Any writer, Christian or not, should be able to feel safe in the knowledge that his/her ideas and beliefs won't be tampered with by future generations. They tamper with Narnia and take out some of the religious connotations and they will mess with who C.S. Lewis is. He was a man of faith who believed in something so much that he wanted to share it with the world in a way that wouldn't be too offensive to the world around him, as well as using the gifts that God gave him to do it with.
And as a writer, I put into my stories a piece of who I am every time I write. Even if I wasn't a Christian, I would still be angry at what these people are trying to do. Leave Narnia alone! Have some respect for C.S. Lewis, will ya? In closing, I just want to say that I don't harbor any ill feelings towards anyone, I just wanted to voice my thoughts as both a Christian and an aspiring writer. Because C.S Lewis is one Christian who inspired me and showed me that a Christian could write fantasy and sci-fi, I feel I owe him the duty of standing up and defending his work since he cannot be here to do it himself. Thanks for your time, and God bless.
Sandy Ball
wsball@adelphia.net
SF Needs Continuity In Stories
have loved science fiction since the day I could read, and the main things that have annoyed me all along is lack of continuity/consistency in a storyline, a rushed story line and the weak inventions used to justify them. These things are fine when used in shows like Red Dwarf, Third Rock, The Simpsons, etc., which are played for laughs over storyline, but when used in "serious" productions, whether SF or not, they are manifestations of poor production standards, a lack of genuine ideas and a mindset by makers that the audience "won't notice or won't care."
Science fiction appears to be more eager to denigrate the genre than any other. Do we ever hear people say "It's just cops and robbers rubbish?" Do we read critics acclaiming an SF movie. My own father calls science fiction "spacey stuff" even though I was buying SF books as far back as the late '60s.
Why does SF get such bad press? It's because a lot of the early movie-SF was "B" grade fare cashing in on the success of the likes of Astounding Stories and Amazing Tales. This is not to take away from the classic heritage earned by some of them for their use of innovative technology and storyline propositions, but it created a credibility gap fueled by a later generation of "Pop" science fiction shows made for mass consumption by the TV dinner set. SF also had to battle entrenched genres such as the cops and robbers shows, westerns and kitchen sink dramas that the establishment easily related to and knew the punters could relate to.
The early Star Trek sought to change this and suffered a later airing date for it with Lost in Space and its comic book storylines hitting the TV screens first. The establishment did not think the public had the brains for Star Trek.
This latter mode of thought still roams the corridors of TV stations and is fed by poor ratings. To abandon or water down quality production values of continuity, consistency and solid stories is a recipe to lose viewer loyalty and prove the doomsayers right. Then all we will be left with will be cheap and nasty SF no-brainer fluff and no production houses willing to put its money or name on the line for a show like Star Trek or Babylon 5.
I'm not after lectures in quantum physics in my SF, but I do want credibility through continuity and solid stories that hold water.
Steve Boyce
boycesteve@msn.com
Howard's Racism Is Questionable
f Robert E. Howard's sexual orientation is of no importance to Clute, as he claims, we'll leave it at that, and wonder why he bothered to mention such an irrelevancy at all in his review of the Conan Chronicles ("We Cannot Shake Him Loose").
Clute cites Howard's writings as definitive proof that he was racist, and it may be true that he subscribed to some of the prejudices that weren't uncommon to a Texan circa 1920--but if his writings shed light on his personal feelings in the matter of race, I'd like to present the following quote from "The Footfalls Within."
The Puritan, Solomon Kane, is tracking a group of slavers with the intent of freeing their captives.
Kane followed like a brooding ghost and his rage and hatred ate into his soul like a canker. Each crack of the whip was like a blow on his own shoulders...
The fury Solomon Kane felt would have been enough at any time and in any place to shake a man to his foundation. Now it assumed monstrous proportions, so that Kane shivered as if with a chill; iron claws scratched at his brain and he saw the slaves and slavers through a crimson mist.
These excerpts suggest that the character of Solomon Kane, and likely Howard, was empathetic toward the plight of the black slaves. Kane condemns the slavers as "sons of iniquity" and promises retribution. Later, he attacks and kills several slavers before being captured himself. My point is that Howard is not branded a racist as easily as Clute suggests. This debate has been played out before, with evidence weighing on each side. My conclusion? Though not completely without prejudice, Howard seems to have been remarkably forward-thinking for a man of his time.
Joel Jenkins
jenkins@silvernet.net
George Lucas Should Be Left Alone
aving read all the comments on Darth Maul's demise ("Darth Maul Passed Sith Final Exam" and "Episode I Questions Probed"), I now feel it is
appropriate to give my own. While Maul's death was a bit sudden, it did elevate Obi-Wan's Jedi abilities and increase his screentime at the end. Remember, this is a story about the rise of Vader after Anakin's fall from grace. Maul's death was inevitable and even predictable. I agree that Maul
was truly one of the best characters ever imagined by Lucas, but Vader is still the king. Anakin has the potential to be more powerful than any member of the Jedi council, and we all know that the council is exterminated by Vader in the future. That, in itself, should charge the fans' imagination to the point of overload.
It was not one of the best prequels I had imagined, but it was Star Wars! Lucas created something so powerful and inspiring that we argue over the death of fictional villains. I find it amazing that fans would even question why Jar Jar was in the movie or why Anakin built C-3PO. The circle of life, Greek mythology, foreshadowing, fate, kismet, coincidence or whatever you choose
to call it makes for good storytelling. Many of us claim we could have written a better Episode 1, and that may be true, but it is George's baby.
Let's let him be the parent.
Bryce Futrell
castle357@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
