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).
A Peer Remembers Poul Anderson
nly now can I write about my feelings. Poul was among the finest human beings I've had the privilege to know.
I don't have the kind of personality that will leave me half as beloved
when my own time comes. But Poul's example inspired me to try—to do as
much good and as little harm as possible. To refuse the indignant lures of
anger and to enjoy when others have their own turn on stage. Only he did
all that easily, with native grace.
Whenever a question of honor arose, I'd ask what Poul would do.
I'm reminded of when Harlan Ellison sent a letter around to all his
peers ... oh, 15 or so years ago ... asking for detailed horror stories
about bad things done to authors by fans. It was for a collection of such
tales. I guess it made sense at the time. And indeed, there were some
doozies. Some that Harlan himself reported could be chiller-film fare in
their own right. Dozens of name-authors sent in hair-raising pieces. But
Poul Anderson, after being nagged a few times for a contribution,
sheepishly answered that ... "Well ... an eager fan once asked permission to
pitch his tent on my front lawn for a few days and use my bathroom, and I
didn't have the heart to say no."
That's it. I mean, who on Earth would ever want to be mean to Poul
Anderson (or Karen, for that matter!) It just doesn't parse. Oh, I
imagine Poul must have had an enemy or two in life, but it's like finding
an unpleasant Minnesotan. I've never met either species and don't expect
to any time soon.
Poul was a great storyteller,
the most natural I ever knew. No one better understood the implications of
plot and character. Show him the first half of any tale and he could
describe where it had to go—the arc that was already implicit in what
came before—like a sculptor explaining what living figure stands hidden
in raw stone. And you knew he had it right.
May I tell an anecdote? Years ago I was asked to take part in one of those
multi-author "round-robins". All participants were renowned pros. Each of
them read all the chapters written so far, then added another. Simple.
Except it was awful! Chapters varied wildly in voice, tense, setting and
protagonist. Even the topic went a drunkard's walk. Not one of these
"pros" paid the slightest attention to foreshadowings laid earlier by their
peers. That is, until Poul's turn came along.
I could almost hear him sigh and roll up his sleeves as he got to work!
Instead of preening and trying to show off, the way all the others had, he
spent his entire chapter meticulously patching and reweaving elements from
every scene that came before. Not one foreshadowing or hint or clue
escaped his notice—though the worst of them were dispatched with swift
and utterly logical mercy. By the end of his portion, Poul had explained
why tense and voice and topic and point of view all varied spasmodically in
those earlier scenes! It was gorgeous—a Frankenstein stitching that
walked and talked and actually made sense. Not one drop of his own ego was
there, only total dedication to making the story—some kind of decent
story—actually work.
Alas, the very next author in the round-robin ignored all this and went
vleaaaah! I decided not to join the doomed mess. Still, I treasured what
I learned about the creative process, especially how a true artist puts the
art first, before even his own vanity. Vanity is nothing. The story is all
that matters.
Let me confess that I would sometimes squint and imagine Poul in animal
skins, making up yarns by a campfire during that long age when we truly
acquired our taste for vivid dramas, back when darkness loomed all around,
and all that we had to fight back with were courage and the high technology
of flame.
And above all, words.
From Poul, I learned the natural length for a truly moving story is what a
bard would have chanted by that neolithic fire. Today we call them
novelettes and novellas—the perfect length to portray vibrant characters
participating in poignant, powerful adventures, uncluttered by the extra
baggage of a six-pound book. Poul was the master of such tales. Though he
wrote countless brilliant and thoughtful novels, most of his awards were
for dazzling/efficient novellas that would leave you speechless for hours
afterward. Poul's topics probed tomorrow with utter freshness, but he knew
how to stir the heart with rhythms drawn directly from those brave
campfires of long ago.
Poul was also kind to his young peers. He and Karen would read stuff sent
to him by total strangers, and offer insightful, informed, well-meant
suggestions. This, too, set an example for those of us who might otherwise
have been too caught up in ego to remember what counts, like our obligation
to pay forward.
He loved his country ... but even more, he loved the kind of civilization of
which America is merely the first example in a chain stretching far ahead
of us. One that turns away from hierarchies of inherited privilege and
looks instead to traits like skill and opportunity and cooperation and
hope. And relentless self-criticism. Make no mistake, he could type a
tragedy to tear your heart out. Still, as with the best sages of SF, he
wrote most passionately and intrepidly about change, poking away at a
myriad ways that change might threaten us or rescue us ... or simply make us
weird. As a Californian, he didn't find the latter prospect daunting. It
sure as hell beat standing still.
And talk about weird ... I still can't believe he's not there, ready and
willing to be called or emailed or asked a bit of advice ... (Though there's
still wonderful Karen ...)
About two weeks ago, Poul had the pleasure of learning an asteroid's about to
be named for him by the International Astronomical Union. Those of us
working on it were unaware of Poul's decline till recently. Fortunately
the discoverer, Glo Helin, was gracious enough to rush the final
bureaucratic process through in time.
11990 Poulanderson is roughly five miles across, in an orbit that can easily be
perturbed to become an Earth-crosser, and then .... Well, I'd much rather
have handed Poul a deed, then watched for another 100 years as he worked
with clever collaborators to develop his real estate in High Orbit.
I felt good knowing he was here.
Funny thing, I still feel good, knowing that he lived. And that humans
were capable of bringing forth such men.
David Brin
brin@cts.com
Poul Anderson Never Forgot the Fans
et us all share a tear and memories of the passing of one of the great writers of science fiction. Rest in peace, Poul Anderson. A truly generous and caring writer who never forgot the fans.
Patrick Campbell
user114793@aol.com
Silver-Screen SF Fails to Satisfy
et another summer of disappointments. And the fall TV season will undoubtedly lead to a winter of even more discontent. What's a loyal fan of science fiction to do? Rage against the failings of Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy? Both were based on video games. What did you expect? Jurassic Park III, Planet of the Apes (six) and RoboCop (How many?) with Star Wars (five) and Star Trek (umpteenth) and Time Machine (I've lost count) on the way, is the genre
to be recycled into the dustbin of trivia? Is there no escape from this irrepressible army of overdone clones?
Take heart, or better yet, steel your imagination. The greatest adventure awaits you. Not at the multiplex or the video store or on your television. Flee the remakes and the rehashes, the sequels and the send-ups, the homages and the has-beens, the rip-offs and the retreads. Go back and discover the origins of the species--H.G. Wells' Time Machine and War of the Worlds, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
Season your palate with a spate of Asimov, a dash of Clarke and a pinch of Heinlein. And don't forget Huxley and Golding.
Screens are windows. Books are doors. Instead of just staring passively, open up, step in and actively explore. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," the adage goes. Those who do not bother to discover the past will find little recourse complaining about the present.
T3, anyone?
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
Ellison's Visions Challenge Readers
realize that everyone has an opinion and that two intelligent people can disagree as to the merits of a particular artist. However, after reading Mike Spurlock's rejection ("Ellison Editorial Isn't Accurate") of the editorial on Ellison ("Why Harlan Ellison Is Essential"), I felt as though I had to come to Ellison's defense. Yes, Ellison can be irritating and obnoxious, but it's not a writer's job to be pleasant at all times. As to being a legend in his own mind, Ellison could easily point to the numerous awards he has won and the inclusion of his stories in too many anthologies to count. Ellison is a legend because he has never wavered in his belief that you should constantly challenge the reader rather than pander to the lowest common denominator.
To go so far as to call him a hack and Roddenberry a visionary may be the most unfounded insult in history. Ellison has constantly pushed the boundaries of fantastic fiction and come up with some of the most indelible imagery in print. I dare someone to read "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" and then tell me that the story didn't move them in some fashion. As for Roddenberry's vision, he did have a pleasant one to watch, but there isn't a thing he put into film that wasn't already addressed somehow in SF literature. No, a true visionary, such as Ellison, produces works that unexpectedly shake down the conventions of what is currently accepted. It is both correct and necessary to include Ellison as one of the greatest authors of genre literature, whether you like his work or not.
Matthew Appleton
Mattapp@aol.com
Ellison Encourages Free Thinkers
r. Spurlock ("Ellison Editorial Isn't Accurate"), I can understand where you might believe that Ellison is a bore. His writing is not for everyone. One thing I can tell you though is that he is in no way a hack. His writing is one of the reasons that that we have a forum like we have here to discuss things.
He wrote many short stories for Analog as well as Galaxy in the '60s, not to mention publishing a great many novels. He pushed the science fiction envelope so that people like Roddenberry could produce a series like Star Trek. Meanwhile, he was writing book critiques for those digests as well as writing scripts for such shows as The Outer Limits and Star Trek. The really funny thing about "The City of the Edge of Forever" is that Ellison won a Nebula for his short story of it.
Pretty good for a hack, huh.
Lastly your letter reminds me of a conversation with an acquaintance of mine about Ellison. He was also saying that Ellison was a bore and I said "Well, John, of course you don't like Ellison. He is a free thinker." John replied "I don't mind him being a free thinker, but he encourages others to be free
thinkers."
Well, duh.
Brian D. Paxson
BPaxson001@aol.com
SF Is More Than Just Words
have to disagree with Kevin Ahearn's letter, "Boulle's Book Must Not Be Forgotten." He makes the statement, "first and foremost, science fiction is words." I do not believe that to be true anymore. The line between fantastic worlds imagined and our own is blurring to the point where imagination is not necessary to see and feel and experience things that were only imagined before. A manned mission to Mars, the Hubble Telescope, robotics and genetic research are just some examples. It's all around us now.
To say that science fiction is only "words" is very limited. Film reflects society and by not including visualized science fiction, you would be excluding so many amazing ideas and things you cannot experience anywhere else. Seeing and hearing the Lightsaber is much more enjoyable than reading
about it flying through the air. The "Alien" is much more intimidating and scary with the eye than a book could ever bring about. So many classics are enjoyed by millions on film instead of the few thousand that read the story in print.
Is that so bad, even if it is an imperfect form compared to the book? The "film" version will never be as good as the book, but the ideas can be similar and can be added to visually. The ideas are shared and explored, that's all that really matters. It is the ideas and imagination and knowing that when you
look at a painting or a film scene and of course a book, you have a chance to go to another world or experience something different. I think Boulle would be pretty damn happy to have his ideas shared in whatever medium that existed, even if they were reinvented and changed. His ideas still make up the structure of the story and why is difference always condemned. It may turn out to be better or more interesting without losing the core of what is being explored or imagined. Science fiction should not stop with or be limited only in the "words." If that was true, there would be no film, no art, no amazing architecture, no color or strange beings and places expressed and shared in a visual sense.
Just imagine science fiction where that doesn't exist.
Dan Findlay
danieljfindlay@hotmail.com
Burton's Apes Crashes and Burns
have usually been disappointed with most summer blockbusters, and Planet of the Apes was no exception. The plot has holes enough to fly the Enterprise through (unsurprising as producer Ralph Winter and writer Mark Rosenthal also worked on Star Trek VI) With the exception of Charlton Heston's cameo, there is no passion in the film, no quality drawing me to the characters so I could suspend my disbelief.
Mark Wahlberg managed to sleepwalk through his role, showing the legendary acting ability of say, Lee Majors. Richard Zanuck must have one sweet deal with his old studio to have gotten this movie through.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.] The Oberon's homing signal works after thousands of years? The chimp Pericles falling out of the sky is a blatant "Simian Deus ex Machina." In the thread of a release two weeks ago, I kept wondering when Wahlberg's satellite phone was going to pop up. Since the Oberon has been destroyed, the lead character is heading back to ... where? Gee, folks, this movie was about as believable as Waterworld.
The good parts were Charlton Heston's cameo, and the shocker ending (which I will not spoil)
If Burton had concentrated on all-original material, he would have been as successful as he has been in the past with Edward Scissorhands and Mars Attacks.
Cliff Curlee
cliffsings@mindspring.com
Apes Redefines Disappointment
need to voice my opinion about the Planet of the Apes movie. I figured this would be as good a place as any. I had been anticipating the new Planet of the Apes movie for quite some time. When I went to go see it on opening night, I was filled with excitement. Little did I know how quickly my excitement would meet with disappointment! I had enjoyed the first hour or so of the movie, and then I realized something. The original movie made you think more about what was going on. This new version basically spoon-fed you every little detail. There was no thinking involved on the part of the audience (unless you were an idiot). The original movie and the book also had more of a point to make than this version. In both the book and the 1968 movie, there had been a social conflict (race) connection made between the story and what was going on in the real world at the time. That is one of the many strong points the original movie has over this new and different version.
I will happily admit the special effects, the comic relief and some of the acting are great in this movie, but sadly that is all it is cracked up to be. It is just another one of Hollywood's big money, hyped-up, twisted version of a great original. [Warning: Spoilers follow.]
Also, one little observation about the character "Leo Davidson," no wonder he was just a pod trainer. Close to the end of the movie the ape trainee "Pericles," who had been missing since the beginning
of the movie, did an excellent job of landing his pod; where as Leo Davidson crashed his twice, once at the beginning of the movie and then again at the end. I personally think that made the character less credible as a movie hero. It made the character look more like an incompetent idiot than anything else. And finally the big surprise ending, more like an ending borrowed for an episode of The Twilight Zone. I mean come on, what kind of surprise ending was that! It just didn't make any sense. I would say, "don't worry, I won't give it away," but the ending is not worthy of that much secrecy. Let me see if I understand it correctly: He finally leaves the ape planet to go back to Earth; and then to discover that when he reaches Earth that it's an ape version of human history. I think everyone who has seen the movie will agree when I say, "that was the most ridiculous and unexpected ending I have ever seen."
Robert Thompson
scifiman2078@ev1.net
"Hominids" Column Was Courageous
really enjoyed this column ("Planet of the Hominids"). It's refreshing to see a media site like SCIFI.com allow as controversial a view as this one is. Far too often in the U.S., the need not to offend the far right religious zealots is the M.O. of large media outlets.
By the way, L. Neal Smith in his series starting with the Probability Broach has the other members of Hominids taking their place along with Homo Sap as recognized sapients with full civil rights, too. Keep up the good work and I'll keep reading and thinking about what you write on, deal?
Tony von Krag
vonkrag@yahoo.com
Mankind Must Be Considered First
ominid Rights? After reading his column ("Planet of the Hominids") in Issue 223, I have to ask Wil McCarthy if he is serious.
Wil, do you really believe that apes are culturally deprived humans?
Or is your tongue planted so far into your cheek that you may need corrective surgery?
The ethical treatment of animals is an issue that provokes strong feelings, but let's not lose our perspective. Humans are also kidnapped. Though not exhibited in zoos, many of us are enslaved and exploited. Until recently, humans have also been used in scientific tests against their will, and "deliberately infected with the most horrific of diseases."
I'll be more interested in pushing the ethical treatment of experimental animals when they stop treating humans like experimental animals, or game animals for that matter. Man's inhumanity to ape is nothing compared to man's inhumanity to man.
"That's a hell of a way to treat a cousin." It's also a hell of a way to treat your brothers or your children. First things first.
Alan Katerinsky
poppabunny@yahoo.com
Enterprise Sounds Must Be Silenced
just saw a promo for the forthcoming Enterprise series on UPN that I hadn't yet seen. I now understand what gave Kenneth Bilash cause to write his recent letter ("Enterprise Puts Trek On Last Leg") about said series. You won't find the words Star Trek being used to promote the show because obviously the producers could care less about the core SF audience. The promo used what sounded to me like alternative rock as the music bed. And I saw enough good looking guys and gals in the quick clip to make me think it must have been a Roswell promo (yeah, I know, different network, but I don't like Roswell anyway.)
What in the world is happening? Star Trek is supposed to be better than this—much
better. Star Trek music is supposed to be about orchestrated significance and not garage band trash. I guess that Seven of Nine was the beginning of the end for Star Trek, if all people care about now are hot babes and cool soundtracks. It's a shame really. The early days of the Federation deserve better. I mean it's a great concept, and a source of many ideas could spring forth. But I'm not so sure. I join Mr. Bilash in hoping against hope that the series is any good at all ...
Joseph Kostura
jkostura@mindspring.com
Klingon Diplomacy Saved Face
. Kroll writes: "I was a little disappointed to learn that the producers of the forthcoming Enterprise series have decided to make the Klingons appear as the Star Trek: The Next Generation version rather than as they appeared in the original series." ("Enterprise Puts Trek On Last Leg")
He goes on to cite Worf's simple retort, "We don't like to talk about it," when confronted with the disparity that is apparent when we see Klingons in the original series as they differ from Klingons from the Motion Picture onward.
The answer does not have to involve genetics, or Klingon politics. It could simply be a matter of makeup and diplomacy.
It could be a simple matter that Klingons, after early encounters with the Federation, decided that they weren't making much headway, and part of the reason was their appearance. They appeared monstrous and beast-like, with a penchant for combat, rather than discussion.
How much easier is it to imagine that Klingons who were likely to encounter humans put on makeup and had surgical alterations to make them more human-like, so that their encounters would go more smoothly?
How much easier is it to explain it all away by saying that there was a policy during those years (of Kirk and the original 1701 Enterprise) of conforming to aliens they encounter in order that they do not scare them away? Easier to catch a fly with honey than with vinegar. An easy way to fight xenophobia.
Much as Kirk and Spock disguised themselves to board a Romulan vessel to steal a cloaking device, I think it fully acceptable that Klingons used the same tactics in early dealings with the Federation.
This would also explain why Klingon appearance in Enterprise will be similar to The Next Generation. This is a period before this social experiment took place, before they learned that they get along better looking more human. But before they learned this, Klingons would naturally look like they do in later series and movies.
Makes sense to me, and no complex back story needed.
Perhaps the results of these early attempts at disguise and diplomacy didn't quite go as planned, and the Klingon race now prefers not to discuss it, hence Worf's embarrassed admission.
No need to complicate this at all, really.
Sean Huxter
sean@turbinegames.com
Mists Does Not Match Bradley's Book
ith regards to H.L. Jeter ("Mists of Avalon Needed Balance") and the others who have polarized on the issue of The Mists of Avalon, the impression I got from Bradley's novel was less a focus on the male/female issues than those of Christian/Old Religion. It was the director's and TNT's decision to simplify it into a Mars/Venus soapbox. Unlike the book, there was no exploration of the Romano-British culture in decline; no influence of the male Avalon priests save for the Merlin (there was another prominently featured in the book, with his own agenda); no examples of a conspiracy to murder the young Arthur, necessitating his removal to fosterage by the old Merlin; no theopolitical squabbling among and between the Christian priests and those of Avalon.
The men in the book did have more of a backbone, and the women and men shared both noble and ignoble traits. TNT did chicken out big-time with the Arthur/Lancelot sex scene, but that might have been stretching the relationship farther than most of the merchandise-buying public could handle.
I agree that the miniseries was too mini to do the book any justice. Like Lynch's Dune, it wasn't so much a movie as a very long trailer. The biggest problem seems to be that it was also stripped of its complexity and dumbed down for mass-market appeal.
I did like the Czech scenery, and the costumes were intriguing (I took many mental notes on design), although not historically accurate, but there was a definite sense of much being left out.
On a separate creeb, as much as I like Loreena McKennitt's music, did they have to use random bits of only two of her songs as the majority of the soundtrack? They couldn't have spared a little money from the horse allowance ...
Linda Stoops
jassmoris@yahoo.com
Bradley's Avalon Is a Masterpiece
irst, allow me to reassure the gentlemen that the misbegotten miniseries of The Mists of Avalon, bears little resemblance to the novel. The miniseries has the same flaw that every other Arthurian movie, from Camelot to Excalibur, to (Goddess forbid!) First Knight. It dwells on the love triangle. As any one who looks at the Matter of Britain, would see, the stories of each knight was as important as the Melrose Place that has become the story. In the novel, this takes less than 1/4 of the pages. The novel, and the sequels, does focus on the feminine point of view. The men in the story are given equal footing. Lancelet (please can we spell
it as the author does) is a true and valiant man doing the best he can. Gwenyfahr is a sad confused woman and so on. But Gawaine and his brother have far more story in the novel, as well they should.
If you are concerned about the disparate treatment of the male characters in the far too short and shallow miniseries, please take this opportunity to read the masterpiece. Page for page, it has the depth of Mallory, Monmouth and DeTroyes.
Diana Rumbold
miladydi@hotmail.com
Spielberg Showed No Intelligence
he Hollywood machine wins again as a smart, clever story is dumbed-down and glossed over for the sake of big summer box office success. I am a die-hard sci-fi fanatic, who has always enjoyed mind-bending
stories that challenge my perspective on life, death, the existence of God and what it is that makes us human and unique. So obviously I was anxiously anticipating how Stanley Kubrick's story A.I.: Artificial Intelligence of humanly created robotic intelligence was going to look on the big screen, especially as a lasting tribute to Kubrick, since he died in 1999.
Kubrick's cerebral, dark and adult story is unfortunately run through the Spielberg machine to cater to the mind-numbed summer blockbuster gorging mass audience. While Spielberg is certainly a master in his own right for creating movie magic and entertainment, it became painfully obvious that Spielberg was not the right director for this film, and the result was going to be a run-of-the-mill summer movie that simply rehashes familiar storylines only for the sake of generating large box office returns.
The movie opens with narration that the polar ice caps have melted due to global warming from industrialization. Despite recent scientific evidence that dismisses the idea that we are in danger of actually flooding our coastal cities by melting polar ice caps, Hollywood loves to perpetuate the myth. We've seen that concept already explored in 1995 with Kevin Costner's Waterworld, as well as scenes of half-buried cities in Planet of the Apes. (By the way, does New York have the only interesting skyline?). It also seemed that Spielberg was doing his usual Walt Disney reincarnation by throwing in elements such as an animated teddy bear, and all the mindlessly repetitive references to Pinocchio. I thought Spielberg's obsession to be the next Walt Disney was satiated with Who Framed Roger Rabbit, his production of the Animaniacs cartoon show and the bloated 1990 Hook.
But I was wrong. We see it again with the painfully out-of-place and over-cute cartoon of the "Dr. Know" character, unoriginally voiced by token crazy man Robin Williams. The "marshmellowy" cartoon element doesn't even fit the dark look of Rouge City, which by the way looked more like a cross between Judge Dredd and Ralph Bashki's Cool World. I hoped that the combined forces of Spielberg and ILM would dream up something more mind-blowing and original. Nobody ever anticipated visions of the future such as Ridley Scott's 1982 Bladerunner, or David Lynch's 1984 Dune. Have we actually run out of ideas?
The clincher was the ending, or I should say, the unexpected second ending. While the art direction changed again by going from cute and Disney-like to more appropriate cerebral and ethereal, it again came off as unoriginal. Spielberg has already done the friendly willowy creatures in Close Encounters. Even James Cameron's Abyss and the more recent Mission to Mars by Brian De Palma have copied the scenario of the benevolent creatures revealing and explaining everything in the last few minutes of the film. Even though in Artificial Intelligence it was done cleverly and visual, it was unfortunately too little too late.
Artificial Intelligence can't be dumbed down and white-washed for the masses. A director such as Ridley Scott or David Fincher would have been better suited for the job. The story demanded that it be told cleverly, cerebral and dark. It was obviously written for adults and would have been given an "R" rating. But Spielberg deviated from the feel of the story in order to churn out a Hollywood blockbuster for the masses. I am offended that within the same PG-13 movie there are overtones of sex, prostitution, child-abandonment, suicide and death, mixed with Disney references and teddy bears. Parents be warned!
Steve Clark
steveclark@the-art-man.com
Back to the top.
