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).
Hugos Should Reward Anthologies
hilst scanning the 2001 Hugo Awards nominations, I continue to see a huge gap—and thus an opportunity—that the WorldCon committee is overlooking by not allowing awards for "Best Collection" and "Best Anthology." I have to admit to being a bit prejudiced on this subject as I am connected with Golden Gryphon Press, publisher of single-author collections and anthologies. And there is certainly no shortage of authors (new and established) who desire to have a short fiction collection published by the small press community. So why doesn't the Hugo Awards both recognize and honor collections and anthologies? How about an internet campaign to influence the WorldCon committee to make this change to the Hugo Awards? Anyone open to these possibilities?
Marty Halpern
martyh@Inreach.com
SF Outsiders Seek Approval
he comments about Frankenstein and Superman ("Teens Created SF's Finest") being the ultimate iconic figures of fantastic fiction were thought provoking. Both characters have been absorbed into modern-day culture in ways that their original creators could never have dreamed. To me they represent flip sides of the same coin. One grotesque, the other god-like, they both strive for a normal life and acceptance.
I always thought that was the genius of both characters. I loved the stories that Alan Moore wrote in the '80s which really described the awesome power of Superman juxtaposed against his desire to find the things we all desire—acceptance and normality. People desire to be something more, but they can also relate to Frankenstein as the outsider, trying to fit in. The creators of both characters created
templates that we can fit our desires and fears on, much like the ancient myths that precurse them. Another interesting fact that was brought up is that the originators of both characters were teenagers. Looking at the nature of the characters, it's not surprising, because they both touch on feelings that often affect teens, alienation and the desire to be something better against tough odds. Also, the ultimate desire to fit in. I believe that's the formula that's produced great fictional characters, ranging from Spiderman to the recent Gladiator character who only wanted to return to his Spanish farm. These aspects fit our society and many of the great civilizations before us, a mixture of greatness and commonality.
Sonja
Brettb4842@aol.com
Now and Again Is Needed Now Again
couple of weeks ago, virtually unannounced except for a few promos, the SCI FI Channel began carrying Now and Again. Many of you may remember Now and Again from its original airing a few years ago on CBS. Now and Again was a refreshingly original show with smart writing and clever dialogue that was well liked by critics and fans. So, it was inevitable that CBS dropped it after the cliffhanger episode at the end of the first season.
Those of us who found the show on the SCI FI Channel were overjoyed, as we now had a chance to see the episodes we missed the first time around. The bulletin boards at SCI FI's Web site had thanks and congratulations for picking up the show, with hopes that something would be done to close the open ending of the series.
Now, in a move worthy of a major network, the SCI FI Channel has stopped airing the series after eight episodes were run as a strip Mondays through Thursdays. Their Web site has no mention of this except that all links to the show are now gone, and there is no information on when or if the show will air again.
Please, SCI FI, don't be mean to your viewers. Let us know what's going on, and don't just air a portion of an excellent show, leaving us hanging for the rest.
Mike Rush
mikelr1@pacbell.net
Man and Ape Have Different Souls
must comment upon the rather poor understanding displayed by those who feel a need to search for the image of God within the animal kingdom. I am replying to Elizabeth Hensley's letter titled "Koko Goes Ape for Religion."
In the 12th chapter of Job, the word "soul" is indeed used. This word means "a living being" and distinguishes itself from an "eternal soul" capable of an afterlife and a sentient consciousness in the very verse wherein it is used. Job 12:10, "In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."
The word translated as "soul" is "nephesh." It means "living being." It is used as a reference for all creatures which are alive—man or beast. The word translated as "breath" is "ruwach." It means "the eternal spirit" and is a word even used as reference to God Himself.
When God created mankind, he gave him "ruwach"—breath, a living spirit and a soul with the potential for eternity. He also placed a caveat upon it. Throughout Scripture, it speaks that the spirit of man is dead until it is revived through faith in Christ. These are people just like Koko,
spiritually. They have "nephesh"—a living soul—but they do not possess "ruwach"—a living spirit.
I realize this is not "science fiction"—and I hope you shall bear with me that I have chosen to reply in this way. I believe this is part of the misunderstanding people—especially highly intellectual people—have with the understanding of faith.
Evan Moore
evanmoore@aol.com
Legalities Are Destroying SF TV
he problem with virtually all of the new fantasy or science-fiction television shows is that their excessive legal concerns for the specific franchise of that show now tends to diminish the full range and sheer fun of the series. If you need an entire legal department to go through before
you can make an episode about, say, space aliens, because you are scared to death that you are going to be charged with ripping off some old The X-Files episode, the overall creativity of any series is compromised.
By and large, this is not a problem, but the range and versatility of any given fantasy and science-fiction series in inevitably diminished. This is a chronic problem in all of the comic book series, but the comic companies tolerate it as a kind of mutually acceptable cross-pollination of ideas. The cable and TV shows producing companies are not so amused. If everyone in Hollywood and the entertainment field in general would just relax their incessant terror of copyright infringement a little, you could have enormously popular episodes, in which say, The X-Files could spoof a Star Trek convention, and Star Trek could spoof The X-Files. Further, everybody in the cable and TV field should look into making interesting cross-over episodes with
shows that are on different stations. To date, this has only been done with David Kelly's Ally McBeal and The Practice, on channels 5 and 7, but there's a big potential there, and it could make television a lot more entertaining in general if everyone involved in making the shows relaxed their super-hypered up sense of copyright territory a bit for the overriding priority of making better entertainment.
Robert G. Schreib Jr.
121562264@msn.com
Davy Crockett Saw Them!
enjoyed your look back at the most excellent film, Them! but overlooked one of the film's lesser known claims to fame. It was while watching this film that Walt Disney spotted the actor playing the minor part of a witness to the giant ants. That actor, Fess Parker, went on to be cast as Davy Crockett. The rest is TV (and Disney movie) history.
Jim James
jimjames2001@hotmail.com
Essential Ellison Creates Deja Vu
s I read Scott's editorial (weeks late, but I was on vacation), I experienced a sense of deja vu. I went through a similar experience over ten years ago with The Essential Ellison: A 35-Year Retrospective. Leafing through and re-reading old favorites (I was born in 1952), it was an entertaining stroll through "Ellison Wonderland." I heartily endorse his recommendation for the new book, except ... For those who have the older retrospective, this one has the same material plus 17 new items, according to The Locus Index to Science Fiction Web page. That is one big lump of paper for an extra 230 or so pages, plus a whole pile of greenbacks as well.
Yesterday, I saw a new edition of Lucius Shepard's The Jaguar Hunter. It has all the stories contained in the Arkham House edition, plus one extra one. It is great to see these and other excellent story collections being reprinted in recent years, however, adding a few stories to a previously published collection strikes me as "cheap" (to borrow a term my 11-year old triplets use when something seems unfair to them). I really don't want to replace my older editions just to get the new material, particularly at today's prices. I guess that makes me "cheap," too!
Brian McCullogh
brian@ums1.lan.mcgill.ca
Burton's Apes Delivered Enjoyment
ell, it is obvious that I am one of the few who actually enjoyed Tim Burton's re-interpretation (keyword!) of Planet of the Apes. First off, I did read the book and I own the original. I am also a Charlton Heston fan, so if anyone should hate this re-hash of the original, it should be me. However, I have been a film fanatic since birth and I knew before the release of this film that Tim Burton's intent was to dazzle us with the action, the costumes, the makeup and, yes, his re-interpretation. So I went into that theater knowing that this film wasn't going to resemble the first. I enjoyed it for its cast, hi-tech make-up magic and action sequences. Most of all, I enjoyed the little wise-cracks that played off the original.
Bottom line, I enjoyed it, because I didn't expect a remake. I expected a film by Tim Burton, featuring Mark Wahlberg, Micheal Clarke Duncan, Tim Roth and some great make-up effects. I was not disappointed. I believe that the only disappointment would have been if Tim Burton tried to copy the original, scene for scene. You all saw what happened to Psycho.
Tina Sena
Tina_Sena@AbtAssoc.com
Apes Ending Irks
agree with Mr. Huxter's comments in last week's edition ("Apes Ending Was Awful") regarding the new Planet of the Apes movie. I walked out of the movie thinking "That's it?"
I really enjoyed the movie. I thought it was outstanding. It never slowed down, you never had the chance to get bored, and, while it wasn't as good as the original (what remake ever is?), it was, on its own, a really good movie.
But the ending just came out of nowhere. There was no plot, no rhyme or reason to it ... it was just a "Boom. Here's the ending, hope we get enough money to make a sequel." They could have ended the movie with Pericles landing on the planet of the apes and that would have been a much better ending.
The comments made by [20th Century Fox's head of distribution] Mr. Snyder really irked me, especially this one: "...but you've got to remember you just watched a movie about talking monkeys in outer space. Don't look for too much logic, you know." My sister and I spent two hours arguing about what that ending was supposed to mean. Basically, Mr. Snyder's telling us that we wasted our time arguing because the ending means nothing. I'm sorely disappointed by the ending of the movie and by Mr. Snyder's comments. Planet of the Apes ranks with Jurassic Park III for the "Bad Ending of the Summer" award.
Adam Clark
aclark@ims-1.com
A.I. and FF Deserve Attention
his is in response to the letters from Jim Mann ("A.I.'s Cloning Problem Solved") and Rick Haney ("Fantasy Plot Was Not Animated") in issue 223. First off, though I know it has been stated many times, but I have to say it as well; in A.I., they were advanced robots, not aliens. I thought it was fairly obvious, even though it took me until they tapped into the kids memory to figure it out. They left hints in the movie, if you were paying attention. Jude Law said it: "When the end comes, all that will be left is us." As for the cloning problems, the robots said that each individual personality was a quantum pathway, or something, and could not be duplicated without the result seen in the movie. I'd assume that they either didn't have the technological knowledge to do it, or it was impossible to do. Plus, if you think about it, blending the memories of two different people would be very difficult to do. I'd think that the subject would go insane from the conflicting memories. But I could be wrong.
Secondly, for Mr. Haney's letter on Final Fantasy, I have to ask; have you ever heard of Final Fantasy before the movie? It's a very popular RPG from SquareSoft. Though I don't know why they call it Final Fantasy, the first thing that comes to mind isn't a porn title. As for your questions, did you even see the movie? I thought they explained in great detail what the eight spirits were, though I must admit I don't know how people can be only infected and not be ripped out fully. Must have something to do with how good the ghost's contact with them is. As for the guns, I don't remember seeing clips, so I have to assume they use energy weapons. If the ghosts are made of energy, and feed on it, then they can be destroyed by it. And the idea of ghosts is in line with the rest of the games; something not normal is going to destroy everything, and a small group of people have to stop it. But I do have to agree on his overall assessment of the film in that they could have done better. That, and the dubbing was off. A lot.
So, in closing, I guess people should watch the film they're griping about a little closer before ripping it apart.
Bryce Tollefson
toll0098@tc.umn.edu
E:FC Deserves Better
ith regard to Earth: Final Conflict, Majel [Barrett Roddenberry] appears to be just looking to distance herself from the show now since she was never really serious about following it through anyway, and I think that is a shame. Some here may recall that near the end of Season One, she balked that the program required "too much work" and a great deal of effort. What series doesn't? Had it been under her husband's control from its inception, and had he remained in good health, he likely would have shown considerably more fortitude in its development.
I don't blame Majel for wanting to enjoy her retirement years—what person wouldn't want to, especially when they're already so well off? But that's not the point—Majel had to know this would happen the moment she loosened her grip and allowed the creative control to shift elsewhere, not that it was ever exactly hers to begin with mind you, but that's also part of the point. She was just interested in the money her estate could generate by selling E:FC and Andromeda and marketing them under Gene's name, which isn't necessarily a crime, but this whole fiasco just goes to illustrate a very distasteful side of the business; namely, marketing something just for Name sake without ever really intending on delivering to the audience what's been supposedly promised.
Gene Roddenberry's name appears above the title-banner for this series numerous times during the commercial breaks of each and every episode and has thus far since this show first began airing, and here, his wife is finally admitting after four years—with the final year still on the way—that it's all been nothing but a sham from the beginning, the whole thing a lie.
She should have known better, and I'm sure she did, since at least the end of year one of this show, and probably before, but then what does she go and do? She has Gene's name stamped on yet another series, knowing full well by this point what a debacle E:FC had turned out to be.
People, "fans" especially, should be outraged at the way they were pandered to by Majel and the Studio powers-that-be, and the shameless exploitation of Gene's name. It goes right to the heart of the whole "Trekkers can't part with their money fast enough, they're all so stupid!" type philosophy that began to rear its head not long after it had become clear that Trek had developed its own franchise.
And while I have no idea at present how E:FC has been performing on the SCI FI Channel since it first started airing a couple of weeks back, something tells me its reception there has probably been little better than lukewarm, in which case, Majel's timing in finally deciding to speak out is propitious at best. She's just out to save her own name and reputation, along with her husband's, but it may be a bit too late for that—and even if it's not, perhaps it should be.
Carl Lawrence
Gary007Seven@aol.com
Fairy Tale of SF Offers Moral
nce upon a time, obedient and ignorant peasants lived out their lives as they always had, loyal to their kings and queens and grand dukes, unaware of the revolutionary upheaval about to shatter the Old World. Who could blame them? For ages, royalty had run their lives and dominated their dreams. The idea of these almost-Godlike beings suddenly swept aside was beyond their limited ken.
Such is the state of science fiction today. For as long as most of its fans have been alive, Star Wars and Star Trek have reigned supreme. Alien, Terminator, RoboCop and others, like ambitious dukes and barons, would make brief runs for a seat at the dual throne and fail, unable to usurp the perennial power of the Roddenberry and Lucas entertainment empires. Pity the poor first novelist with a fresh idea or a revolutionary story.
The houses that once prided themselves on introducing new talent, the hallowed cradles of the original and immortal monarchs, are struggling to cling to what little power they still possess, publishing lower class mega-series or filling their lists with Star Trek and Star Wars novels.
"I've got a very bad feeling about this."
Shouldn't we all? At this Web site, the very heart of the science fiction universe, loyal subjects question the title of a Star Wars film yet to be released and the quality of the new unseen Star Trek series. Have we become like peasants, bickering as to what robes the king should wear to the next royal ceremony?
"Illogical" indeed.
The true power of science fiction is the irrepressible urging of its fans (as felt by Lucas and Roddenberry themselves!) for something new and different, the constant expectation of revolutionary visions on the possibilities of humanity's future and our place in the universe. To those who would continue to bow before their lifelong rulers, content with the only traditions they have ever known or unable to imagine a world beyond the realms of the status quo ... if you are the future of science fiction, then "May the Force be with you" and "Live long and prosper" because the genre doesn't have one at all.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
DS9 Is Not the Star of Trek
read with interest Josh Hadley's letter ("Deep Space Nine Deserves Respect") praising Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and felt that it needed a response or three. In the spirit of friendly debate, then, let me pose a few questions and views of my own.
First, Mr. Hadley, you state that Gene Roddenberry's vision was "flawed" and "garbage." Is it "garbage" to believe that someday, a few hundred years from now, humanity (or humanities) will be evolved enough to value exploration over conflict (as in the original Trek, and explored further in Star Trek: The Next Generation)? Starfleet is not intended as a strictly military organization, although they can defend themselves quite well.
Second, some viewers have called DS9 a blatant clone of Babylon 5; I haven't seen B5 myself except for 1 1/2 episodes, so I can't judge much of it in a fair light, except to cite parallels like the stations themselves, a disgruntled commander who lost his wife in battle, a female alien with militant tendencies who starts out distrusting the commander but changes her mind, a warship strong enough to defend the station almost single-handedly ... need I go on? Add to this the fact that J. Michael Straczynski approached Paramount with the basic idea for B5, but he was rejected—then DS9 arrived a few months later. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Next, space battles are not what Trek is about. While the war arc was interesting, and the conflicts between the characters worked well, too much "gosh-wow" space battling by itself is just so much SFX. Trek is mostly a people-driven concept; that's why the different versions work so well.
Mr. Hadley's statement that Sisko is "less of a hothead than Kirk" is fair, but remember the first season; Sisko threatened to throw Quark into the brig (with the rest of his family to follow) if Quark didn't "volunteer" to become a community leader. Sisko also did something Picard (and Janeway) never did—he actually forced Q off the station by beating him up physically.
Don't get me wrong—I love DS9 equally with the rest of the shows. I appreciate the writing, and a few of the episodes really stand out for me ("In the Pale Moonlight" was great because it allowed Sisko's character to stretch a bit and see the dark side). But the same kind of writing can just as easily be attributed to B5. In this way, DS9 is the least Trek of all the Treks.
I, too, would love to see a DS9 film or two, but I doubt it would fly because unlike the other versions of Trek, DS9 is a closed system. Most of the important story has been told; what can be added now that hasn't been touched on by Pocket Books' DS9 novels, or the comics?
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@home.com
DS9 Should See the Silver Screen
would have to agree with Josh's comments ("Deep Space Nine Deserves Respect"). The DS9 series in my mind was far better than any of the newer Trek series. It was a lot more mature in how it presented the plots and the conflicts were always interesting to say the least.
DS9gave me so much adventure, wonder and excitement. DS9 is everything Star Trek: The Next Generation wishes it could be and it will never be as popular as DS9. Even though, TNG is movie bound, and they have been breaking records with their movies, the last TNG was sort of weak, OK?
Avery Brooks, who portrayed Capt. Sisko, will always be an actor I look up to, because he acted in way on DS9, that made you relate to his challenges. He cared about his station, Starfleet, his family, his crew and his role as the emissary.
Remember the season finale, when he basically gave up his physical existence to save his station and the surrounding quadrant in general? Just the fact that he could not physically be on the same plane with his wife ticked me off. I felt like the finale left a lot of things unresolved, that by bringing out a full-fledged motion picture would resolve it, if it was presented in the right format or storyline.
The other thing that ticks me off, is the fact that I signed a petition with a whole lot of other Trekkies to have Paramount at least consider bringing this great cast back together to create a great movie, that Trekkies would pay $7.50 to see and enjoy. Yet, we have not heard one thing from Paramount or the producers of DS9. Why?
Every Trek film that was ever created does not even hold a candle to DS9, and if the writers and producers of DS9 are not careful, they will have allowed a priceless classic to slip out of their hands, and they will have deprived all of the DS9 fans a chance to see this science-fiction wonder on the big screen!
I would like to put in a request. I would love to see the SCI FI Channel start showing the DS9 re-runs. What will it take to do it, another petition?
The writers and producers, along with executives must acknowledge the popularity of this classic. Bring it home to the SCI FI Channel, where it belongs. If the powers-that-be are not going to give the DS9 fans a movie, then screw them, at least we can enjoy the old re-runs.
I would like to thank the editors of this column and the powers-that-be for allowing me to express my interest on this topic.
Virgil Yancey
Viscusa@netscape.net
Klingon Problem Has Simple Solution
n issue 226 of Science Fiction Weekly, Randy Barrett ("Klingon Mystery Still Unsolved") accepts my attempt
to explain the differing looks between Klingons of the original series, and The Next Generation, and indeed Enterprise. However, he seems to think I overlooked the fact that the "new" version of the Klingon appeared in The Motion Picture, just a few years after Kirk's last voyage on the
Enterprise 1701.
Actually, I do take into account the Klingons as they appeared in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
What Mr. Barrett seemed to assume is that some cataclysmic event must have occurred in the years between Kirk's last voyage aboard the Enterprise, and the time V'Ger becomes a threat, thrusting him back into the captain's chair. That some war must have occurred. Otherwise he considers the change too sudden for my explanation to hold water.
However, a cataclysmic event need not have happened for the Klingons to have decided, suddenly or not, that their attempts to emulate humans was just not working.
The Klingon government is not one of your more stable forms of government, with majority rule and set term limits. The leadership is often taken in bloody coups which can happen at any moment.
At any time, a new leader of the Klingon High Council could simply have pulled the plug on the human emulation project, calling it a failure.
There need not be anything more complicated than that.
Personally, if I were writing it, I would have the Klingon leader who initiated these experiments assassinated, and his place taken by a more aggressive Klingon, who is savagely proud of his heritage, and embarrassed that his predecessor even partook in such condescending experiments in image-altering. Imagine! Stooping to looking like puny humans just to make dealings with them easier!
Klingons, as we know, prefer the direct approach. And with so few benefits to this humiliating program, they just eliminated it.
Which may help explain why Worf refuses to talk about it. It was an embarrassing and humiliating period in Klingon history under a weak leader.
No?
Anyway, it's always fun to talk about ...
Sean Huxter
sean@turbinegames.com
Back to the top.
