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).
Potter's Hugo Win Under Fire
hat a crock of horse-hockey. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire receiving Best Book honors, in the Science Fiction category? Has the whole world been bewitched by [J.K.] Rowling's drivel?
I can't believe that Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire ranks with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Dune, Stranger in a Strange Land, Ringworld, Rendezvous With Rama, Foundation's Edge, Ender's Game, Blue Mars, et. al. How can anyone think a hack like Rowling is in the same league with the likes of Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, Niven, Card, Herbert, Robinson? Am I missing something?
I read the first book and found it to be mildly entertaining. Perhaps even "mildly entertaining" is an overstatement. However, when I think of the absolutely fabulous books I've read in my 39 years, and how they transported me to worlds beyond my own, it pains me that either science fiction has taken such a dramatic turn for the worse. Or, that nobody seems to know what science fiction is anymore.
It's not that I hate fantasy. Over the years, I've come to enjoy it (thanks to C.S. Lewis and Orson Scott Card), and I look forward to new books by my favorite authors of the genre. However, my first love in reading is still science fiction.
The question is, can the Hugo's now truly be called "Science Fiction Achievement Awards?"
Kevin V. Fifield
deafened@yahoo.com
Potter and Tiger Are Eligible Wins
ow that the Hugos have been announced, there has been a lot of controversy over the genesis of several of the winners; notably the Harry Potter book and Crouching Tiger, as seen in Kevin Ahearn's letter ("Crouching Tiger is Hidden SF"). Folks, get over it already! Fantasy works have been eligible to win the Hugo for decades! Read the constitution of the World Science Fiction Society constitution of the World Science Fiction Society and accept that these works were perfectly eligible, regardless of ones opinions on their worthiness.
As to the matter of a Hugo for Best Anthology/Collection raised by Marty Halpern ("Hugos Should Reward Anthologies"), let me just say it ain't gonna happen. There just aren't enough anthologies/collections released in a given year to warrant the creation of a new award. It also doesn't help your cause in that there already is a category—the Best Professional Editor Hugo—wherein the assemblers of superlative collections can be recognized.
James Ellis
ellisj@cadvision.com
Potter Win Puzzles
am a little puzzled at the choice [to award a Hugo] for [Best] Book. [J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire] I don't think that you can remotely qualify a childrens' fantasy as the best Science Fiction Book of the year. The Rowling books are an event and, though I haven't read them, I applaud their success ... but I just don't think that they are even a suitable entry in the category, much less a winner!
Duke Whedbee
dwhedbee@triad.rr.com
Virtual Worldcon Appreciated
want to thank you and your counterpart, SCIFI.com, for keeping us informed of the events at the Hugo Award ceremony. Your play by play and commentary was entertaining and informative. Everyone in the chatroom seemed to enjoy themselves (up until you announced Best Novel). It was very cool being there when the author of Millennium Babies visited the room to share her excitement.
I was rather disappointed that I couldn't make it to Worldcon, at least, thanks to you and SCIFI.com I was able to attend the Hugo Awards ... virtually anyway.
Don Bassie
dbassie@attcanada.ca
SF and Fantasy Get No Respect
hen Keith Kitchen wrote about the mistreatment of the Starship Troopers: Roughnecks series, he called it poor marketing ("Roughneck Was Poorly Marketed"). Such is the lack of respect for too many good series, both animated and live action, because they fall into the science fiction or fantasy realms.
In the San Francisco bay area, not one local station picked up the animated series Roughnecks and the local cable station does not have a Pacific Coast feed of the SCI FI Channel so 7:30 on the SCI FI Channel was 4:30 locally. Thank goodness for VCRs.
Unfortunately, quality syndicated shows like Stargate SG-1, Earth: Final Conflict and Andromeda, which are being shown by local stations, don't get even that much respect. They are often placed in weekend time slots which get preempted by sports, lotteries and even infomercials. I had to purchase the MGM DVD release of Stargate SG-1 Season One to see nine of the original first season episodes. (I wonder if the show's sponsors would have had me spend money on their products instead? Gee, if I can't see the show, I can't see the commercials.)
Program directors schedule shows based on "market potential" or personal preferences of station owners, managers or themselves rather than using common sense to place shows in appropriate time slots. Other directors seem to lack the ability to make a distinction between science fiction, horror, fantasy and cartoons. All too often they remember the outer fringe of fans wearing Vulcan ears to conventions or StarFleet uniforms to court and overlook the millions of individuals who watch good programs like
Roughnecks and Stargate SG-1.
Joe Castleberry
biowolf@netzero.net
Bakula No Boost to Enterprise
lex Kulenovic wrote about Enterprise ("New Trek Marketing Raises Ire"): "The music deviated from what you'd expect from Star Trek themes. Now, I understand that dishing out another Goldsmith fanfare might not be the best thing to do either, but as someone who rarely listens to anything written after 1950, I'm afraid I don't have much of an appreciation for popular music. ... There is also a rumor that an actual song will be the main theme for the series (that might have been it in the promo, but I couldn't tell). The merits of this decision aside, it does send a clear message: they are marketing to a teen audience."
As McCoy once said, "In a pig's eye!" I'm 36, and I thought the song rocked.
Maybe Alex thinks he won't be seen as so all-out mature if he likes rock at all, but the "rock music equals teenagers" logic went out with the Johnson administration. I think the choice of period is perfect (I always thought it would be more exciting to show the first meeting between humans and Klingons and the equipment when it may or may not have worked). And having a Vulcan observer on board brings up an interesting aspect of the relationship between Vulcans and humans. My problem is one no one else has brought up: the horrible casting of the captain's role. Scott Bakula? He's one of two reasons I never watched Quantum Leap. (The other was his co-star with the cigar and the computer.) He's the biggest hurdle Enterprise has to clear. I mean, he
puts so much "earnest poignancy" into every line he reads, how is he ever going to be able to give the order to fire?
Kevin Convery
KConvery@IOMA.COM
Berman Mangles Trek Universe
s an avid Star Trek fan, I am depressed about the outcome of the latest Trek release for TV. Enterprise may end up one of the best science-fiction shows of the season, but it's not the Star Trek I am used to. It's supposed to be a prequel, not something already in the known Star Trek universe.
Good, fine, wonderful—but they're not even trying to format it that way. Star Trek is one of the most beloved sci-fi shows in existence. It was the Mother of Invention for almost all of the technological products we have today (quick example list: 3.5" floppies, cell phones, CAT scans). I would hazard to say it has more fan-based novels and other written context than any other sci-fi show to date. Yet the producers and directors failed to take that into account. The uniforms are more in place with The Next Generation. They should be in turtlenecks and black trousers, with gold bands signifying rank, not pips and a jumpsuit. They have grossly mismanaged the distance relations between the Federation and its neighbors.
Although Warp engines can get to Q'onos in a few days in The Next Generation universe, they have engines with greater efficiency than the original Enterprise engines. I think everyone involved, especially Berman, should have watched "The Cage" a few times to get a better idea of the universe they are trying to re-create. At least if they based the look of the show on the original Star Trek pilot, they might not lose their avid Star Trek fan base, which by the way is now in the best consumer spending bracket (35-65). They seem so concerned with getting a new fan base, they are forgetting to be good to their loyal fans. Star Trek has the fan base it does because of its positive look into the future, not because of its "western-style" space adventure. Gene Roddenberry may have pitched the show concept as a "wagon train in the stars," but it didn't turn out that way.
IBM uses Star Trek clips in its management training classes! It's the philosophy of Star Trek that makes it immortal. Someone has the wrong idea out there. Gene Roddenberry is probably spinning in his grave like a top.
Star Trek is dead and Rick Berman is the murderer.
Rich Malizia, Jr.
Rich@bdn.com
Deep Space Nine Was Not the First
'm kinda shocked to find that all these years later, individuals like Mr. Carl Jackson are still ignoring the well known truth of the "relationship" between Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5. In the letter entitled "B5 Strangely Similar to DS9," Mr. Jackson states that B5 "hadn't appeared until a year and a half" after the premiere of DS9 in 1993. The Babylon 5 pilot movie premiered in syndication on February 22, 1993, about 1 1/2 months after the premiere of DS9 on January 3 of that year. The first episode of B5's first season premiered on January 26, 1994, less than a year after the pilot. B5's creator, J. Michael Straczynski (JMS), came up with the basic concepts of B5 back in 1986, a year in advance of the premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation. He'd even finished a treatment and writer's bible before TNG had even hit the air! In the process of finding a company to buy and produce B5, these materials were presented to Paramount during the months of June and July in 1989. Paramount eventually declined, but JMS persevered and the rest is well known history.
(Let's remember that at this point, 12 years ago, there was only one straight-out SF show that had ever run for more than two seasons. That show's first name was "Star" and it's second name was "Trek." And the only other SF show that would move beyond its second season also bore those two magical words in its title. No one in Hollywood [save, ultimately, Warner Bros.] thought that any show without "Star" and "Trek" in its title could succeed long enough to be worth producing. Despite its subsequent high quality, Babylon 5 was an immensely hard sell, so it was a highly logical move to try a studio (Paramount) that had had so much success with SF before.}
Given this, let's look at Mr. Jackson's chief contention: "Star Trek's innovation with DS9 prompted other sci-fi producers, like the people at B5, to produce their own similar epic." So they managed to ape significant aspects of DS9 and produce a pilot movie to premiere less than two months after DS9? That would require one of the greatest acts of industrial espionage of all time! Or how about the far more believable scenario, wherein Paramount gives the B5 materials to Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, et. al., and says, "Hey, this sounds cool! Do a version of this just different enough so that we don't get sued!" Not to disrespect some very creative adjustments that the Trek team implemented to make DS9 safely different from B5 (or some very good characters and episodes in DS9's first few seasons), but Mr. Jackson is either ignorant of the true genesis of Babylon 5 or is willfully disregarding how much easier and more logical it would have been for the DS9 producers to pilfer concepts and plot lines from B5 than the other way 'round.
Rick Riebs
falco@eskimo.com
B5 and DS9 Do SF Differently
am a Trekkie, and I like Babylon 5. The debate on which series is better really can't be answered because they are two different styles of sci-fi. The main difference between B5 and any Star Trek series is that ST is episodic, while B5 is a single story. ST is a series made up of stories that usually wrap up by the end of the viewing hour, with a few lasting longer. On the other hand, B5 is single story, told over 5 years, which explains why the series ended in 5 years. A lot of people wanted writer and producer J.M. Straczynski to continue the story. He would not because he did not want the series to last longer than the story required.
During the B5 run, the B5 crew received many scripts that served as story lines for each episode. These same people also submitted scripts to the DS9 crew, which would explain why some episodes seemed familiar. I do feel inclined to point out that Mr. Jackson's comments "B5 Strangely Similar to DS9" regarding the airing times of DS9 and B5 are incorrect. The B5 pilot movie "The Gathering" originally aired on Feb 22, 1993, a month after the premiere of DS9. The show wasn't picked up until a year later. I would also like to point out that the concept of having a space show based strictly on stationary object would get very boring, very fast. It is only a matter of time before a ship comes along to get them to where the action is.
I think B5 came along at the appropriate time. The SCI FI Channel needed a makeover. Swashbuckling heroes, obvious distinctions between good guys and bad guys gave way to back room politics, political subterfuge. The floating UN in space allowed us to view the characters as patriots, acting in the best interests of their government.
If you haven't seen B5, I encourage you to watch it. It is currently airing on the SCI FI channel 7 p.m. EST. I also encourage newcomers to expand their B5 knowledge using the Episode Lurkers Guide at www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html. Enjoy!
Jonathan Turquette
jturquette@ev1.net
JMS Planned Babylon 5 Carefully
did not wish to add one letter to what might be a landslide of e-mail, but I find that I simply must respond to "B5 Strangely Similar to DS9." The gentleman claims that ... excuse my uncontrollable giggling ... the creator of Babylon 5 (His name, sir, by the bye, is J. Michael Straczynski) "mimicked" DS9's storylines and other "innovations." Let me quickly say that I adore DS9. However, the gentleman's contention is nothing but ludicrous. Babylon 5 did not premiere "a year and a half" after DS9. Its pilot episode, "The Gathering," aired in 1993. However, for various reasons, it took another year to begin the series itself, a series I may add, which JMS had pitched to Paramount several years before. If ideas were borrowed, who, then,
borrowed from whom?
The gentleman was "shocked" that Babylon 5 acquired the White Stars ... something which made perfect sense within the story, which had already been planned out from the very beginning of the show (there were, of course, a few changes in the details along the way, but the arc itself was pre-written). No Trek show was ever written out in such a way beforehand ... they developed on an episode-by-episode basis, and, in the case of the later series, kept going until they ran themselves firmly into the ground.
Regarding the ships, I would personally have found other similarities much more suspicious, such as the fact that both commanders were reluctant religious figures for alien races ... but I digress. My point is that B5 did not copy anything of the sort. When the time came in which JMS had scheduled B5's characters to begin fighting the Shadows, the various writers of DS9
were slowly working their into the Dominion war. I sincerely doubt that it had been planned since the show was first conceived.
I also disagree with any comparison between the Dominion and the Shadows. The Founders (pronounced softly and with reverence) would have far, far more in common with the Vorlons.
The reason why DS9 "lasted 2 seasons more than Babylon 5" is not because Babylon 5 was cancelled for poor ratings, but because that was when it was supposed to end. Always. The planned story was over. It's called knowing when to walk away. That's something DS9 had a problem with; it's final season contained exactly two episodes which did not greatly disappoint me. Oh, and by the way, the celestial temple is far prettier than the jumpgates. Paramount, you see, had a budget.
Kate Perkins
Rahne42@aol.com
The Deep Space Debate Set Straight
just saw Carl Jackson's letter ("B5 Strangely Similar to DS9") about "strange similarities" between B5 and DS9, and feel I should set the record straight.
The truth is, Deep Space 9 was not created until 1991, whereas J. Michael Straczynski's first notes and drafts for Babylon 5 date from 1986. He created his Babylon 5 Writers' Bible in the summer of 1987, and pitched the show to CBS, HBO and ABC, among others, in 1988. In 1989 he went to Paramount with Babylon 5, in the reasonable belief that since Paramount already had Star Trek, it was more likely than other studios to buy another serious space science-fiction show. It was reviewed in depth by Paramount's development staff and at one point, it looked like a done deal, then suddenly Paramount dropped support on the grounds that it would conflict with a new series that Paramount had just begun.
(It is widely rumored, though it cannot be proven without access to Paramount's files, that Star Trek: Voyager was Paramount's original planned follow-on to Star Trek: The Next Generation. In 1990 and 1991, Paramount was issuing teaser press releases hinting that the ST:TNG follow-on series would be about the crew of a Federation starship that travels to a distant region of the galaxy. The press releases are probably still out there somewhere, if anyone feels dedicated enough to search for them. To anyone who's read the releases and seen both shows, it's hard to believe they really referred to Deep Space 9 and not to Voyager.)
Later in that same year, Warner Bros. pledged support for Babylon 5, and began working with the Chris-Craft Television consortium to found PTEN, the Prime Time Entertainment Network. In November 1991, Babylon 5 was announced as one of three flagship products for PTEN; the trade press carried the story extensively. Casting for the pilot movie began in June 1992, and filming began on August 10. The pilot was first shown at Loscon 19 in Los Angeles on November 28, and the production edit was completed on January 14 1993.
Meanwhile, by 1991, J. Michael Straczynski's outline for Babylon 5 had found its way to Paramount's production department. While Babylon 5 was being born over at Warner Bros., Paramount was filing the serial numbers off of Babylon 5. Voyager was pushed onto the back shelf, and Star Trek: Deep Space 9 was rushed out instead.
(Note also that J. Michael Straczynski has stated that he firmly believes that Rick Berman and Michael Piller, the writers who created Deep Space 9 and became its producers, never saw the Babylon 5 material. "They're honorable men and wouldn't do that," he said. However, it cannot be denied that the producers and developers, who tell the writers what they want the show to be and look like, had reviewed the Babylon 5 proposal at length and in detail.)
Deep Space 9 managed to beat Babylon 5 to the air, but not by the year and a half that Carl Jackson recalls—the Babylon 5 pilot aired in the week of February 22, 1993, only a month after Deep Space 9's debut, and gained excellent ratings. Preproduction on the series proper began in April 1993, and filming began in mid-July. In September, Foundation Imaging was awarded a Visual Effects Emmy for the pilot movie. The first completed series episode was delivered to Warner Bros. in mid-October, and the series began regular airing in January 1994.
Die-hard Trek fans spent the next seven years after Babylon 5's debut accusing Babylon 5 of having ripped off Deep Space 9, while Star Trek convention hosts urged Trek fans to "get" Babylon 5 fans. Yes, there are very strong similarities between B5 and DS9. But it's because Paramount stole the idea from Babylon 5, not because Warner Bros. stole the idea from Deep Space 9.
Phil Stracchino
alaric@babcom.com
SCI FI Confuses Quality and Trash
nce again the SCI FI Channel has shot itself in the foot. With yanking Earth: Final Conflict and putting on Grade D (make that stand for dumb) movies. To their credit, they brought us Babylon 5 and Crusade, but lost the Star Trek reruns to a NASCAR station while sinking big bucks into Black Scorpion. They produce some good shows and some of the worst sci-fi shows ever seen on this planet. Where is the quality control in this station's management?
In Earth: Final Conflict, they had a show that already had a viewing public. Many viewers, myself included, were overjoyed at being able to see the show from the beginning. I had not seen the first few years. Now who knows when or if it will be back. I hope that someday they will learn to tell the difference between quality and trash.
William A Wernik
zathroslikesdirt@yahoo.com
SCI FI Must Find Its Inner Child
fter reading letters about Earth: Final Conflict being pulled (LA Solinas, "E:FC Scheduling is True Horror") and how Starship Troopers: Roughnecks didn't have the chance it most certainly deserved (Keith Kitchen, "Roughneck Was Poorly Marketed"), I can't resist the urge to add my own comments.
Keith is absolutely correct about Roughnecks. I only wish I had all the episodes taped. Roughnecks had excellent computer graphics for a half hour series, the animators did artistically incredible things on a shoestring! But even more importantly, the storylines and the characters were were even better. The series was nothing like the movie. It was pervaded by a darker tone of the oppression of war, and not just any war—a war that was next to impossible to win.
Roughnecks possessed depth and consistency in the writing, in much the same manner as Gargoyles. Anyone who has watched either show knows that animated or not, these two "cartoons" are two of the best series, period, ever produced.
That being said, I spent time last year wondering why SCI FI didn't give Roughnecks the attention it deserved, why they only showed 4 eps a week and then skipped the 5th (on Fridays), why they didn't recognize it for the treasure that it was. Roughnecks could be sitting beside Farscape in its success right now. They would have made great back to back programming.But alas, SCI-FI was blind to the obvious.
I have seen the SCI FI Channel unmercifully slaughter shows they pick up (trying to pull in fans) like E:FC, Babylon 5, Now and Again, and The Crow: Stairway to Heaven (another top-notch series). Why do they bother to get the rights to these shows then shuffle them around on the schedule or misplace them altogether?
The SCI FI Channel reels in the viewers then hangs them to dry—like we are going to stick around for all those Tales From the Crypt eps because we have nothing better to do? Fans of science fiction are a somewhat discriminating breed. Most of us do not float from one show to another without a thought the way people channel surf through game shows, reality shows and sitcoms. SCI FI promised us E:FC and then did the unthinkable! My digital listings showed E:FC to be on this week, so you can imagine the reaction I had when I found it wasn't on Tuesday night (after Labor Day). Then upon investigation on the internet, I found that we E:FC viewers had been raped and left for dead, basically. I have not been so angry about something related to programming in years. I don't care what people think about the later seasons of E:FC. I want the opportunity to see all the seasons and judge for myself! SCI FI didn't even have the decency to show to the end of the 1st season.
I used to wish that the SCI FI Channel had salvaged Starship Troopers: The Roughneck Chronicles, but today, when I read these two letters, I just wanted to say thank God they didn't get their hands on a rare jewel like Roughnecks! I would rather not have it at all then have it used and abused by the SCI FI network programming gristmill. I am still very angry over E:FC. If Ben Browder weren't so likable, I would be boycotting SCI FI all together right now.
Farscape is it right now though. I want E:FC back!
And finally, I wish that the SCI FI Channel would just add another channel called SCI FI-H (for Horror—like the pay cable channels). At least give us back Highlander, even Hercules and the lighter action fantasy stuff—all the shows we'd like to see beginning to end, and give us a faithful consistent time slot. We would then remain faithful consistent watchers. Even Cartoon Network knows this, in airing its anime series, beginning to end—thank goodness. It's sad to see more programming integrity on a "kids" "cartoon" channel. May SCI FI find this inner child!
Lisa D. Kerbo
LaFemmeCIE@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
