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.
— 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). If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
n regards to the recent letters on The X-Files ("Little Optimism for New X Season"). A good story has a beginning, middle and a resolution. The X-Files had a solid beginning and jumped to the end of the middle, while the resolution is currently blocked by the powers that be, who are afraid of losing their paychecks.
I don't plan to watch season nine because I know there will never be any resolution, just a never-ending rollercoaster ride that goes nowhere. It was fun for awhile, but it's time to get off and find something new as this current ride is in dire need of repairs.
Alexis Grayson
lexiegrayson@redeyemail.com
aving watched The X-Files since the first episode, I'm inclined to agree about the current state of the show. Somewhere around the middle of the sixth season, I began to realize there were never any answers. Instead, the story would take you in an entirely different direction without finishing what was originally started. And when a particular story arc was finished, it seemed to be done in an abrupt, half-hearted fashion. Constant changes in direction and endless plot lines that never finish, which are never concluded, can only be endured for so long.
And that is why I won't be tuning into Season 9. It's just not fun anymore.
Valerie Holden
redvalerian@gardener.com
ell, as with the last several years with Star Trek: Voyager, it takes up to six weeks for me to finally see what's going on in the Federation. I waited (impatiently, I might add) to finally get to see Enterprise and see if all the hype was worth it.
I find that Enterprise is a veritable breath of fresh air. I truly liked Voyager, despite its faults, but the new addition to the mythos of Star Trek is absolutely fabulous. I find the arguments about the opening theme beyond me. If viewers would listen to the words, they might actually hear something. Yes, it is a deviation from the tradition of more classical music used in the themes of the previous four series, but it is an excellent theme and fits perfectly. Yes, space advances by other countries than the U.S. should have been used as well, but this is an American series—keep that in mind.
I have read detractors say that Enterprise is bad science fiction. I can't change your mind and won't try. You are allowed to have your own say and your own point of view. That's what makes our country so great. I think Enterprise is good sci-fi and good television and I must not be alone: Enterprise, along with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, has helped propel UPN truly into the battle of the networks, a huge leap of the network voted "Most likely to fail."
I'm not a big fan of Scott Bakula, yet I find that he fits well into the role of Jonathan Archer. Yes, there are glitches in the series, but nothing that can't be fixed and nothing that isn't to be expected in the pilot episode of a new series. Here's to Rick Berman and Brannon Braga! May Enterprise fly long and well.
Keith M. Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
his has to rank as one of the sillier Hugo comments yet: "Lately, it seems that those who win the Hugos are the ones who threw the best parties the previous year" ("Locus Needs a Challenger").
Mr. Palmer: Locus hasn't thrown a party in god-knows-how-long. They don't need to.
The Hugo winners didn't throw parties. Throwing parties to garner a Hugo vote is a sure fire way to not win.
As for this: "It isn't fair for him [Charles Brown] to win a Hugo when he is the only nominee in that category." As is said ... "say wha?" Locus was one of five nominees in that category. Sheesh.
And to everyone who is kvetching about this winning or that not winning, I might take your comments more seriously if you were a member of the 2001 World SF Convention. The membership list of the convention is online (www.millphil.org/memberships/memsearch.html), and one can check to see who was naughty or nice if they were a member of the convention or not.
Membership is open to anyone. Next year the convention is in San Jose and a non-attending membership—which gives you the right to nominate and vote for the Hugo and vote for site selection—is a paltry $35.00 (www.conjose.org/Member/membership.html). That's maybe one and a half hardbacks or four, or so, paperbacks that you'd have to not purchase. And if you want to attend, and the current membership fee is bit much ($160 to the end of the year), well, ConJose has an installment plan: www.conjose.org/Member/installment.html.
So ... there is no excuse not to be part of the solution. No reason at all.
Sorry if this comes off cranky, but I'm really tired of uninformed comments.
Michael Walsh
mjw@mail.press.jhu.edu
ell, maybe Robert J. Sawyer had meant that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was not the type of book deserving of Hugo consideration, but that was not (as Brian Gaston strangely pointed out ("Sawyer's Comments Are Misunderstood") what he had said in his interview with Glover Wright. If Sawyer is not opposed to fantasy on the Hugo ballot, then has he been implying that J.K. Rowling should not have won the Hugo because she was not a member of the SF/Fantasy ghetto?
With a quick visit to Sawyer's Web site, you will find a 1200-word diary entry where he tries to rationalize his loss, apparently miffed over the IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) balloting system that the Hugo awards uses. Oh, but it is not the loss to J.K. Rowling that he is grousing about, this time. It is his perceived loss of second place, in the Hugos, to George R.R. Martin and his novel A Storm of Swords. Sawyer argues that if the Hugos had used plurality voting, he would have easily won second place. Instead, with the IRV system, Sawyer contends that he came in seconded for first place, while George R.R. Martin came in first for second place.
This kind of hair splitting, on Sawyer's part, does not convince me that I inferred my opinions or misinterpreted his statements all that much ("'Novel' Hugo Should Be Separated"). I still question his motives at making an issue out of losing the Hugo to J.K. Rowling; but that is his professional career, and he was a publicist before he became a full-timed science fiction writer, so I guess he knows what he is doing. Leaving the rest of us scratching our heads in wonder.
Maybe J.K. Rowling had won because she had refused to play Hugo politics by not bribing her fans, if they would promise to vote for her, with free autographed book-club-edition copies of her works. Maybe J.K. Rowling had won because of the thoughtful use of a new technological advance that has allowed fantasy fans the opportunity of online voting. Or maybe J.K. Rowling had won because she had very little involvement in her winning the Hugo, at all, other than having written a great book.
Brian L. Raney
brian_l_raney@hotmail.com
couldn't disagree more with the comments that James Palmer made about quality of Locus as compared to Science Fiction Chronicle ("Locus Needs a Challenger"). I've been a regular reader of Locus since the late '80s and enjoy reading the magazine cover to cover. I enjoy the in-depth interviews and find the reviews especially enlightening. I've discovered many a terrific author or book as a result of their thorough reviews. And I live by the Forthcoming Books list that they publish quarterly.
I can't say the same about SFC. The reviews are too brief and nearly useless, striving for quantity instead of quality. And while the news section may be bit larger than Locus's, it really doesn't offer me much more information than Locus already provides, at least in the area of my
interest.
Not being an extremely fannish person might cloud my perception of SFC, but what I'm looking for in a magazine about SF is what Locus provides. I wish there were more magazines like Locus and SFC out there if for no other reason than to keep each one on their toes. It looks as if the Web is to be the place for such an endeavor to be successful.
Chris McClelland
cmcclelland@aqinc.com
read with interest James Palmer's recent lament ("Locus Needs a Challenger") over the shortage of alternatives to semiprozines like Locus, and the subsequent lack of competition for the Hugo Award. I've edited the monthly online magazine scifidimensions since February 2000, so his comments struck close to home. Alternatives are out there—but getting the word out can be tough!
I can't badmouth Locus. It's a high-quality publication that deserves to win. But for good or bad, the Hugos are a popularity contest and nothing more. A couple of factors other than quality play a tremendous part in determining who wins, especially in the "lesser" categories like Semiprozine or Fanzine.
First, there is no straight category for Best Magazine (I suspect it would be boring to watch Asimov's and Analog play tagteam), and the distinction between the two existing categories—Semiprozine and Fanzine—is at the same time ridiculously complicated and ridiculously lax. Nearly any fanzine can qualify as a semiprozine—simply declare yourself a semiprozine and pay contributors a dollar for each submission, and you qualify! But why would you want to? You stand less chance against Locus than against Ansible, Mimosa or File 770 (the perennial fanzine favorites). It's not necessarily a matter of quality—in many cases, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a semiprozine and a fanzine simply by browsing the
product. Making these two Hugo categories mutually exclusive would go a long way toward eliminating the confusion. I'd favor creating categories (based on total readership) for Best Magazine and Best Fanzine.
Second, association with WorldCon is a must—they "own" the Hugo, after all. For attendees at WorldCon, Hugo nomination and voting is included in your $160 membership. If you just want to vote for the Hugos, it'll cost you $35 or so. If you're trying to get nominated, that's a lot of dough to
ask your supporters to spend just to vote. It follows, therefore, that people and publications who frequent WorldCon have an edge. Charles Brown has been publishing Locus for decades, and he's a regular fixture at WorldCon who now enjoys "name brand" recognition with that demographic, so he has a huge advantage over any potential Hugo competition.
Third, most of the new genre news sources are internet-based rather than traditional print. While most SF magazines also maintain Web sites, it may not occur to fans that electronic-only magazines could be nominated for a Hugo. (By the way, there's a new Hugo category for 2001—Best Web Site. Is
there any doubt that the winner will be SCIFI.com, StarTrek.com or StarWars.com?)
Friends and supporters will not quickly throw Locus or the fanzine faves overboard for something else—no matter how good it is! In the short term, that's reality. But there are alternatives out there, building them takes time, and if fans don't actively support newcomers or lesser-known publications, nothing will change.
John C. Snider, Editor
editor@scifidimensions.com
n a letter entitled "Comics Industry Is Schizophrenic" by Brett B, Mr. "B" goes into the various social ramifications of what makes a good comic story and whether "tinkering" with the tried-and-true comics formula is responsible for the decline in comics readership.
I find this approach, while interesting, doesn't really cut to the heart of things; A readership will always support a good story whether or not it sticks to formula; Alan Moore's Watchmen and From Hell along with the collaborations between Neil Gaiman and artist Charles Vess prove that good but unconventional stories will be embraced by its audience.
To take this idea a step further, people are still reading Shakespeare because he had to good stories to tell.
The decline of comics readership, in my opinion, can be seen in a simpler line of reasoning: Economics! 1) I agree with the previous sentiments that comics fandom is getting older. Why is it that the younger generations just aren't pursuing comic books with the zeal that the older generations had 20 years ago?
When my father was a child in the 1940s, a dime would buy him the newest Captain Marvel comic which was at least 64 pages. During the summer, there would sometimes be more pages for the same money. If you were lucky, you got a quarter for your allowance and that allowed you to buy a comic book plus go to the movies and buy popcorn. Granted, comics then were written for kids and they were very cheaply produced; But, the kids didn't care and they got more to read for their money.
When I was a teen in the mid-80s, comic books were 32 pages long, had more advertising, and cost about 50¢ to 60¢; My allowance of $5 a week would buy about 7 comics if I spent it all (which I usually didn't.)
In the time between when I was a kid and now, paper prices have more than doubled and electronic communications have made a small dent in paper demand. Thus, comic prices have risen just on the increased cost of base materials alone.
Also considering things like perfect-bound, prestige format comics with variant covers adorned with holograms or foil-stamping, production costs go through the roof.
Today, the cover price of the average comic book is $3; If a kid receives $20 a week for an allowance, one book has already eaten 1/6 of purchasing power. If he or she collects the various Batman, Superman, X- or Spider-titles, whose storylines frequently jump from book to book, then his or her spending power for the week is greatly diminished. If this person wants to do anything else with that money, then he or she is out of luck. Doesn't sound worth it, does it?
At $3 for a book that takes less than 15 minutes to read, most kids would rather spend their money elsewhere. Add to that the decline of literacy over the past 20 years, and you've got a declining book and magazine trade over all. And comics, being a niche market, feels the squeeze the most.
For comics to survive, as a format and medium, it needs to draw in the next generations of readers; And, to do that, they're going to have to get cheaper.
Roman Gheesling
tienlung@hotmail.com
have to take exception to Marian Powell's ("K-Pax Light Years Ahead of Other SF") rave up of K-Pax. It is an outstanding movie and science fiction movie right up to the final 20 minutes.
[WARNING: Spoilers follow.]
Spacey and Bridges give wonderful performances but are let down by the script at the end. Maybe not even the last 20 minutes maybe just the last 10. The final question is to be confronted: is Prot delusional or alien? But we get a weak, uninspired confrontation. What really happened in the room? Bridges character never grapples with that, he just limply drifts at the end. I found the ending utterly deflating. The movie headed toward its climax with great energy and wit then collapses short of the finish line.
K-Pax is a wonderful vehicle for two fine actors (and a great supporting cast). But it fails to the test of greatness with a shallow and tepid ending.
Jay Phillippi
jdrp@cecomet.net
n light of recent events, I realize it may sound petty to admit to being upset at the canceling of
a television show. However, I also firmly believe that now would be the perfect time for The
Invisible Man to shine through—and if it had support from the SCI FI Channel and Studios USA, it would.
Network television is mired neck-deep in endless carbon copied cop/lawyer/hospital shows, and even
the network execs are starting to realize the "reality show" fad is quickly wearing thin. Interest
in Federal investigative agencies and the military is higher than it has been in years, and the
reality of the uncertain world outside the U.S. is now a permanent etching on the backs of the minds
of many of us who felt somewhat secure a few short months ago.
Yet, in The Invisible Man, the SCI FI Channel and the stations who carry the syndicated episodes have a chance to offer their viewers not only a much-needed break from the evening news, but also well-written stories told with characters to whom viewers can relate—or with whom we'd at least like to swap places for a day. (Be honest, watch the news for ten minutes and then tell me what
you'd do if you could quicksilver!)
Right now, SCI FI and Studios USA have a prime opportunity to use the generally-renewed interest in
heroes, escapism and the "fictional government agency" genre to their advantage. If they were
genuinely interested in seeing this show succeed, they would at least try to take the opportunity in
hand. Though I'm relegated to catching the show in syndication, I can't recall ever having seen an
ad for the show, outside of the late-late viewing timeslot. The marketing pros have a huge captive
audience in comic books, gaming magazines and Web sites like IGN, but I've yet to see any print or
real online advertising, either.
Even The X-Files needed three seasons under its belt before it truly broke into the mainstream and became the successful icon of science fiction programming that it is. Between the few who actually get the SCI FI Channel and those who discovered the syndicated version by word of mouth, the fan base of I-Man just keeps growing, and it will continue to do so as long as episodes run. Why won't its home channel and distributor give the show the backing it needs to hit that next level of success?
Shari Hill
devilbird@gimmix.f2s.com
Back to the top.
