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.
had visited a Web site that had talked about overused cliches in science fiction. I must admit that while some ideas have been re-used on numerous occasions, there have been some innovative ideas that have leaped from the minds of their creators. Also, I believe that the science-fiction field suffers from the same disadvantage that is met by superhero fantasy. It has been in existence for a long time and while that is a plus, it also means that a lot of concepts have had the time to be created and there is a difficulty to come up with something 100% new, now or in the future. They were, after all, the very first stories about alternate history, alien invasion, utopias, etc.
The fact is, creating a story that would garner the interest of the reader is difficult enough. I like to read speculative fiction and the various subgenres that are offered, but that does not mean that I would necessarily read every title that is offered. Still, would I like to see speculative fiction disappear as far as offering reading material goes? No way, Jose!
Julian Gift
lira-b@tstt.net.tt
ver the past few weeks several letter-writers have written in ("Comics Must Get Cheaper to Survive" and Comics Industry Is Schizophrenic") to give their opinions on why the comics
industry seems to be teetering on the brink. All have made some valid points but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.
In a letter entitled "Comics Must Get Cheaper to Survive," Roman Gheesling contends it's a matter of
economics and pricing. Roman is only half right. $2.95 for a monthly, 32-page comic is too much. Unfortunately when Marvel and DC decided to upgrade both their printing process and the paper grade, they got locked into that price. But then I'd contend that the prices for books in general is getting into the arena of the absurd. Just look at what a paperback or hardback costs these days.
The real problem that comics face today is not just a matter of pricing, it's a matter of format. The
future of comics does not lie in the old monthly "pamphlet" format. It lies in the format that the rest
of the world comics community has embraced for over 60 years. I am referring, of course, to the book. Thankfully the medium in this country has already taken steps in that direction. Most if not all comics
publishers have a program in place that collects their comics in hardback or trade. There's even a couple who publish nothing but original graphic novels. There will come a day when it's more economically feasible for someone like Frank Miller or Michael Bendis to release a project directly in a book format instead of first doing it as a multi-part monthly comic. Unfortunately, it may take some time to convert the choir over to this viewpoint. Too many of today's comics fans and readers are still buying the majority of their comics in the old format. Still, the sales figures for comics in trade paperbacks and hardbacks are rising steadily.
The other problem the field has to deal with is getting that monkey called the superhero off of our
collective backs. I grew up reading superhero comics and a part of me still has an affection for them, but I think that the domination of superheroes in comics has done more to keep the medium relegated to the outskirts of kiddie fare than any other factor. It's no wonder the public has a disdain for the medium. Consequently they don't think that it has anything to offer them. In a way it's like that age-old problem of not being able to see the trees because of the forest. There are a lot of good, well-done fantasy, SF and crime comics out there that would appeal to a broad spectrum of people but they don't connect because they're hard to find due to the myriad of superhero-oriented fare that crowds them out. Thankfully, this is changing also. When great books like Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan and Joe Sacco's Safe Area Gorazde make it on the New York Times book reviews list of Notable Books of 2000, I know things are slowly changing.
For comics to flourish in this country, the industry as a whole will have to come together and tackle these problems. I know it can be done, because in almost every other free country in the world comics are a vital and important part of the cultural landscape.
Randy Barrett
jrbarrett101@yahoo.com
o quote the last line of the SCI FI Channel's email response message: "Thanks again for your feedback. Your comments are a valuable resource as we plan the future of our network."
I don't think so. At least not anymore. Someone hasn't been paying attention to its audience lately.
The network's "future" is looking bleaker by the minute with the mishandling of its prime time originals, and its poor marketing. What's going on over there? You guys were looking pretty good. Are you aware of the growing discontent of your viewers? How sad that your public image is in such serious jeopardy.
SCI FI had Friday and Saturday nights in the palm of its hand with low competition from the big guns and shows like The Invisible Man, Farscape, First Wave and The Chronicle. What an opportunity you had to attract viewers to the channel with intense radio and television marketing using the most intriguing and witty sound/video clips from the programs and a direct invitation for viewers to spend Fridays and Saturdays with the SCI FI Channel.
Who spends too much time concentrating on what the "other guys" are doing? Who is unable to think past Nielson boxes, to realize that "taping our shows is just as good as watching them as they air because it's all about growing an audience?" Who forgot that growing an audience requires patience and close attention?
First Wave is gone. The Invisible Man, with its dry wit and incredible potential, was fumbled and tossed. And The Chronicle, shoved and ignored in its 7 p.m. time slot is about to fall out of the nest. That leaves you with only Farscape and all your eggs in one basket. (Lexx just doesn't carry its weight anymore.) Original mini-series and movies will only get you one shot audiences. They won't bring them back week after week. Reruns of the oldie-but-goody series are excellent as fill-ins ... only when there is something to fill in. How is the channel going to pad Farscape?
Has anyone at SCI FI realized yet that the channel is suffering increasing losses in audience number and loyalty; that it's losing face? Who is working on this? Can't renew First Wave or I-Man? Then make them into a series of hot television movies. What about that huge Prey audience you currently have, and its new movie script floating around? Grab it before someone else does and takes the Prey and I-Man audience with it. Pay attention to The Chronicle and get back into the nest. It's not that easy? Balderdash! Find a way to keep that audience, or let those who want to dismantle your work have an easy victory.
Joan M. McCartney
Address withheld by request
lthough I always find interesting stuff each week, there were two articles that really brought a smile to my face last week.
Your review of Robert R. McCammon's Boy's Life reminded me how I accidentally found that book and enjoyed the hell out of it, many years ago. I need to go back a re-read it and re-live that pleasure.
And your review of Corgi's DeLorean was a nice surprise. I've long been a collector of Corgi Toys and their DeLorean is just beautiful. I love the detail, the working parts and the sheer weight of a well-made toy. Interested collectors might want to visit www.Corgi.co.uk to see their range. Check out the James Bond collection!
Jim James
jimjames2001@hotmail.com
n the letter written by Jay Philippi ("K-Pax Falls Flat in Finale") it was obvious to me that he didn't get the ending of K-Pax. To me it was perfect, all spelled out as to what happened in the end.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
I loved the way they implied the ending events rather than showing you on screen. I left the theater with a feeling of happiness and contentment. Happy that Prot was a peaceful, intelligent being who took
wonderful, pleasure from the simple things in life, like the taste of fresh fruit. There is nothing like sinking your teeth into a tart, juicy apple. Mmmmm!! I also felt like I learned something from having seen a glimpse of what a visitor to our world could conclude from observing our society, and
was glad that he did no harm to others. He took, no borrowed, the body of a man that was in dire need of help, and in the end he got that help for him, in a round-about way, through the doctor.
I'd like to see more of these films, but it takes a rare writer to present this kind of story. One that doesn't elicit sympathy, or prejudice towards others. Prot was the kind of being who could teach people to be kind without being mushy or condescending. He didn't care if you believed him, but he hoped you did. He gave people hope. Not just the people in the hospital, but the audience, too. Hope to learn that there are ways out of the pits we put ourselves into and you don't have to be rich, or really smart to do it. You just do it!
It was nice, for once, to see an adult movie that was truly entertaining without all the normal, violence, sex, language and just plain bad behavior and rudeness. I'm not a snob, but there comes a time when enough is enough. Life is not always tearing and crawling your way out of crime, drugs or
dysfunctional families. It's all about choices and that was what Prot tried to show the other patients. They could heal themselves by finding a purpose and doing what it takes to accomplish the goal. Yea, Prot!
If only the rest of us could be more like him.
Debbie J.
arena@www.scifi.com
t drives me crazy that the one single new show [Wolf Lake] that our whole family was excited about was canceled even before the season ran out.
I hate the executives with a deep passion who pull this crap. They decide they hate the star, or hate the writer, or something obscure about the show, and then announce that its rating were so bad it had to be canceled.
I don't believe that for even three seconds. This was the best new metaphysical show on the air.
Anne Trembley
bookshelf@centurytel.net
found it interesting that Alexis Grayson in her letter ("X-Files Is Blocked From Resolution") to the editor, compared The X-Files to being a "never ending roller coaster ride in need of repairs." I myself have felt that the last couple of seasons of The X-Files were like a treasure hunt to nowhere. The show used to mean something.
The early episodes were like a complex map which lured and inspired the viewers to continue the trek. But eventually, I realized there was never any real treasure at the end, just more convoluted maps that lead to dead ends and forks in the road.
Also, I couldn't help but chuckle when reading about the tepid ratings for The X-Files season premiere. I think Chris Carter and the other writers should reread The Boy Who Cried Wolf. People are only going to believe the lie so many times and eventually they'll get so tired of being fooled, they'll walk away.
Dan Miller
danmiller@roguemail.net
aybe I missed the lecture in kindergarten that said everything has a resolution ("X-Files Is Blocked From Resolution"), because I have noticed that many former X-Files fans are looking for just that. Why?
Unless the New York Times runs a front page story "What Really Happened at Roswell" and "We Found Bigfoot," then I don't see how resolving anything is going to make The X-Files better for anyone. It's sci-fi and horror, people. There is never a resolution. Only a mystery on top of a mystery on top of ... yes, a mystery. Telling all the answers is going to make The X-Files a cop-out. Not telling the answers only weeds out those who are looking for a quick fix. If you stuck around till Season 6 before thinking, " When is it going to end?" Well then, you missed the whole point.
The premise of The X-Files is to hunt down the truth, because it's out there, but even Chris Carter knows that once you find it, there is nothing else. You saw what happened when Mulder found out about Samantha. Don't ask for what you know you can't stomach. If you're still complaining, then watch Freakylinks!
Tina Sena
Tina_Sena@abtassoc.com
ou young whippersnappers! What is the Trekerverse coming to? In my day and age, Star Trek theme songs did not have (gasp) words! ("Enterprise is a Breath of Fresh Air") If you wanted inspiring words to a Star Trek theme song you had to make them up yourself! And we did. Boy, did we.
And we didn't have introductions that were two-thirds real. In my Star Trek's day if you wanted to show a footprint on the moon, a space shuttle named Enterprise, or a little red-wagon-that-could sojourning on the real Mars, you had to fake it. These modern producers [of Enterprise]! They don't know what real science fiction is. They've got it much too easy! They can film on location!
And you didn't use the (gasp) "F" word, "faith." Any real scientist didn't have faith! We didn't have the Anthropic Principle, the Gaia and the Hyper-Gaia hypothesis, or near death studies! And we certainly didn't have double-blind and tripple-blind prayer studies, concerning the effectiveness of prayer, so we didn't dare use the F word! Especially not in an introduction every week so all the little Trek-lets might get their little scientific minds corrupted by the possibility that, "The Great Mystery," might exist too.
Bring back the good old days!
Yeah, sure.
Liz Hensley
lhensley@mindspring.com
nterprise is the best and finest Star Trek series to grace television screens since the original series some 30-odd years past. As far as comparisons go, Enterprise cannot match the original series by any means—except perhaps in the visual effects department—since the original set the standard. It certainly is finer than any of the previous series.
The new series boasts something of an original idea: a diverse set of characters set out aboard the first human starship to ever travel into space on a mission of exploration. This was the premise behind every show with the exception of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Almost unarguably, where the other shows failed, Enterprise succeeds.
The characters are filled with opinions and ideas. They have passions; they use critical judgment and refuse to bow to the orders of the captain. Characters have philosophical clashes, and actual ideas are discussed. Along the way, they encounter various races, which are yet again bipedal. (Unfortunately, budget limitations inhibit the creative scope of Star Trek.)
During recent years, Star Trek has become the brunt of many jokes. How could it not? Voyager is viewed by many to be a mar upon the franchise. Many have stated that perhaps it's time for the series to retire. Who would disagree? The characters were generally bland and uninteresting, the ideas stale, the visual effects lacking, and the technology cold and distant. Teleporters? Tractor beams? Phase pistols? Where were the sleek fast-moving space ships and interesting looking weapons? Where were the diverse alien species? Why was almost every single race bipedal? (The answer: The Preservers—also a major letdown.)
Enterprise proves that Star Trek can still be interesting, as well as accessible. I never thought I'd see the day when I would look forward to seeing the newest episode of any Trek series. Enterprise had me in its grasp the moment I saw Capt. Archer express his extreme disliking of T'Pol. Who would have thought a Star Trek character could actually show some bravado?
The clash between human and Vulcan philosophies is apparently one of the primary themes of the show. This is a philosophical examination that is extremely relevant to the world in which we currently live. There may be some inconsistencies, but it seems futile to pick at small insignificant details.
The show has a sense of familiarity to it. The technology is presented in a believable manner, the (developing) characters have distinct personalities and the visual effects are actually quite decent. I also have no complaints with the opening theme song. In fact, I actually like it. When I first heard the music while watching "Broken Bow," I immediately understood that Enterprise was to be nothing like its precursors. This, in my mind, is a good thing. A pattern can only be repeated so many times until it becomes stale.
Regardless, Star Trek has become respectable again. It's actually become fun. No longer is it a slow ponderous series. Enterprise seems to understand that science fiction can actually be fun and intelligent; it doesn't have to be slow and ponderous. I look forward to the future of Enterprise. Finally, a Star Trek series I can enjoy.
Ilya Popov
ilya@metalinker.com
hat's the matter with Enterprise? I could stick to noting that so far it appears to be little more than left over Voyager scripts that engender about the same amount of excitement. However, I think it is time to look a little deeper into the show's problems. Just a few, however,
space being limited.
Let us take last week's episode centered on T'Pol's crisis over her impending marriage and resulting decision over whether or not to leave the Enterprise. The intention of the episode seems to have been to recapture the newness of Vulcan culture from the classic episode, "Amok Time." Beyond the fact that both shows dealt with a Vulcan marriage however, the similarities vanish. In "Amok Time," Vulcan culture and Spock's character are revealed through a series of emotional, then violent confrontations,
culminating with Spock attempting, then believing he had killed his captain. The outcome of Spock's mating ritual meant something, and it precipitated a crisis through which his character, as well as Kirk's, was revealed. In contrast, T'Pol's crisis was revealed by someone reading her mail, and resolved not through confrontation, but with some off-screen meditation and a piece of pie. We learned a little about T'Pol's history, but nothing of her character, and however "Vulcan" private meditation may be, it hardly makes for an exciting story line. The decision meant little except the threat of removing T'Pol's skin-tight costume from the show.
Beyond the nitpickings of one episode, however, the show has some deep-seeded problems. Despite the fact that it is set in the future, Enterprise is essentially an historical drama in that it is set in the past of a universe already well-defined and explored. It is an attempt to explain how the universe of Kirk and Spock came to be. Unfortunately, the producers and writers have little concept of what History is. They are practicing what is known as "history through the rear-view mirror." In this vision of history, the past is nothing more than an explanation of the present. All events, people, etc., are simply stops on the way; history is a straight road leading to the present and anything that does not explain the present is irrelevant and of no importance in and of itself.
This concept as applied in Enterprise is nowhere more obvious than in the technology used in the show. The ship seems to be nothing but an immature version of a later Enterprise, filled with early versions of equipment that just do not work as well as later ones. The transporter is not yet ready for people, the phasers are new and bulky, the warp drive a bit slower. It would be much the same to set a television show in 1901 and have the characters complain that their TV reception is bad, their modems are slow, and the radio broadcasts are only in mono.
At any given point in time technology is a mixture of new equipment that may survive in some form as well as pieces that will not and a lot of old technologies that will disappear over time. It is the unsuccessful and old technologies that are missing, a circumstance that only makes sense when viewed through the rear view mirror. Enterprise as envisioned is the mythical musings of a distant future about its quaint past, not a hard look at its history. Star Trek fans deserve a more mature, sophisticated show than the one the producers of Enterprise are making. So far it is a child's view of history.
John Bladek
postmod123@aol.com
Back to the top.
