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.
hat makes a good science fiction story? Is it originality, in the sense of some clever new idea? Julian Gift just raised that question in the letters column ("SF Still Has Some New Ideas Left"). He seemed to be saying that because the field has been around for some time, it's hard to find fresh ideas. I couldn't disagree more.
A good story is ... a good story. It doesn't need a fresh setting. It needs interesting characters doing interesting things. A good story is like a steak dinner. It's filling and satisfying and tasty. (OK, a good story could also be compared to a tofu stir fry for those who don't eat steak). A story that depends on being incredibly clever and original is, at best, a hot fudge sundae. Fun to eat but not much there and it leaves you craving a steak. Think of all the classic stories that you still enjoy
rereading for the tenth time. I'm not going to name any because everyone's list of favorites is going to be different. Do any of those stories depend on just cleverness or a new idea or a big surprise? Or are these stories that depend on interesting people in an interesting setting doing interesting things?
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
have just read through some of the letters in your forum. It seems to me that some people just can't stop blowing their horn about political correctness or racism ("Star Wars Overshadowed By Race"). When are people going to stop crying about what some writers and producers are doing to entertain us all and realize that the term fantasy means? In the dictionary, it is defined as "imagination unrestrained by reality," and "an ingenious or highly imaginative creation." In short, not reality!
It's high time everyone realized they are all members of another race—the human race. Heritage should be passed down to our children, but all people should realize that in our day-to-day lives, we are human beings first and racial prejudice should not even see daylight.
If the complainers want political correctness, let them watch some of the ridiculous sitcoms and the news programs on almost every other channel and not watch what offends them so much on the SCI FI Channel or on the big screen.
Chris J. Smith
CJSmith86@netscape.net
'm sure my letter will be neither the first nor the last in responding to Phillip Ghee's accusations of racism in Episode I ("Star Wars Overshadowed By Race"), but I feel compelled to address his complaint.
Contrary to Mr. Ghee's assertion that Star Wars represents the "real world," and that characters like Jar Jar are really African-Americans acting as buffoons, I have to say ... Get a life. I've spent the last 20-some years of my life enthralled by the Star Wars saga, and never once have I looked at it as a futuristic commentary on our society today. Undoubtedly there is more than what lies on the surface, but I strongly doubt it is as racially nefarious as he would have us believe.
I didn't care for Jar Jar. Does that mean I don't like African-Americans? I don't think so. I also didn't think highly of the Ewoks. Which minority group do you associate them with, and should I hate these fantasy creatures more or less than the other racially stereotyped human equivalents?
If that sounds like a stupid question, I couldn't agree more, because it is. If cinema has a downside, it's that much of it is left open to asinine interpretations like Mr. Ghee's. Unfortunately, we can't stop anyone from seeing something that isn't there, and since Mr. Ghee obviously has a racially-motivated agenda, Episode I must become his soapbox to stand on. The truly sad part is that he takes an all too real and disturbing issue and blames a fantasy movie for perpetuating it. I can't keep him from watching films and reading between the lines, but Mr. Ghee, if you're looking for
movies that insult minorities, might I suggest you first start by taking a look at anything set on Earth? I think you'll see there are many more "real" films that are much more offensive than anything in the Star Wars universe.
And by the way, Mr. Ghee, I noticed you forgot to mention that in the end, Jar Jar was a hero. Was this because it directly contradicted your diatribe, or was your interpretation just too narrow to see that?
S. Voisin
brisco@wcoil.com
fter reading a few comments made by Phillip Ghee regarding Star Wars ("Star Wars Overshadowed By Race"), I have to come to the defense of "white America," as he so blatantly put it, and say that everything that he said is total crap. I mean, come on! Star Wars a racist film? Geez what next? Star Trek? Sesame Street?
It really nerves me to see people write such crazy stuff. What if I said that the NBA, or any other major sport was racist to white people? How many white guys play for the Knicks, Trailblazers, etc.? People should wise up and realize that in this day and age, you have to overlook little things as a black man not getting a lead role in such a movie in Star Wars. White people lose roles, too, and that's just the way it is. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't a black man by the name of Lando Calrissian destroy the death star in Return of the Jedi? How soon we forget.
Brad Poynor
bradpoynor@tycom.net
n regards to the comments Mr. Ghee made earlier about the roles of minorities today ("Star Wars Overshadowed By Race"), the only thing I would like to says is that Samuel L. Jackson begged George Lucas for a part in Star Wars. He didn't care what he had to wear, or what he got to say, he just wanted to be in Star Wars.
Sometimes people see conspiracies where there are none.
Kim Christensen
gyrefalcon@onebox.com
he humans (mainly white humans) in the Star Wars movies seem to be the dominant species in that universe ("Star Wars Overshadowed By Race"). The models for their societies are mock European or bastardized American, while most of the main alien groups are depicted as socially, technologically or even intellectually underdeveloped, (Jawas, Tusken Raiders, Gungans, Ewoks, Hutts). These are unlike the aliens in the Star Trek universe who are equal or superior to humans (Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians). In the Star Wars films alien species now
stand in for the depictions of "savages" in the early Tarzan movies, early Westerns, or such films as Beau Geste. (The Ewoks have a witchdoctor, village elders and tribal chiefs. The Tusken Raiders, sand people, have long robes and carry what look like Arab muskets.)
I am afraid to say that it seems this substitution of racist stereotype for alien creature has reached its logical and disturbing conclusion in the character of Jar Jar Binks.
Terry Mckay
balbus@geocities.com
watched the Episode I and my only impression of Mr. Binks was that he was an alien who they wished to portray as a likable screwup ("Star Wars Overshadowed By Race"). In fact, I'm insulted by those who saw the movie and thought of blacks while watching Mr. Binks. It is they who are racist. Why would you think of a whole race of people just because a character is a lovable screwup who has trouble speaking human language? (Which is a what I saw.) I have the movie and every time I watch it I try to understand why anyone would think of blacks because of Jar-Jar's antics and I am beyond myself to see the connection.
Don't bother to tell me I'd understand if I was black, because I am. The difference is, I have learned to stop trying to find the slight against me in everything. After all, you know what they say; "You find what you're looking for."
Learn to enjoy things. There was an African American in the picture, or didn't you notice?
Sameerah EL-Amin
cheetara@frontiernet.net
eople need to calm down over the TV shows they watch, seriously. I
realize that I myself, like everyone else out there, have my favorite shows
and I will defend them to the death, but why does everyone have to be so
critical about the shows they don't like? I personally like Enterprise, and
if it rewrites the entire Trek history ("Enterprise Rewrites History"), well then, so be it. The Treknoverse could use a makeover, plastic surgery and a new hairpiece. I love the show, and there are others I love more, and still more I don't like so much. Do you know what I do? I don't watch them. Not watching a show can be as powerful as watching it, and far more effective then complaining about it. If enough people don't watch the show, it gets canceled, an effective end result. If
you like the show, try and get your friends to watch it, but don't get preachy, babbling on about how good something is can kill its interest just as effectively as complaining and nit-picking.
So all in all, just sit back, watch the shows you like, don't watch the ones you hate, and enjoy yourself.
Ryan Norman
Mahtoma@yahoo.com
'm responding to Leslie Brown's letter, "Enterprise Rewrites History". She states that Trek history is being rewritten, because of the existence of the Enterprise NX-01.
I've tried to explain this before, but I'll try again. Ms. Brown is correct in saying the first Enterprise was commissioned in 2245. However, what she doesn't realize is, that that was the first Federation starship.
Enterprise takes place in 2151, 10 years before the Federation was established. Therefore, the Enterprise NX-01 is not a Federation starship, but instead, is a Starfleet starship and a prototype-vessel at that, which means it's not even a commissioned vessel.
So, like it or not, Berman & Co. are still managing to ride that fine line between old continuity and new continuity.
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG@webtv.net
, like many others ("Wolf Lake Cancellation Big Mistake" and "Wolf Lake Fans Protest in Packs"), am very disappointed that CBS decided to pull Wolf Lake from their schedule. Thanks to Wolf Lake, Enterprise and Justice League, this was the first TV season in years that I was actually excited about. Enterprise and Justice League continue to thrill me, but, unfortunately, Wolf Lake can't anymore.
But there's still hope for Wolf Lake in the form of the "Keep Wolf Lake On The CBS Schedule" petition. It can be found at www.petitiononline.com/p4kwl/petition.html. I encourage
everyone that can to sign it. Maybe we can get Wolf Lake's fresh, mysterious story back on the air!
Evan Harrison Cass
evancass@hotmail.com
en Browder, in his interview on the first Farscape DVD, observed that the science-fiction audience is a sophisticated and intelligent group who expect quality in the programs they watch. It's ironic that he is the star of a show sponsored by the SCI FI Channel, an organization that apparently does not recognize astute nature of the SF crowd.
I was excited to learn that SCI FI was planning a four-day Cinemathon over the Thanksgiving weekend, but when I started looking at the offerings, I quickly lost my enthusiasm. Most of the offerings were B-grade movies in color, not worth the trouble of pushing the "change channel" button on the remote. In the end, I watched two of them, and regretted fifty percent of the effort. Wing Commander was good, as I knew it would be, but the only other movie I had the stomach to watch was Epoch. This movie disappointed so often that I nearly turned the tube off. The dialog was so stock, pat and ludicrous that just about any time someone spoke, my finger twitched toward the remote.
At one point an army captain shouts with great testosterone sponsored vigor: "I'm not paid to think!" I wanted to throw something when I heard such idiotic and transparent dialogue. Anyone who has spent a half a page reading military SF (or for that matter spent some time in the real military) knows that the one thing expected of a military officer at any level is in constant analysis of the situation, definition of the threat and potential steps to counter those threats (i.e., getting paid to think). Any captain (much less one on a very touchy assignment) would be retired to a
safe desk job quicker than a lightning stroke if he/she ever showed the slightest inhibition against thinking. This character was simply absurd, obviously dreamed up by a former hippie who still believes that military bashing is an acceptable device for raking in the ratings.
I could continue on with plenty of additional gripes about the stupid plot line (one that simply did not hold water) in Epoch, but I think I've made my point. Besides, I want to generalize my comments to the SCI FI Channel in general. Listen, folks: if the SCIFI Channel did not have Babylon 5 and Farscape on, I would not be watching it. I find that most of the other non-genre channels have much better SF fare than the SCI FI Channel. TNN broadcasts Star Trek: TNG; UPN broadcasts Enterprise; Andromeda and Earth: Final Conflict are both shown on other channels. There's The X-Files, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (not exactly SF, but certainly better than the idiot Tales from the Crypt). What's with this channel that it can't get premium entertainment? It seems to focus on disgusting, horror-laden films designed to attract adolescent boys with the sophistication of a coarse farmhand. Come on people! I read SF for the ideas, for the stimulus to the mind, and not because I like watching putrid green ichor splash across the screen!
For that matter, I wonder down to the core of my being why I haven't seen such superb movies as Contact, or Charly (marvelous '70s SF movie), or Twister, or Jurassic Park or Soldier, or The Net, or Bladerunner, or The Thirteenth Floor, or any of the other high-quality SF movies that have come out over the last five years. Is SCI FI deliberately trying to chase away those of us who are true fans? Who expect quality instead of schlock?
At any rate, take note, SCI FI Channel: you are losing a large percent of SF lovers because they would much rather watch quality SF rather than the drivel you broadcast. As a consequence they tune you out and look elsewhere for programming to meet their high standards. I'm one of those persons who has been making just such a decision and will continue to do so, for so long as your lineup remains worthless.
Get your act together.
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell@walsworth.com
was appalled to see the phrase "nancy boy" used in this article ("Potter Star Tears Up").
This is a grossly offensive term, akin to "sissy" or "faggot." (Would your writer say that Lt. Uhura started out as a "pickaninny?") I hope never to see such loathsome intolerance demonstrated in your publication again.
James F. Minter
jm35@columbia.edu
has pleased to read in your news column that they may be doing another remake of I Am Legend. This has always been one of my favorite books by Mr. Matheson. I would like to point out however that prior to Mr. Heston's The Omega Man, this book was filmed as The Last Man on Earth with Mr. Vincent Price. Mr. Price's version was much more faithful to the book than Omega Man.
Earl Roggeman
eroggeman@online.emich.edu
Back to the top.
