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.
here is really a dearth of good science fiction on TV. Quantum Leap was good, as was Stargate SG-1, but most series past and present have been science fiction of the most basic, antediluvian variety. Yes, I liked, in the old days, the usual suspects: Outer Limits, Star Trek and The Twilight Zone. But there were dogs, too: Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Land of the Giants and more recently, Battlestar Galactica. Sorry, but I agree with what Harlan Ellison called it: Battlestar Ponderosa. Even Doctor Who was more entertaining, at least after you had a few beers. I also enjoyed most of the atomic-age science fiction flicks of the '50s, especially The Day the Earth Stood Still and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I even enjoyed The Deadly Mantis. I don't mean to ramble, but science fiction on TV has had a much less entertaining history than science fiction in the movies.
Allen W. Smith
bigal4151@aol.com
f the top ten sci-fi shows listed, I noticed an obvious exclusion, Stargate SG-1. It is the longest running current offering. The characters are well-developed and the writing in general has been excellent as the story line has stayed well defined and consistent. Enterprise appears to be doing well also. Its characters have worked well together from the start, and that is rare in sci-fi. The writing has been very good to date. It is better than the original and the choice of actors is excellent. Farscape started out entertaining but has become stale (too British). Andromeda has the worst writing and acting, but is at least as good as The Tick anyway. Earth: Final Conflict has very uneven stories and the characters are not well developed, or do not work well together. It appeared to be too ambitious, and the change away from the Boone character hurt the series right from the start. The storyline has become too contrived.
Robert C. Pollitz
rcpollitz@hotmail.com
have now watched the first five episodes of Justice League on the cartoon network (three of those were the premiere episode) and I just can't get over how lame Green Lantern's power ring is!
The ring is being portrayed as nothing more than a finger-sized laser gun. What happened to this being the "most powerful weapon in the universe?"
I can understand the politically correct reason of using the "John Stewart" version versus the Hal Jordon or Kyle Raynor version (note I said "understand," not "like"), but why did they have to go and mess with the ring!
Let's hope that the writers and staff start letting John Stewart use his imagination and letting that ring really start kicking some butt!
Pete Slacum
donutguru@cs.com
read your review on Invader Zim and I would like to say, as a IZ fan, that you have it all wrong. An online club dedicated to IZ has about 50 members, all of which are complaining profusely of Nickelodeon's attempts to replace IZ with a don't-got-diddly-squat show called Butt-Ugly Martians. I have also complained and would be very upset with the cancellation of IZ. The show is quite different from what you say, and I would be most appreciative if you would change it and state that it is merely your opinion. Thank you for your time.
Sarah Stansell
ZimIrkenOfDoom@aol.com
our site is deteriorating rapidly (i.e., the letters column). I was under the impression sci-fi was read by people with a modicum of intelligence. Some of the topics discussed in the past while make me wonder if SF is nothing but TV and movies! Does no one read SF these days? Further, it would seem to me that fantasy (ugh!) and SF should be discussed as separate protocols. How about fielding some letters from readers, as opposed to viewers!
Don Thompson
dthompso@mb.sympatico.ca
want to add my two-cents to the demise of The Invisible Man ("Invisible Axing Made Tears Visible"). What hits me is the short-sightedness of the SCI FI Channel/USA executives. Science Fiction does better than many shows in longevity after cancellation; new generations discover them and decry their early demises. You need minimally 65 episodes to run five days a week for a quarter year or be relegated mostly to once a week repeats which some channels don't do. So, financially, it would seem that 65 episodes would be something execs would want to shoot for if at all feasible. I-Man is far more interesting than First Wave which made it through three seasons (but not 65 episodes I believe) and seems to be the kind of SF show that will continue to pay-off. I've always enjoyed the I-Man/Farscape one-two punch as a kickoff for the weekend. Reverse the decision to cancel! Do it for your own good.
Barbara Goldstein
Barb2051@aol.com
y name is Claire, and I'm an I-maniac. I've been looking into The Invisible Man rehabilitation efforts, most especially at imaniacs.org, an unofficial fan site. The hit counter has just hit 50,000. That's 50,000 people that have visited the site, just since the 7th of November.
All those fans with Net connections are going out and searching for info on their favorite show. A bunch of people who have been disappointed by the SCI FI Channel. It's just such a shame.
This show was just getting through its second season. It had made it through the rough childhood, and jumbled adolescence in the second season, and was just getting ready to stand on its own two feet. Axing this show was killing and idea that hadn't even gotten a chance to flourish.
Well, good job SCI FI. I hope it can get picked up by someone else.
Claire E. Schulkey
daroos@lycos.com
just took a quick glance at the SCI FI Channel schedule for January 2002, and I have to say I'm impressed. First of all, there's Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers. Earth: Final Conflict returns to the schedule, airing during the week, and Now and Again finds a suitable home on Sundays. The quality of the movies is better than the SCI FI Channel's norm, including old classics like The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, When Worlds Collide, The Time Machine and Mighty Joe Young, along with newer releases like eXistenZ, The Thirteenth Floor, and The Fifth Element. And not only are there new episodes of The Outer Limits, but there's a pleasant surprise: old Outer Limits episodes from the 1960's, many of which I haven't seen yet. I've been waiting for a network to air that series for a while now. No new episodes of Farscape yet, but there are reruns from the early seasons on weekdays.
Proven shows like Babylon 5, Star Trek, The Twilight Zone and Quantum Leap remain in daily rotation. Hell, even Hercules is back. Irwin Allen series Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Land of the Giants, and The Time Tunnel round out the lineup with some welcome nostalgia. Crusade airs again, in its entirety. Lexx is still on, but at least it's always late at night, so young children will be less likely to see it. All in all, it's a great schedule.
It's hard to believe that this is the same SCI FI Channel that so thoroughly mishandled its programming in Fall 2001. In fact, my only complaints are that Viper and Tales from the Crypt are taking up valuable space in the daily schedule, and there are still too many schlock horror films on the weekends. These are just placeholders and could be replaced with something else. There's still lots of episodes of Highlander I haven't seen, for example, and Sliders, and those shows have a much bigger following anyway.
Anyway, I'll be watching SCI FI a lot more in January. Just don't make me wait too long for new episodes of Farscape!
(Remember that letter from last week, "SCI FI Must Get Its Act Together"? Looks like they're making a good effort to do so, and I appreciate it. Now if they'd only buy the rights to The Prisoner...)
Kevin Eric Snell
snellk@u.washington.edu
eslie Brown ("Enterprise Rewrites History") takes the creators of Enterprise to task for re-writing
history, dragging out the fact that Capt. April commanded the first starship of that name.
In the words of William Shatner: "Get a Life!!" C'mon Leslie, I'm a purist for continuity as much as the next Trekker, but I'm not going to let that ruin my viewing of the show. The creators have done a really good job moving backwards in the timeline, and have pretty much been careful not to put the show too far out of whack. Let's just relax and enjoy the show for what it is.
OK, here's the answer for you.. At the end of its seven year run, Archer impregnates the daughter of a high priest on planet X. The high priest calls on his gods for retribution and they wipe out the ship and it crew from all historical records and damn the crew to spending eternity at sci-fi cons
answering questions about phaser setting differences in episode 12 and where the hell the captain's dog did his "business" on board.
Or, perhaps the show is actually Bizarro Star Trek. Or, perhaps this show is actually set in the "mirror" universe. We'll know if the Vulcans start wearing beards and mustaches...
Seriously, let it go and enjoy the show.
Dan Ware
djpw1@yahoo.com
wo short comments on current topics in the letters column:
1) Here's how I look at the Star Trek universe. I see it as a favorite sports team. You love and support the team even if you don't like all the players. You groan when they lose, cheer when they score. And you support them again in the next game. So I'll continue to cheer for my team even if they never win the championship. There are many, many more elements to enjoy in the franchise than there are to damn the show in its entirety.
2) The only underlying theme ("Star Wars Overshadowed By Race",
"Episode I Is Not Racist",
"Human Race Is the Most Important"
"Defending Star Wars' Race Relations",
"There Is No Star Wars Conspiracy",
"Jar Jar is a Disturbing Stereotype" and
"Racism Is Not Everywhere") that I can find in Star Wars is anti-technology. Light sabers outperform blasters, piddly X-wings defeat superior Death Stars, no-technology Ewoks defeat Storm Troopers, Gungans on "horseback" defeat hundreds of droid warriors, and possibly a strong anti-cloning issue in the next film...
But I gotta say, I don't see any race issues, just some potentially bad choices in accents for the non-human characters. Though that's probably like the famed ink blot test: what you see probably has more to do with your inner self than with what is truly represented on the screen.
Michael Kroll
aradyn@hotmail.com
n response to Terry McKay's overview of Star Wars aliens ("Jar Jar is a Disturbing Stereotype") he states "while most of the main alien groups are depicted as socially, technologically or even intellectually underdeveloped, (Jawas, Tusken Raiders, Gungans, Ewoks, Hutts)". This leaves out a number of races who are depicted as on an even level with humans:
One of the big races he skips are the Wookies. Chewbacca repairs the Falcon, is loyal to Han until the end and helps defeat the forces of the Empire at both Death Stars.
Yoda (and his race, whatever it is) is the strongest Jedi Master we've seen in any of the films.
The Admiral of the Fleet in Return of the Jedi is a Mon Calimari.
Lando's co-pilot on the Falcon in Return of the Jedi is a Sullustan.
I think Terry McKay needs to look at all the aliens in Star Wars, not just the ones that fit the view he wants to present.
Jason Maxwell
jasonrmax@attbi.com
can't believe people haven't gotten over this Jar Jar Binks business ("Star Wars Overshadowed By Race",
"Episode I Is Not Racist",
"Human Race Is the Most Important"
"Defending Star Wars' Race Relations",
"There Is No Star Wars Conspiracy",
"Jar Jar is a Disturbing Stereotype" and
"Racism Is Not Everywhere"). I'm black and a lifelong fan of the genre in books, TV, film and comics, and I'd like to say a few things on this Jar Jar subject. I have problems with the character too, but they are not the same as those that others keep going on about. The first thing you have to understand about Jar Jar is that he is not a member of any branch of the human (or humanoid) race. He is an extraterrestrial. And moreover, he is an amphibian. A salamander. A big, two-legged, talking salamander. So you have a problem with a two-legged talking salamander who speaks in a quasi-Caribbean patois? Think back to the end of the '80's and remember Disney's The Little Mermaid, in which we had Sebastian—a cartoon crab who talked like Miss Cleo and sang Calypso. Did anyone care? Did anyone say a mumbling word against this character? No. So we pick on George Lucas, but Walt Disney is off limits, is that? If you weren't offended by Sebastian, why does anyone object to Jar Jar?
There actually is a problem with Binks, but it has nothing to do with his characterization. It's in his physiology and morphology. Jar Jar is an amphibian; we've established that. I used to keep newts as pets—or I tried to keep newts, but they kept hurling themselves out of the fishbowl and crawling behind things, and when they'd be found some time later, all that would remain would be a hard, shriveled-up, dried-out thing that used to be a newt. And you know what? This is exactly the fate that should have come to Jar Jar Binks after about five minutes unprotected on the surface of the arid desert planet Tatooine! He had no business running! around on that planet. If they wanted to have him on Tatooine, there should have been a medic in Amidala's entourage who could give him temporary DNA sequences that would adapt him for that environment, causing his skin to become rough and water tight, taking on the texture of the skin of a desert toad. (That way, they could have made even more money on the merchandising by selling figures of both Aqua Jar Jar and Desert Jar Jar. But no one thought of that.)
Also, there is an anatomical design problem: those ears. Lucas and his people may have thought people would find the ears cute, but they make no sense. Nature does not design amphibious creatures with ears like that. Jar Jar's ears should be like those of a frog: membranes that lie flat against the head. His entire body should be streamlined for an aquatic environment; he should not have big, flopping ears.
Jar Jar Binks is not a bad character and not a racist creation; he is just the result of people not adequately thinking through a science fiction concept. Please let's get over the perceived racism and look at the application of rational thinking to imaginative ideas that is supposed to be the basis of good SF.
J.A. Fludd
jafcontact@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
