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.
just wanted to say that after reading [Tasha Robinson's] review [of Appleseed], which I enjoyed, I noticed at the bottom in italics there is a message from Ms. Robinson. She distinguishes the DVD further by offering, "Story aside, this DVD has some problems—the small, yellow, fading subtitles are often nearly impossible to read, and for some reason I couldn't ever stop playback—once I started playing the movie, I had to cycle through all the chapters manually to end it."
I agree with the part about subtitles. I just think the mention of uncontrollable feedback should be cut out. I feel it's misleading toward the purchase of this DVD. Of course I'm not suffering the same fault with my copy of Appleseed nor my DVD player. That being said, I don't want any up-and-coming anime fan to miss out on not just owning, but owning the DVD format of a classic!
Thanks for the ability to share my opinion. I hope you feel the same as I.
Blue Tilley
blue27019@yahoo.com
must agree with Sarah Stansell's letter ("Zim Fans Are Miffed About Martians") of support for Invader Zim. While I'm almost ashamed to feel so passionately about a cartoon on
Nickelodeon, I think Invader Zim is a hip, hilarious and refreshingly bizarre show.
I can understand canceling IZ if it receives low ratings, but why insult us by replacing it with such an awful show as Butt-Ugly Martians, thinking we can't tell the difference? This show is everything Invader Zim is not. It relies on totally brainless and generic elements parading as humor. Invader Zim, on the contrary, is wonderfully twisted and oddball. The two don't
compare.
Please don't take away Invader Zim, but if you must, don't rub salt into the wound with Butt-Ugly Martians. I'm thinking Invader Zim might fit well in Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, but maybe I'm just reluctant to see it go.
Dylan Ramey
dylanthespaceman@earthlink.net
hank you. I found the three recent letters from J.A. Fludd ("Jar Jar Binks Makes No Sense"), Jason Maxwell ("Many SW Races Equal with Humans") and Michael Kroll ("Wars and Trek Are Still Stars") most refreshing. I guess I get sick and tired of hearing people piss and moan about this character or that situation from Star Wars or Star Trek. Think about what activity you're doing: watching TV, i.e., entertainment! Geez, can't ya'll just get along and enjoy the entertainment!
Steven Selby
cuddebak@pacbell.net
on Thompson asks if people still read SF ("SF Should Be Read and Not Seen")? Of course! Most of the SF I love is written. Most of the best-loved SF of masses of people is in print. Very rarely does media SF equal the print stuff. Books like A Canticle for Leibowitz, Left Hand of Darkness, Solaris, and countless others are seen in the same light as Dickens or Steinbeck. SF books still sell quite well and make it into critic's "best of the year" lists that do not even specify genre.
With all that said, the audience for written SF will always be smaller than media. A book would be considered a runaway hit if it sold several million copies, a film that makes less than 10 million is usually considered a failure. That is excepting small indie films of course. Network TV shows are yanked for having viewerships in the under 5 million range.
Also the fact is most of us were introduced to SF through the media. This is natural because how else can you be so introduced if you are not old enough to read? It may even pre-date TV. Back in the '30s, I believe radio serials, cartoon shorts about Martians and comic books were the introductions to SF for kids. With the exception of the last these do not involve any reading.
Also this site is hosted by the SCI FI Channel. I know it is in no way an arm of the corporation, but that tenuous link might attract more media types.
Despite all that, I do prefer discussions about print SF. It was nice to read about Chinese SF ("It Really Is a Small World After All") for example. I had stumbled upon SF World once even. Sadly, I did not get much out of it because I never got past first year Chinese. Still I'd love to try more SF from China, a country I've long been fascinated with. I have tried a story by Tong Enzheng and Ye Yonglie each, but I probably could not name you another Chinese SF author offhand. I would especially like to try Taiwanese SF, because as that country democratizes I imagine it will be free to do increasingly good work. Sad to say, can that be said for the PRC?
Well, I feel this letter is going in tangents, which the editors hate, so I'll stop there.
Thaddeus Randall
Train@ethnologue.com
on Thompson ("SF Should Be Read and Not Seen") writes: "Your 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."
My response: Generally speaking, SF is read (and watched) by people with "a modicum of intelligence" (as you phrased it).
Mr. Thompson continues: "Some of the topics discussed in the past while make me wonder if SF is
nothing but TV and movies!"
My response: scifi.com is mostly devoted to television (being the official Web site of the SCI FI Channel). Why are you surprised that discussion of TV programs and movies make up the subject of the bulk of the letters submitted here?
Surely, anyone with "a modicum of intelligence" would understand that. Mr. Thompson continues: "Does no one read SF these days? Further, it would seem to me that fantasy (ugh!) and SF should be discussed as separate protocols."
My response: Of course we do. And anyone with "a modicum of intelligence" would realize that all fiction is fantasy, and be less inclined to disparage it. In terms of the actual genre, some of the best writers on the planet, from A.S. Byatt and Harlan Ellison, to Naguib Mahfouz and Gabriel Garcia Marquez write the stuff and anyone with "a modicum of intelligence" would be aware of that (not to mention the sheer quality of their work).
Mr. Thompson concludes: "How about fielding some letters from readers, as opposed to viewers!"
My response: This site has published plenty of letters from readers—where do you suppose the debate over J.K. Rowling's Hugo victory ("Rowling Won with a Great Book") came from (as just one very recent example)?
As long as scifi.com is the official site of the SCI FI Channel, I expect they'll keep emphasizing TV and movies more than books and magazines. As long as they don't go out of their way to actively exclude them (and they do go out of their way to cover them in reviews, and to include letters on them here), I can't see any real reason to be upset.
S.A. Wiebe
s.a.wiebe@shaw.ca
ow that ABC Disney bought out Fox Family Channel, and is now ABC Family Channel, will Dungeons & Dragons, the cartoon series, finally come out onto video and DVD next year? I have been hearing rumors that it will, but I am not sure when in 2002. It is long overdue for us fans since it was just on TV last year during two very boring campaigns. There is also a lost, last, final episode written by the brilliant and talented Michael Reaves, in which we find out that the mission of the kids was not to
defeat Venger, but to redeem him back to his father dungeon master, the one thing not within his power to do. It was never produced by CBS at the time who felt that the ratings for the third and final season just weren't there to produce the final episode. It would be great if someone could produce this lost, last episode along with releasing the original 27 episodes of the show onto video and DVD to round out this great American cartoon series.
After all, it was George Lucas who said that great science fiction is never finished or completed, only abandoned, and this great script of Michael Reaves should be made for the legions of fans
of us out there who love this great cartoon, and round out the series, even if no new episodes are ever made or a new show comes out of it.
Michael Pelletier
mpellet@754aol.com
am perplexed by Pete Slacum's complaint that the Justice League does
not allow Green Lantern to "kick butt" ("New Green Lantern Doesn't Shine").
Is Mr. Slacum watching the same show I am? John Stewart has plenty of opportunity to demonstrate how powerful a GL he is. Some examples include:
"Secret Origins-Part 2"—The fighter ships employed by the alien "Invaders" prove powerful enough to slow Superman down. Still, they are no match for John Stewart, who uses his ring to pick off the enemy craft with ease.
"Secret Origins-Part 3"—After being freed from Invader captivity, Stewart is filled with righteous fury toward the aliens and their leader, the Imperium. The Green Lantern unleashes his rage by blasting holes the size of small buildings in the hull of the Imperium's huge shuttlecraft, severely crippling it.
"In Blackest Night-Part 2"—Stewart employs his ring's energies as a whip to tear through hordes of attacking Manhunter robots like tin foil. But his most impressive feat is using his ring and sheer strength of will to draw the green energies from the lead Manhunter (who is destroyed in the process) and restore them to planet Oa's main battery.
"The Enemy Below-Part 1"—Against an American submarine, the armored warships at Aquaman's command seemed invincible. However, the Atlantean vessels might as well be made out of warm butter as Stewart's ring slices through them with chilling speed and accuracy.
These actions are a stark contrast to those of Hal Jordan on the politically correct Superfriends. On that show, Jordan was never, ever allowed to use his ring to physically harm supervillains. The worst Jordan could do to archenemy Sinestro was trap the guy in a harmless, green bubble. TV censors would have had a stroke if Jordon knocked out Sinestro with something more threatening like a giant, green boxing glove.
John Stewart's more aggressive use of his ring is due to two factors. The first is scheduling. Traditionally, superhero cartoons air on Saturday mornings or weekday afternoons, prime viewing times for younger viewers. Hence, shows like Superfriends have strict guidelines on depictions of violence that could corrupt young minds. On the other hand, Justice League airs late in the evening, which gives John Stewart plenty of leeway when blasting his foes with his ring. If censorious watchdogs gripe about the violence, Cartoon Network can remind them that JL's timeslot is geared
for an older audience. The network's explanation is sound: there are plenty of adults who don't read comics, yet regularly watch superhero cartoons like Batman: The Animated Series, X-Men and Powerpuff Girls.
The other reason for the devastating power of Stewart's ring is personality. Kyle Rayner is an artist with a sense of humor. Naturally, he would use his ring to create green Amazons, dragons and other fantasy characters to battle his opponents. This method fits his personality.
John Stewart's frank, no-nonsense demeanor implies a military background. Soldiers prefer the most efficient method for defeating an enemy. To Stewart, only a showoff (read: fool) would waste time and energy using cartoon characters to fight supervillains or alien invaders. It is far simpler and quicker to vaporize your foe with a powerful energy beam, then move on to the next target. Though some GL fanboys may gripe that this approach is "politically incorrect," its effectiveness is impossible to
refute.
So, Mr. Slacum's argument that John Stewart is a wimp compared to other Green Lanterns is completely groundless. If anything, Stewart kicks supervillain butt so often that Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner are green with envy. (No pun intended.)
I'm beginning to suspect a double standard at work here. When the line-up for Justice League was announced, many GL fans were livid that Rayner or Jordan didn't get the green power ring. They moaned "Why does that 'loser' John Stewart get to be Green Lantern?" Since their demands to remove
Stewart from the JL cartoon have failed, the fanboys now subject the character to undue scrutiny.
Well, the Stewart bashers are going to have to deal with Bruce Timm's decision because it's quite logical. How can you in good conscience call a super-team the Justice League of America and not have at least one minority hero? Yes, writers on the JLA comics prefer completely white line-ups, but that doesn't make it right. (I'll let the scholars debate whether JLA's lack of diversity is due to following tradition or willful racism.)
Furthermore, as revealed in a Cinescape Online interview, Timm really likes Stewart because of his hard-nosed personality. I agree. It is this quality of Stewart that makes him a cool, confident superhero instead of a hapless black token. Stewart could run the JLA quite well if Batman or Superman was put out of commission. Actually, that did happen in the final act of "Secret Origins." A black leader is something you never see in the JLA comics. (By comparison, Marvel Comics' Avengers and X-Men have no problems with minorities in authority roles.)
When all the evidence is weighed, John Stewart has every right to be part of the JLA. He has more than enough power to stand among Earth's greatest heroes. He also has the direct, all-business attitude necessary to keep in line his less professional teammates (e.g., the Flash). In short, John
Stewart is one of the best things to happen to Justice League, a fact appreciated by objective TV viewers.
Frederick D. Weaver
duane106@olg.com
irst, I would like to say a thanks to the letter writers and Science Fiction Weekly for a good debate ("Wars and Trek Are Still Stars", "Many SW Races Equal with Humans" and "Jar Jar Binks Makes No Sense").
The problem with the argument that fantasy doesn't mean anything because it is about the unreal is that it doesn't hold water. Fantasy is a medium like any other and can be read, viewed and interpreted, it is not divorced from the real world as it is written and produced in the real world by real
human beings.
Sorry to say, but there is racism in Star Trek; it is noticeable that the producers are happier with inter-species relationships than they are with human inter-racial ones.
The belief that criticism of the number of white people in Star Wars is like criticism of the number of black players in some sports is spurious. The athletes have got to the field by merit, not because the part was written for them. When black-dominated sports are written for the screen it invariably has white leads and black supporting actors (Rocky, etc). Billy Dee Williams and Samuel L. Jackson are in supporting roles. The evil black-clad, black-voiced, Darth Vader is revealed, when redeemed, to be white, how much more interesting to have had the mask to come off to reveal James Earl Jones (an actor who I believe had the gravitas to bring off the part better than Sebastian Shaw).
I was using the races in Star Wars that we have seen more of than a one off appearance. We know a lot about Yoda but little of his race. The same with the Wookies. Lucas says the original model for the Ewoks was to be Wookies but that Chewbacca had shown that race to be cleverer, he had wanted
"savages." The most interesting race is the Mon Calimari. They are supposed to be the backbone of the rebel fleet but we know little about them and see less.
I would like to widen the discussion because a close look at Star Wars throws up other criticisms. The rebels fight a dictatorship so presumably they support its opposite, democracy. Princess Leia is the adoptive member of a Royal family that is the political power on Alderaan. The Jedi have power because of hereditary traits. Lando Calrissian wins Cloud City (population of over 5 million excluding droid) in a game and installs himself as Baron-Administrator he doesn't enfranchise its people, it is his own property, and he even loses it later in another game. There is much talk of freedom but even the good main characters think nothing of buying and selling artificial but intelligent individuals that are clearly sentient. Are these the "heroes" of oppression?
Terry Mckay
balbus@geocities.com
read the comments from J.A. Fludd about Jar-Jar ("Jar Jar Binks Makes No Sense") and after telling him how ridiculously picky he is I can answer his questions about Jar-Jar's apparent design peculiarities from Lucus's own words in an interview about
how other things that are not scientifically perfect can work in his universe. "I didn't write the storyline to be as things should be, but how I wanted them to be." So stop being so nit-picky and enjoy the show.
Eric E. Anchor
eanchor@yahoo.com
must say that it warms my heart to see so many so quickly dismiss ("Wars and Trek Are Still Stars", "Many SW Races Equal with Humans" and "Jar Jar Binks Makes No Sense") the concerns of a group (or an individual) who believes they have been maligned by the portrayal of alien races in Star Wars: Episode I.
I am a white guy. I watched Episode I and didn't see anything that I found truly upsetting ... until I started hearing commentary about negative and racist portrayals. I gave the film a harder look, and I could understand the point made. I have no experience as a person of color. I cannot claim to understand how they feel, but I can try to understand why. Perhaps the others who wrote (and many who I'm sure didn't) should step outside of themselves and reach for a little understanding.
John J. Gabarron, IV
fauxbear@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
