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.
solemn discussion of whether antimatter could be the source of power and longevity of the ring ("Antimatter Could Power the One Ring") in Lord of the Rings ought to be remembered as a comic masterpiece. What is being overlooked is that both book and movie make it clear what the source of power is. The Ring of Power, the One Ring is
powered by evil because its maker, Sauron, is evil. No other explanation is necessary, but it seems that a reminder is necessary.
Fantasy and science fiction have a separate set of rules. In science fiction, the author must
give a plausible explanation for everything ("The One Humvee"). If there's an object that retains power for thousands of years, well, then, a discussion of antimatter as a source of power is not only appropriate, it is a requirement of the field. Fantasy operates by a different set of rules. If an evil spirit is trying to take over the world through a magic ring, no further explanation is necessary. What confuses the issue is simply that bad fantasy authors think that no rules are necessary. Tolkien was a very great author and his books make the rules of his world very clear. He is completely consistent, and consistency is all that counts in fantasy. The ring can only be destroyed by being thrown into Mt. Doom where it was created. That is fantasy at its best. Tolkien, having made that the rule then made the effort to get to Mt. Doom the source of his plot and the result was Lord of the Rings. No rationalization of the ring's power is necessary.
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
eesh. How about everybody take a deep breath and lighten up a little? In reading through the latest letters column, I was struck by how nit picky and small minded most of the correspondence came off. This is the sort of stuff that gives us geeks a bad name, makes us all seem like the comic book guy on The Simpsons ("Worst letters column ever...")!
First, for all you Lord of the Rings ultra purists who trash the new movie, just one question: Why did you go? Why did you even bother to see the film? It's a movie. An adaptation. It's not going to be the same as the book, never could be. So why did you trouble yourself, waste your good
time and money, when you already knew you'd be disappointed? Curious, that. I tended to agree with much of the review in Science Fiction Weekly. At times, the visions on the screen echoed the visions
I've had in my mind after reading and rereading the books, three times now in my life. Beautiful.
And, yes, The Lord of the Rings is not Harry Potter ("Rings and Potter Can't Be Compared"). Glad we had that cleared up. But maybe like Narnia, which is not The Bible. All clear?
Cast members jumping ship when a series moves to the SCI FI Channel... deja vu? Gotta hope the quality of Stargate doesn't take a Slide... er.
The X-Files, hmm... is that still on?
Buy the Babylon 5 DVD ("Babylon 5 DVD Needs More Support"). Buy another one, give it to a friend. Heck, buy two more, you have more than one friend, don't you? Oh, sorry. OK, well then buy just one more and give it to a stranger. And get out more, you look so pale, spending all your time nitpicking on the net. Are you eating OK?
And the prose purist who stopped buying any novels that are part of a series of books out of some misguided "protest" really made me snicker ("Series Inferior to Stand-Alone"). His loss. I've thoroughly enjoyed the three new Babylon 5 trilogies (the Technomage Trilogy just wrapped up. Very tasty). The new Dune books I tried, but couldn't get into. I ended up rereading Dune, though, which probably comes pretty close. And, geesh, again, many of us read outside the genre as well as inside, and you know what? We still enjoy series, too (should you like a list of recent non genre reads on my part, email and I'll be glad to provide you with my list. Ahem).
So we began with crabs who hate their series of books being made into a movie, and end with one who's moved to hate series of books being made. Nice symmetry, editors, but, c'mon, isn't anyone having fun in sci-fi anymore?
Mike Luoma
glowindark@adelphia.net
've just read all the unfortunate letters ("Rings Is Poor Adaptation of Tolkien", "Rings Diminishes Tolkien's Vision" and "Lord of the Rings Is Disappointing") bashing the film adaptation of the first Lord of the Rings book, and I think this raises a subject long overdue to be discussed: the quality of writing in older sci-fi and fantasy novels.
First off I will freely state that, except for The Hobbit and the first 111 pages of Fellowship of the Ring, I have not read Tolkien's saga. There is a reason for this: after the first 111 pages of Fellowship, I gave up.
Now, I'm a college graduate and I like to think I've got a decent brain in my head, and I do appreciate that Tolkien came from a different era and different culture than 2001-America, and that writing back then was more formal, the grammar more complicated and that Tolkien was a well-educated
writer. I also appreciate how much effort he must have put into his telling of the Rings saga and how complex and detailed a world he created. He essentially wrote a bible for an entire world. It's commendable and impressive.
Quantity, however, does not necessarily equal quality. There are two major factors that ruined my enjoyment of Fellowship. First, the devastatingly overwhelming amount of minute details in the narrative and in the dialogue. There are so many exotic names thrown about (which is an additional problem because one can't even say most of them without having a doctorate in linguistics) and references that it is near-impossible to remember them all, let alone figure out which ones will be key to the progress of the story and which ones are just background details. I gave up somewhere in the scenes in Rivendell which were particularly riddled with historical and linguistic minutiae, so bad I could not tell what was being talked about clearly any more, and at that point I no longer cared.
The second major problem, relating again to the progress of the story, is the abominable pace of the storytelling. I do not need to read every other ten pages about every last uneventful nanosecond of Frodo's day. "We woke, it was hot, we ate, we got up, it was still hot, we walked, we got tired, we ate, we rested, we napped, it was hot, we walked again, it was still hot, we slept, we ate again..." I was raised partly in the theater and while reading such scenes I kept hearing my mother (a director) saying "Pace people, pick up the pace, let's keep the scene going!" Much of the key essentials of those first 111 pages could probably have been fit into one-half or even one-third the
length.
Tolkien's not the only classic genre author to suffer from writing problems like this. Asimov wrote a lot of fiction, but his characterization is terrible and his work riddled with dialogue that could have come out of a computer programming text, seriously lacking clear and potent drama. Arthur C. Clarke, whose work I love, also suffers admittedly from weak characterization. But Tolkien's Rings is just too much to stomach. The Hobbit was much better—better pace, the drama and emotions of the characters and scenes were powerful and clear, and the story details and plot progression weren't buried for the sake of background details. I thoroughly enjoyed The Hobbit and sorely wished that Fellowship had been written so well!
Which finally brings me to the film adaptation, clearly worked on so very hard by Peter Jackson, the cast and the crew. I loved this movie! They have whittled down the saga of the Ring down to its essentials. I could keep track of the characters, I could follow the whys and wherefores of the plot developments and I could empathize with the characters. I could understand and appreciate the tale. And if a few details of the saga had to be changed, so what? That happens all the time in any adaptation.
Considering how far Jackson and Company went to stay true to the basics of the story and the spirit of the saga's concepts, any changes made seem insignificant. Jackson almost moved heaven and earth to get this movie made properly. Hollywood executives would have almost certainly butchered it. Jackson and the crew and the wonderful cast treated this adaptation like a labor of love. The very least we can do is appreciate their efforts instead of condemning them. I know there is no way to please everyone, but come on folks, let's give the nitpicking criticism a rest!
I understand that older genre works like Tolkien's and Asimov's are a bit dated through no fault of their own, and that they were groundbreaking work at the time, paving the way for the authors to come after. But the appeal of being "classics" can only go so far. Think me a disloyal or even uninformed fan: all that matters is that Jackson made Tolkien's vision more accessible without destroying the vision. I can only hope the rumors about a proposed adaptation of Asimov's Foundation is done with equal skill and devotion. And I look forward to the film The Two Towers!
Adam R. Goss
saganth@yahoo
K. [The Lord of the Rings] skipped sooooo many characters and chapters in the movie that were actually my favorite parts! Take Tom Bombadil for instance! Woah there! How could they cut one of the best and funniest characters out? And they also skipped the first ... what is it? Ten chapters!?
In the book they waited quite a few years before Frodo even thought of leaving [The Shire]. And he sold Bag End and moved to Buckland! And they weren't going to meet Gandalf at The Prancing Pony. Tom Bombadil told them to go there. And he also gave them there swords. Not Strider. And... do I need to go on?
Other than them skipping a lot of characters and chapters. I loved the movie!
Emily Collier
mec5@home.com
n response to the people complaining ("Rings Is Poor Adaptation of Tolkien", "Rings Diminishes Tolkien's Vision" and "Lord of the Rings Is Disappointing") that the film adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring is not exactly like the book—of course it isn't! It's a movie! If you have ever seen a movie that was exactly like the book on which it was based, I'd like to know what it was! Even books written based on movies usually have differences. Don't you realize that film makers have to entertain the audience as well as tell the story? If you want the story to be word-for-word, scene-for-scene the same, then just re-read the books and forget about any visual interpretations or representations. I felt the film told the story and captured the feel of Middle-earth well, and what differences there were from the books did not deter my enjoyment. My only complaints were that I could have used less close-ups of the evil creatures, and that it's so long to wait for the next installment of the story!
Celia Garland
celia@mcgee-gelman.com
suppose it was inevitable.
When fans of the Rings trilogy finally get a film version, instead of focusing their attention on what the film does right, they immediately begin to nitpick it, sniping at all the little changes/additions/subtractions ("Rings Is Poor Adaptation of Tolkien", "Rings Diminishes Tolkien's Vision" and "Lord of the Rings Is Disappointing").
Over the last few years I've come to the opinion that most critics should learn to judge something for what it is, not what they thought it should be, wished it were, expected it to be, so and so forth. No one walking into a movie with a great honkin' load of expectations can be satisfied with what they see. Why not appreciate what we did receive and revel in the beauty that was there?
Unless, of course, these critics want to get off their fanboy/fangirl butts and somehow bring their interpretation to the masses... then the rest of us can pick their creation apart.
Jim Reader
dbeaird@austin.rr.com
have said many times throughout the year, 2001: A Space Odyssey has been virtually bypassed by almost every science fiction fan site online, in this, its banner year. Arguably one of the greatest science fiction films of all time, Stanley Kubrick's and Arthur C. Clarke's cinematic triumph has all but been ignored by SF media and mainstream media as well. The film has enjoyed a limited run in select theaters in the U.S., but this fact has obviously been lost on a science fiction audience that prefers to have Buffy The Vampire Slayer as a false heir to the throne of filmed SF for the next decade.
With that said, 2001 does not contain all the marketing gimmicks that would make it a profitable sell to today's so-called "sophisticated, 21st-century Internet-ready audience." No trash strewn spaceship carrying black-leather clad anti-heroes, no rock/industrial soundtrack, or the omnipresent computer geek hacking away mindlessly on a laptop while randomly spewing pop culture references to keep the whole thing grounded in some kind of drug-induced reality. Such is the sad state of most today's manipulative, condescending SF films. What's even scarier is that this state of affairs is OK with people. One of the many things that 2001 had going for it was vision, even though some may say that that vision it was flawed, you can never say that it was a remake (like most of today's poor, big-budget retreads). So who, in the vast, grizzled ranks of 21st-century SF-dom, dropped the ball to let the masses know that 2001 was making the rounds again?
Fredrick D. Gilmore
fgilmore@global-sales.cc
oncerning Alan Kornheiser's letter entitled "American Zone Has Little Logic"; his letter should be re-titled: "This Letter Has Little Logic." Kornheiser's mock-intellectual comments are not addressing the review, they are making a political comment about Neil Smith's views. As much as I desire to debate someone obviously devoid of an understanding of Libertarianism or the actual impact of an armed citizenry, the Science Fiction Weekly letters page is not the proper forum. I am positive the majority of the
readers of this column would appreciate your future focus on the issue at hand: What makes this good/bad sci-fi/fantasy? Thanks.
Lance Kirby
lancekirby@mediaone.net
ell, you said we could air a gripe about something going on in the world of scif-fi. This has to do with the recent departure of Michael Shanks from Stargate SG-1 as Dr. Daniel Jackson. In interviews, Mr. Shanks has stated he left because his character was not being utilized and that writers weren't listening to him about the direction of the character. I agree.
This is not to say I think the writers aren't talented people and I know that there are many people behind the scenes who want to have a say and have their fingers in the pot so to speak about how each storyline should be presented. However, I think that this does bring to light how the series itself has gone downhill over the past seasons and that their seems to be less stories written to appeal to the loyal since day one audience they already have and more being written in an attempt to woo certain other demographics (male 18-30).
It might be an excellent opportunity for us the fans to say get a clue about how much you are annoying and angering the very viewers who were the ones that put the show in the top spot to begin with and made it a success story ... and a big part of that success story was generated by Michael Shanks incredible performance as Dr. Daniel Jackson. The character is integral to the continuation of what the series Stargate SG-1 is all about, which is the team that was introduced to us and that we believed in as a viewer.
So, yes, I am disturbed by this recent turn of events and I ask those in charge of bringing the character back to do so ... but more than that, to restore the whole premise of Stargate SG-1 to its original creative and entertaining status like it was in the beginning.
Marla
gateangell@yahoo.com
n several recent letters—"Modern SF Writers Are Feeding Fluff" and "Stand-Alone Novels Are Sadly Rare"—Tre Saulley and Keith Kitchen bemoan the state of the SF publishing and both seem to attribute that sad state to lazy writers.
Alas, I think neither of those correspondents understands that writers do not determine what gets published—agents, readers, editors and even marketing departments do. Frequently agents will tell writers to write a series—after all, that's continuing money for both writer and agent—and often an editor will be on the lookout for a series because ... series books sell.
Editors, too, are often looking not for original material, but for things that are like something else. They're looking out for something like Star Trek, something like Star Wars, something like something we've all seen before. That's because the marketing department wants to be able to use the hype and buzz created by one "property" to sell another.
As a writer with several series in process, I can tell you that editors seem reluctant to even talk to me about a stand-alone book. More, readers are very active these days (using the Internet for example) to let publishers know that they want more of this or that. When a publisher says "how about a
contract for three more in the series?" it can be hard to turn down. When the fans tell you they just have to have that next fix, it gets really difficult to turn down....
I do want to comment that—as a reader and fan—I don't like the sharecropping of dead authors works; this I feel tends to sap the skill and originality of the (often young) writer who is doing the continuation. By the way, this is also my argument against young writers getting caught-up in
writing fanfic, which tends to turn into a game of one-upmanship and wish-fulfillment writing instead of honest explorations of theme, character and ideas. In both sharecropped and fanfic universes the vision of the original author is usually diluted if not outright vandalized.
If readers really want more single novels and more original novels they have got to support the publishers and writers who do that—and they've got to out-shout the marketing departments and the agents can who have so much behind-the-scene influence over an author's career.
Steve Miller
steve.miller@sff.net
have read all the pros and cons about racism in sci-fi ("Trek Salutes Racial Diversity", "White Males Always Depicted Poorly", "SW Heroes Aren't Always Heroic", "George Lucas Explained Jar Jar" and "SW Spurs Reach for Understanding"), I have read
the letters about Star Trek and Star Wars, and I have come to one undeniable
conclusion; YOU CAN'T WIN! No matter who or what is cast in any role, some stupid schmuck just has to bitch and complain about it. Let me point out just what I mean.
Judy pointed out about Senator Palpatine being white. If he were black, the N.A.A.C.P would likely be spouting off. If he were Native American, they would be complaining. If he were Puerto Rican, yada-yada-yada. Get the picture. Spike Lee complained that Eddie Murphy doesn't hire enough blacks for his movies, whites in Hollywood complained that M.A.N.T.I.S didn't hire enough whites for the show, Hispanics are complaining that there aren't enough Hispanics on television, and I'll bet if good ol' Jar-jar spoke with an Irish accent, the Irish would be complaining that they were being
stereotyped. Same with the Scottish, the Africans, the Cubans and yada-yada-yada, here we go again. When's it going to end?!
Let's face facts; blacks want more blacks in cinema, whites want more whites, Hispanics want more Hispanics, etc. Well, I got news for everyone; It ain't gonna happen. There's only so many of each of us talented enough for Hollywood, and out of them, only one in 10,000 good enough for a leading
role. The percentages of actors to percentages of races in the U.S aren't even. They have never been even. They never will be even. And every time Hollywood tries to even the score, some other racial group has still more complaints. Where the heck does it all end? Well, here's how I see it:
Jar-jar talked with his accent because it was funny. Palpatine was white because a white man landed the role. M.A.N.T.I.S. had an almost all-black cast because those were the people that got those roles. Eddie Murphy can hire whomever the heck he darn well wants to. If we could all just sit down (together, if possible), stop looking for so much darn fault in everything, and just enjoy the show, how many less racial battle-lines there would be in the world.
Bill McHale, Judy Erp, I salute you for your comments, as well as everyone else who sees the idiocy in all of this. perhaps the only reason there ever was a problem to begin with was because we made it one. If anyone out there reading this thinks the examples I gave are ridiculous, just look at the utter ludicrous, knit-picky thing they were complaining about that started all this.
We have to put down all this racial bigotry within our great nation, and we don't start out by lighting a fuse. Got it? Good.
Eric E. Anchor
eanchor@yahoo.com
was pleased with the introduction of Robert Patrick into The X-Files last year, and feel that the series has some mileage left if the producers acknowledge that it's become a different show. I think the greatest problem now is not the departure of David Duchovny, but rather the continued presence of Gillian Anderson. I really [like] Scully (and no offense is meant to Gillian Anderson), but perhaps it's time to give her character a rest as well. Scully's involvement at this point seems a little awkward, and I feel she should have left to wherever Mulder went to following the events of the season finale. The duo of Reyes and Doggett works just fine, and should be given a chance to be the focus of this new direction for the series until it has run its course.
Greg Hignight
Denversaur@aol.com
Back to the top.
