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.
have been a great fan of science fiction, fantasy, theater, cinema and art all my life. When the SCI FI Channel premiered, I was overwhelmed with joy. I have been a huge fan of Babylon 5 since it first aired, and I am very happy SCI FI has syndicated it. I was anxiously waiting the premiere of Legend of the Rangers and after viewing, I have been blown away. It was amazing.
If there are plans for a possible series in the works, I know every Babylon 5 fan would support it completely, and sci-fi fans in general would swarm to the show in time. I've gone far enough to suggest friends and fans to petition for The Legend of the Rangers to become a series, I don't know if it will help, but I hope it can persuade someone to allow this magnificent epic journey to take its honored role in the history of sci-fi, and as one of science fiction's greatest achievements.
William Falcone
TaoRyu@aol.com
ust got done viewing Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers and loved it. I hope this is the start of a new show. If so, maybe there can be more crossing over storylines with other past cast members from earlier B5 shows.
We can only hope.
John McPherson
johnrita@yellowbananas.com
he debate over the merits of science fiction and fantasy book series is interesting ("Series Stories Often Surprise" and "Series Inferior to Stand-Alone"). Many readers argue that is extremely difficult for an author to keep a series fresh, especially after a few years of novels. And there are certainly series out there that prove this to be true. Likewise, the assumption that genre authors must write in three-book series can produce books that are perhaps better condensed into one volume than extended.
Should readers simply avoid series? That pessimistic solution will certainly mean they won't have to read a poorly executed series, but it also means they will never read those brilliant works that make authors write a series in the first place. Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is simply amazing, and while some books are better than others, they are all above par. Well, in my estimation they are.
I certainly cannot speak for all series that have been mentioned in this debate. However, I would like to recommend Peter David's Star Trek: New Frontier series. I do not read other Star Trek series, so for all I know they may indeed be as bad as some writers have claimed. Or they may not. But the New Frontier books are laugh-out-loud hilarious. I look forward to the next installment, wanting more of the oddball characters and wild plot twists. I prefer my escapes from reality to be entertaining and amusing, and this series always is.
Robin Sanford
eseme_r@yahoo.com
really hate it when Science Fiction Weekly reminds me of books I've read and makes me want to
go back and read them again, but it's worse when you remind how much I enjoyed reading all the books by one author.
Your feature on The Chrysalids by John Wyndham was correct. While Wyndham's ideas were not particularly brilliant, they were presented in a down-to-Earth, realistic style that said "sure, that could happen."
Avoid the movie and read Wyndham's Day of the Triffids. And if you can
find it, pick up Jizzle, a collection of bizarre and really humorous short stories.
Jim James
jimjames2001@hotmail.com
K, I'm trying to be calm and collective here as I write this, but after reading Mr. Berkwits' review and seeing the official Web site, I can not hold back my anger.
This version of Metropolis is, for all purposes, a remake of the original 1927 silent film classic directed by Fritz Lang, and the worst part of it is no one but no one (not the Web site, the linear note, and not in the review) is there an acknowledgment that this was inspired or based on the original film.
Believe me, folks, I have tried every available Web site and read all the notes from the Internet Movie Database, the official Web site and every other place I can think of. There is not one note or paragraph or anything that says simply that the anime was based on the work of Fritz Lang who adapted the novel of the same name from Thea Von Harbou and who did bother to acknowledge credit for unlike the promoters of this film. In fact, Columbia Tri-Star is taking great pains in saying that this film was an original work ... which as any fan of science fiction and classic film can tell you it's not!
I find Mr. Lang's and Ms. Harbou's omission from the credits of this picture to be both troubling and embarrassing. Anyone can see this is not an original work. It's a remake, adapted from a manga that had been inspired from the original black and white picture. It is disturbing that someone at Columbia Tri-Star didn't notice this sooner. It's like saying Peter Jackson did The Lord of The Rings without noticing J.R.R. Tolkien's original book series.
It's also disturbing that no effort as of yet has been made to correct this injustice. I consider the total lack of respect in giving credit to the original 1927 film which inspired both the manga and this remake to be offensive and a disgrace. I urge the distributors of this film to make amends to the fans of the original picture, the true original, by giving credit to both the 1927 Fritz Lang and the novel by Thea Von Harbou on the Web site and on the DVD and video prints of this film. By not acknowledging its existence, Columbia Tri-Star is committing for a lack of a better term cultural fraud! Yes, this version of Metropolis was done Osamu Tezuka, but Fritz Lang and Thea Von Harbou were there first! The credits should reflect that fact very clear.
I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed this error and I hope I'm not the only one boiling mad by this slight.
James K. Chambliss
WeirdArchives@prodigy.net
Jeff Berkwits responds:
Mr. Chambliss's concern is a valid one, and, in fact, I addressed this point in a question that was inadvertently cut from the accompanying Rintaro interview (it has since been reinserted into the posted transcript). In addition to Rintaro's response, according to all reliable sources—including the page devoted to the Metropolis manga on the official Osamu Tezuka Web site—Tezuka had not seen Lang's movie when he initially crafted the story: He had only viewed a single photograph from the film. There are certainly similarities between Lang's adaptation of von Harbou's novel and Rintaro's interpretation of Tezuka's manga—an embittered working class, an attractive android doppelgänger, aboveground and underground dwellers, and skylines inspired by Manhattan—but there are enough significant disparities in plot and characterization to classify them as different productions.
Best,
Jeff
So, you think the majority of viewers approve of the Enterprise theme song because you know "a lot" of people who like it ("Trek Suite Suits Show").
Assuming only 200,000 people watch Enterprise each week (this is probably a very low estimate), you would need to know 100,001 of them to say the majority of the viewers like the theme song. Please name them.
Actually, the visuals are very good, but the song just leaves me flat. And most people I know actually go so far as to say they hate the song. Now, I only need to find about 100,000 more people to say the same thing and I get to call the majority.
My point is that please don't speak for the majority unless you can prove it. Also, the argument is pointless since no one I know has the power the change it. Only Rick Berman [can], and he's not listening.
Dave Kopp
dolby1000@aol.com
n a the SciFi Wire story titled "Enterprise Highlights Keating", the actor is quoted saying, "As an actor, this experience, particularly on 'Shuttle Pod One,' I didn't expect it. I don't want to insult [co-creator] Brannon [Braga] or anyone who writes for the show, but I didn't expect ...
to play such a three-dimensional, living, breathing human being on a science-fiction show. I didn't expect it. So I'm bowled over. I hope there's more of that to come." I hope this was taken out of context somehow.
Because what won't surprise the sci-fi viewer and the science fiction reader is the idea that; yes, Mr. Keating, there will be more moments like this, or we wouldn't watch or read this genre at all. It reminds me of the time when I decided to broaden my horizons and read more non-genre literature and TV. The final result was that I had more respect for genre writers.
These writers try everything that every writer does, which is create good characters and good plots, then they try to also tackle the hurdle of introducing a new world and still make the reader/view care. I am biased, but I think such people should be recognized for their overachievement instead of being written off. Then again I wonder if it's perhaps not that John Q. Public finds something lacking in sci-fi, but prefers it that way.
Humanity likes convenience. Why try a new author when a well-known one is known to deliver a passable story? I know acquaintances who wouldn't waste their time reading a genre book or seeing most genre television, but if well-known licensed franchise puts out a movie, they will line up to see it.
Ironically, one fellow I know who constantly ribs me about my genre reading loves the least scientific sci-fi movies he can find, the more action and special effects, along with the least amount of plot and science the better.
With that in mind, I was disappointed that Armageddon made much more of a box office bang than Deep Impact. Impact was one of the closest things I had seen resembling a science fiction novel in a while. Armageddon was just a good B-movie with an A budget and A actors. I'd hazard a guess that the higher box office gross for Armageddon came from the attendance of more non-genre fans.
I personally don't have a problem with Johnny Q. if he wants his genre favorites to be bubble-gum lite. The frustrating part is when such people look down at the rest of the work done in the genre as if it was not only all empty of merit, but underachieving as well. Perhaps it's the assumption that since they enjoy their guilty diversion only once in a while that they assume one would have to be crazy to enjoy it day in and day out. And if most genre fans were just enjoying the fluff stuff, they'd be right.
So how do we convince a public that may even be actively resisting the idea that there is noteworthy work going on in genre fiction? It seems that we keep doing what we're doing now and not get discouraged. How many actors from the Lord of The Rings movie read the books before the movie? A few but not all. Now the actors have all gotten tattoos with the elvish number nine. I don't know many hard-core Tolkien fans who've done the same. Mr. Keating is also beginning to understand as well, so things look good. There is one thing, however, we need to change.
The stigma genre fans carry within themselves.
In a recent magazine article, Jolene Blalock, said she was approached by Star Trek fans who said, "We only want the best for you. Don't fear us. We are a kind people." Where was the call to say that? For some reason, these fans felt that they had to preface that they were harmless. If I remember
right, there was only one serious stalking case in the more than 30 years of the Star Trek franchise. With that long a time, it was bound to happen. It seems extreme to think that whole group of ST fans would be afraid that he/she would be mistaken as the "next stalker" or upset an actor by fawning over her. Sci-fi or not, it's still show business. One doesn't have to shout their love for the genre from the rooftops, but it's overdue that the readers and fans shrug off their insecurities about their hobbies and go on. If we can do that and also keep up the good work we do else where, perhaps some day in the future our grandkids can vote in a genre work for Oscar or a Nobel. It may not happen in our lifetime, but then again, the present is not what we're all about, is it?
Chris Negelein
Negelein@hotmail.com
his past week on Enterprise, Capt. Archer and Dr. Phlox encounter a planet with two native humaniod species. One race is dying off, the other, a less advanced humaniod species, is slowly advancing. They develop a cure for the dying race, but decide to withold the information because they do not wish to interfere with the natural evolution on the planet, and as Capt. Archer puts it, "we have to remind ourselves we are not out here to play God."
Well, I have a couple of problems with the episode, some light, some deep. First, I think it is poor script writing to present only two, simplistic, "black & white" answers to the moral dilema—let them die or cure them outright. I hope our real decendants 200 years from now will have more sophistication to deal with moral decisions, and have the capacity to come up with, as Kirk once said in the first Trek series, "Gentlemen, I want that third option!"
Secondly, by refusing any possibility at a cure, Archer is playing God with the destiny of an entire race. Perhaps it is reflection of our current culture that the best way to handle difficult decisions is to do nothing and walk away.
Finally however, it is this mentality that evolution is somehow a sacred process, not to be disturbed, as though we were attacking a religious doctrine. I once heard a person say we should let all the people in Africa suffering from the AIDS epidemic die because it was "evolution." Now many
of you will be upset, and say I am comparing apples to oranges, but I do not think so. The quality of human compassion cannot be divided up like poker chips, to be distrubted by luck and circumstances. We must choose to believe that life, here on Earth or otherwise, has value, and once having done so, find a way to work out problems along our chosen path.
Maybe the original Star Trek series was too quick to always save the universe in the last five minutes of the hour, but I found the writting to handle moral issues more in-depth than the last episode of Enterprise.
Joseph O'Neil
joneil@multiboard.com
am apparently one of the few X-Files fans who's disappointed in the cancellation of the show ("X-Files Deserves a 10th Season", "Mulder and Scully Can't Be Replaced", "X Still Shows Potential" and "Scully Is Not X's Lifeline"). While I can't argue that the stories haven't been matching the same level of previous years, I think too many people abandoned the show when Robert Patrick, and especially, Annabeth Gish came on to the show.
For too many fans, the show was Mulder and Scully and not the stories and the mythology. It's the same type of reaction I remember seeing when Star Trek: The Next Generation was being readied. I can remember fans speaking out loudly about this show not being Star Trek since Kirk, Spock and McCoy weren't in it. The last few [episodes of] X-Files have shown me that Patrick and Gish are excellent actors and would have carried nicely, if the show had been renewed. I can understand Annabeth Gish's disappointment in the poor ratings. She and Robert Patrick should feel no blame for this. I think the writers should field more of the responsibility. With any TV show, it's the writing that ultimately makes or breaks it. That's why Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are some of my favorite shows. The actors are attractive and good performers, but it's the witty writing that keeps bringing me back.
Robert Palomino
TriggeR58@aol.com
here are a few little "mistakes" in the review on Flowers for Algernon.
[Warning: spoilers ahead.]
First of all, we don't know that the effects on Charlie are only temporary until about half way or more into the book. The first indications are when Algernon begins having tantrum-like cases in his cage and the maze.
Secondly, just when Charlie feels a difference in his life (when he defends the mentally challenged boy and vows to contribute to research) Algernon never bites him! I suggest that specific sentence be re-worded. In actual fact, Charlie and Algernon become quite bonded companions until Charlie knows Algernon needs help from the lab.
Lastly, I think you should give a little more detail on the story outlook, rather than the themes. Give people an idea on just how emotional the book is!
Just some ideas....
Anji C.
dolly_c24@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
