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.
fter reading the news that Stephen King is planning to retire after his next few projects are finished ("King May Stop Writing Soon"), I have to admit that I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not. The part of me that isn't surprised knows that Mr. King writes such densely crafted and well-planned stories that I find myself "shifting gears" to make sure that I don't miss any of the details; writing with such power and grace must take a lot out of a person (after all, if I remember correctly from the interview footage I saw in the '80s, most of his material comes from his nightmares, and his writing is cathartic therapy designed to dig those nightmares out of his head).
The part of me that is surprised finds it difficult to believe that Mr. King has truly found the "walls of the room" that he explored in his work. I somehow imagine that one day, like Ozzy Osbourne, Mr. King will get up from his bed, yell, "Retirement sucks!" and begin writing anew. After all, retirement doesn't exempt one from having nightmares, does it?
In a way, I expected Mr. King to feel the same way about the craft as Isaac Asimov felt—not as work, but as something that he enjoyed and embraced—and that enjoyment is self-evident in the humor and detail that his stories contain. If I was to meet him face-to-face, I would say, "Don't go out like Faulkner, Steve—go out like Isaac! Maybe you don't want to write squishy stuff any more, and that's OK—but write what you want!"
I don't know what else he plans to do, and I wish him well in whatever he does end up doing with his life, but all I want to say is, "Thanks for the books, Steve. I'll be here if retirement sucks."
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@home.com
'd like to make a brief comment on Kathie Huddleston's review of Stephen King's Rose Red. I agree with her review (I missed Sunday's premiere, and was still perfectly capable of understanding what was going on). However, I think she missed something which I caught almost immediately.
Rose Red is (I think) Stephen King's take on The Haunting (the 1960s' film). Look at the similarities: paranormal researcher brings team of people known for paranormal abilities/happenings to "haunted" house to research paranormal happenings in the house. There's the current young male
owner of said house. There's also the female telekinetic who had "stones fall on their neighbor's house" (anybody else remember that bit about Eleanor?).
Of course, King actually made the house haunted wrong, as opposed to simply the way Hill House is wrong. And it works—I feel sorry for the people who try to live in the condominiums about to built on the site of Rose Red!
Rachel Maley
rjmaley@hotmail.com
've enjoyed your site now for some time, especially the "Classics" section that comes around every other newsletter. With the writing of this note, I have used a good deal of energy looking for the name, author or any information leading to the discovery of a story I read growing up. If you think you can help, please read on.
Some off-Earth location, mostly children for characters, where the sun seldom shines. So seldom, that everyone is required to have ultra-violet "showers" for lack of a better term. A day is approaching when the clouds will part and the sun will actually shine, and everyone is looking forward
to it, and as the day arrives, one of the kids is stuffed in a locker by a group of other children and misses the big event. End.
I have been around to my local libraries, elementary and middle schools, and even some local RPG hangouts, with no luck. Please! If you have any thoughts on this, I would truly appreciate it to the point of naming any future children after you.
Dave Milobar
dmilobar@att.net
Science Fiction Weekly's editor-in-chief, Scott Edelman, comments:
The story you're referring to is "All Summer in A Day," by the incomparable Ray Bradbury, originally published in the March 1954 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. It was collected in A Medicine for Melancholy and later in Twice 22.
aul Di Filippo's review of The Incredible Shrinking Man says:
"Eventually it is determined that accidental exposure to powerful insecticide some months earlier, combined with the effects of the radioactive cloud at sea, have caused Scott's very molecules to compress."
Having seen the film whole or in parts more than 50 times, the above statement simply isn't accurate. Scott's wife brings up the "powerful insecticide" incident and then her husband blurts ... "The mist."
And it was the mysterious mist, whether from yet another A-bomb test or natural phenomenon or ominous unknown, Scott (and we) never find out.
Your misrepresenting that vital part of the film killed your credibility with me. Be more careful next time. Then maybe I'll believe you.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
Paul Di Filippo responds:
I'm taking my dialogue from Richard Matheson's novel, The Incredible Shrinking Man, since I don't have the video to hand. As I recall, this dialogue from the page is replicated almost exactly in the film, also scripted by Matheson.
Doctor: Have you, for instance, ever been sprayed with a great deal of insecticide?
Scott: Could that possibly be the cause of all this?
Doctor: That was only the beginning of it. Something happened to that spray, something fantastic and unheard of; something that converted a mildly virulent insecticide into a deadly growth-destroying poison.
Case closed.
Best,
Paul
ust a brief missive to mourn for the loss of yet another overlooked sci-fi gem on the UPN network—Special Unit 2. Although it has been announced that this weekly show will not be renewed for the next season, I hope scf-fi fans will recognize this show for the entertaining and funny hour it provides almost every week. (Hey—it even has a gnome!)
Over 1,000 fans have petitioned UPN to keep this show on the air, and please feel free to send your support by heading to www.petitiononline.com and send a cool e-mail to UPN to let them know how much this show means to you.
Ray Albright
nibiruian6n@netscape.net
here is a cause and effect relation to everything. Does The X-Files have lower ratings than desired because:
a. No Mulder
b. Bad Acting
c. Bad Plots
d. Poor Direction
e. None of the above
My answer is E. The characters and the acting is really good, the plots keep my attention and the overall pace, look, feel and production is as good as it has ever been. I think what has hurt it the most (besides bad press) is a lack of momentum. This problem has been getting worse each season (along with ratings). What I mean by momentum is airing the show in back-to-back weeks. You see a good show, like the bug-infested jackass one, then you get a rerun, then you get nothing, then you get a good one, then nothing again. Put new shows together back to back for six weeks (a feat easily enough accomplished by most shows) and I bet the approval rating will turn around. Just my humble opinion.
Kurt J. Donley
kurtdonley@msn.com
would bet that I'm one of hundreds of your readers to point this out! Regarding Melissa J. Perenson's review of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season One DVD: while I agree with her comments and criticisms in general, perhaps you ought to realize that the U.S. is well behind the rest of the
world as far as DVD releases of Buffy are concerned.
It's hardly news to us! Seasons one through three are all available on DVD here in the U.K. and season four is due to be released on May 13, I believe. It is often galling that movies and TV series are released in the U.S. months before the rest of the world; it allows us a wry smile to know that the boot is on the other foot for once!
Charl Engela
charl.engela@gb.unisys.com
he new Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers was a good movie, though it borrowed too much of that "dimensional alien" thing from Third Space. I know that J.M.S. likes using archaeology in B5, but there could of been a little more originality.
OK, and who was smoking up when they decided to do "Crouching Tiger in Space"? Puh-lease, the kung-fu "weapons design" is pathetic and downright silly. What were you people thinking!? Yes, I see how doing kung-fu (rather badly, too) is soooo much easier to zap alien by doing rigorous moves rather than pushing a button. Not! If you make this into a series, please use a more traditional weapons system. That's all I ask.
This could of been a great movie. Instead, it's a good movie that I'm embarrassed to show to my friends. I did show it to a friend of mine, and he just shook his head at the battle sequences. Anywhoo, loved the rest of the movie, just had these two gripes.
Andrew
awscholl@log.on.ca
was very glad to see John C. Snider's recent letter to this Web site("For Rangers, Quality Was a Legend"). We too were very disappointed with the mediocre Legend of the Rangers movie. It lacked the depth and sophistication of Babylon 5. I fear that the writers are banking on our undying loyalty to the B5 universe and are assuming that we will watch anything with a B5 theme to it. What happened to the Rangers as we know them? Flowing robes, pikes to fight with and a mystery about them?
Additionally, that holographic weapons system has got to go! Was that the best they could do? One person firing all of the weapons? Come on! Where are the "photon torpedoes" and weapons arrays? If a series is being considered, there will have to be some serious changes to the show before we
become loyal fans.
Julie Wulff Greenfield
fieldwulf@attbi.com
ere in the U.K., we've recently got the new Star Trek: Enterprise. I've been watching Trek since the original, and was quite enthusiastic to see a prequel. Unfortunately, Enterprise has achieved the impossible. It's even worse than a dull day on DS9.
The only good thing about it is Jolene Blalock. For exactly the same reasons as Jeri Ryan. Blalock is the best actor on the show by a mile, and looks fantastic. She also has the only genuine character.
The rest struggle to be two dimensional. Scott Bakula is not convincing as Archer. He's coming across as an actor doing a mediocre job with something he doesn't really believe in. Whereas Shatner and
Stewart were Star Fleet captains. Oh, and what the hell is that Dr. Phlox critter? Looks like leftover Neelix!
The plots, such as they are, have been embarrassingly bad. Alien ships that just happen to have compatible docking ports, beam weapon wounds that heal by the end of the show, alien stealth vessels that are in need of help from the Earthmen. Absolute tosh. Why haven't the makers learned anything from shows like Babylon 5, Farscape and even Buffy, where characterization and intelligent scripting is king. What is so annoying is that the Star Trek universe, in whatever era, has so much potential. There are some brilliant ideas, and endless possibilities, which time and again are either ignored, or purified in that sickening mom, the flag and apple pie manner which represents the worst aspect of American TV.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
ith all due respect to Mr. Cadena ("Enterprise Employs Sex Tactics"), I want to take issue with a couple of his points.
Mr. Cadena writes that Star Trek is using sex as a ratings tactic. Uh ... duh. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but those weren't full length dresses and high neck collars the women were wearing in the the original series, were they? In fact, some of those "outfits" had to be secured to the bodies of the actresses to simply keep them from falling off. Sex and sexual tension were always a tenet of the original series and to some respect, all the series have had their fair share of tight outfits. The Next Generation, to a lesser degree, stands out as I feel Gene Roddenberry and the writers were trying to put men and women on a more level playing field (which is a good thing!), taking sex out of the equation, with Will Riker's escapades the notable exception.
As far as Deep Space Nine goes, Major Kira's outfit was pretty shapely, and who can forget her evil twin's outfits from the "alternate universe?" (Zowee!) Voyager had Seven of Nine and yes, she was brought in for some blatant sex appeal. While sexuality made a comeback, the womens' characters' importance has not been downplayed.
To accuse Braga and Berman of using a tactic that's always been used is just ludicrous and shows that you nit-pickers really need to lighten up.
As for Enterprise pandering to a new audience, that just makes sense. The hearty Star Trek faithful have moved on and are, frankly, getting older. While I was a faithful viewer in college, I now have a life, involving a job, wife and kids. I'm lucky to catch re-runs of Enterprise, much less the first run on Wednesdays. Braga and Berman realized the need to hit the younger generation which, like it or not, has more time to watch television (even though they should be doing homework). The younger generation stayed away from Voyager, and the ratings showed that. There was nothing new to attract them. It was just the same old Star Trek their older siblings and parents watched.
As for strict continuity, most of us really don't care, as long as they don't stray too far. There's only so much they can do to stay faithful and maintain the series edge. There will be "classic" episodes in the coming seasons. I can't think of too many classic TNG episodes from the first season, in fact I refuse to watch most of it because they are so bad! Classic Enterprise episodes will probably deal with time travel and maybe they'll convince Shatner to squeeze into his old uniform again so he can once again bring Kirk back to life. Just relax people, and let the show take its course. A little sex ain't gonna kill ya, or the show.
Dan Ware
Ware.Dan@aaa-newmexico.com
very now and then, I have to step back and think, "Is this a good thing?" Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't and I'm not Solomon, that's for sure. I have to admit, like the programming staff at the SCI FI Channel should be doing, I certainly didn't expect the furor over the cancellation of The Invisible Man. Personally, I thought the stories contrived, the acting poor and the visual quality despairing.
I expected the show to run its final episodes and disappear into well-deserved obscurity. Perhaps it will be gone, but obviously not forgotten. To all you I-Man fans: Good for you! Who cares whether or not I liked the show, you did and that's all that matters. If TV only aired shows that I like, it would be a very, very poor selection, so keep fighting.
While I have everyone's attention, I need to branch out and touch on two other shows: Babylon 5: Legend Of The Rangers and Enterprise. One writer to Science Fiction Weekly recently complained that if the Legend Of the Rangers becomes a weekly series, he hopes that "ridiculous holographic weapons system" is dropped. Hey, pal, you've got a right to your own opinions, but that weapons system has got to be one of the coolest ever devised. With that system, the beat-up, 20-year old Leandra could take out the Enterprise-E.
Speaking of Enterprise: Sex? Well, of course sex is going to be used on Enterprise. T'Pol and Archer in a sexually compromising position? Try to see it with a little humor. Cat suit? Yeah, well she's trying, however poorly, to fit in with humans. Also, please remember, as I continually harp—TV is a business. Sex sells, so whether you like it or not, if a network thinks
injecting sex into a series, whether it needs it or not, to attract more viewers, whether or not they are members of the "core audience," then they will do it. Enterprise is still far better than Voyager, a series I still liked far better than The Invisible Man. Of course, that's only my opinion.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
Back to the top.
