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.
n regards to Mr. Anchor's comments ("Hollywood Can't Be Trusted."), I would like to point out that it is not the networks' responsibility to make all programming suitable for children. If you will note, all shows have ratings that are posted as guidelines for parents. The rating for Buffy's next show is a TV14, (not suitable for youths under 14) and when it was on The WB, that network even stated before airing that it is intended for mature audiences. If you, as a parent, don't think the content is appropriate for your child, then either don't let them watch it or take other steps to insure they can't view the show.
As an adult, I would give up on all television shows if every program was made suitable for 10-year-olds. This season for Buffy has obviously been geared towards adults, who should be able to understand that the sex shown is also part of the plotline, and will undoubtedly be a central issue as the season continues.
Kent Shambaugh
kentsh@trib.com
must disagree with Mr. Anchor's letter: "Hollywood Can't Be Trusted."
It is not the job of the TV networks or shows' producer to protect your children from things you believe they should not see. As a parent, it is yours.
It is very simple, Mr. Anchor. If you don't want your children to see Spike and Buffy have sex, then do not let them watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer. After all, there is a warning before the show starts that states that the show is not for younger viewers.
It is up to parents to control what their children watch, not the TV network or the government or anyone else. It is your job. Now I suggest you sit down with your children and watch what they watch and if you don't like it, or don't want them to see it, then turn the channel, eject them from the
room or turn the TV off. But please do not complain that characters on TV are doing things that you don't want to see or have your children see.
After all, you control the TV—the TV does not control you.
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62@yahoo.com
s a younger viewer of Enterprise, I felt that I should give my two cents worth about the ongoing debate of "sex" in Enterprise ("Sex Is a Star Trek Staple" and "Enterprise Employs Sex Tactics").
People seem to be saying that the writers are using it as a tool to draw in young people (whether or not that's good or bad). While I can't speak for the writers and say if this is true or not, I can tell you that from my perspective, that's not what I watch for.
I originally fell in love with the Star Trek series with The Next Generation. My TV provider never carried the first seasons of TNG, so I think I started watching it around season four or five or so, but after that, I never missed an episode. I then watched all of the re-runs. TNG led me to DS9 and Voyager, and to a lesser extent, the first series.
Anyway, my point is that I didn't watch for the so-called "sex" (meaning some tight body suits?, whatever), I watched for the story lines, the actors, and the Star Trek theme in general. I think that if it is a part of the story line ("Unexpected," for example), then it should be there,
otherwise, it's not necessary.
I really enjoy Enterprise and, though [everyone is] entitled to [their own] opinions, I must disagree with the people that say the acting is weak, and the writing bad. I'm also one of the, somewhere around one percent, of people who like the title song.
My only Enterprise beef is the re-runs. These are driving me up the wall. It seems to be a string of new episodes, then re-runs for like a month, then a few more episodes. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember this with Voyager.
I do agree, however, that there hasn't been any "classic" episodes yet, but how can there be with these re-runs?!
Jason Detchevery
jason_detchevery@hotmail.com
have been an active participant and a reader of the SCI FI Channel editorial [bulletin] board when the powers that be gave life to the SCI FI Web site.
Let me start off by saying this: Everybody and anybody is entitled to free speech and their opinions. That is why I am taking this opportunity to express my opinions about the things that I have
read here in the last year or so.
I guess I need to understand why people that claim that they love science fiction so much, would argue about the opening song for Enterprise, or the level of sexuality that
is promoted in the series ("Sex Is a Star Trek Staple" and "Enterprise Employs Sex Tactics").
I think the song is appropriate for the opening of the show. When Picard did the opening for Star Trek: The Next Generation, trekkies complained that it was lame, because it reminded them of the
original series.
Out of all of the things that we can disagree on, the opening song is the only thing that people that claim that they love science can complain about when it comes to the Enterprise series.
Oh, but then the people that claim that they love science fiction complain about the sexuality in on Enterprise. I would be willing to bet that the same people that are complaining about the beautiful Vulcan sub commander complained about Seven of Nine on Voyager, or the Bajoran commander Kira on Deep Space Nine.
I also fail to understand why people that claim that they love science fiction argue about why there aren't certain races being portrayed in certain science fiction films.
Why does racism or racist opinions have to be introduced into the realm of science fiction? In this sick and twisted society that we live in today, we hate each other because of our religious beliefs, the color of our skin, how much money we make, where we come from, what we do for a living, where we live, the way we talk, what kind of clothes we wear, how we wear our hair, etc., etc.
It seems that people that claim that they love science fiction are hung up on the physical aspects of science fiction, rather than looking at the overall quality of the theme and concept of the movie or series.
As a kid I read, literally, thousands of science books because reading science fiction allowed me to escape to other worlds, another time, other universes. I love science fiction, because of the things that science fiction invoke in me. It invokes imagination, creativity, laughter, sadness and inspiration.
What does science fiction invoke in the people that claim that they love science fiction? There are so many loyal fans of science fiction, but we will never learn how to make the world of science fiction work for us, because we spend so much of time working against one another, and complaining about
things that are counter productive.
The science fiction community as a whole will never work together, because we bring those same vices in our love for science fiction, that we carry around in our everyday lives.
Think about all of the influence we could have on the current level of science fiction that we see everyday, if would only drop our petty differences, and concentrate on what's important, and that is science fiction.
Virgil Yancey
vis@netscape.net
am deeply saddened by the news that New Zealand actor, Kevin Smith of Xena fame has passed away ("Xena Actor Smith Dies"). I remember watching Xena solely for the satisfaction of seeing Ares appear out of nowhere to dump his love of war (and Xena) into that (uncanny) universe. He was pleasant to watch (visually) and stunning as the bad guy everyone loves. I will miss seeing his face gracing the small screen (as well as the big screen). Some may not realize it now, but we lost a very important member of the science fiction and fantasy community.
God bless him where ever he may be.
G.E.
genius_ebe@yahoo.com
his is regards to the book review by Paul Di Fillipo on Echoes of Earth. Please, stop encouraging authors and editors into releasing a series of
books rather than nice self-contained titles. The sci-fi marketplace has a glut of series novels that go on for many volumes. I believe this trend is turning many people away from science fiction. Where have the days of the nice one book, self-contained story gone? This serialization of sci-fi has
hurt the genre and it robs the reader. What if a reader was to pick up Echoes of Earth, not having read your review, and then on the last page find out, that oh!, this is not the end, the story is not concluded, please come back a year from now and try again! This reader would then feel cheated and might not pick-up another sci-fi novel. This trend in sci-fi is disturbing to long-time fans of the genre.
Michael Papagermanos
netchevy@excite.com
Paul Di Filippo responds:
Very good point by this letter writer, one which I endorse. This is why I always try to reveal such things in my reviews.
Best,
Paul
can't help but wonder if any of the people who are criticizing the holographic weapons interface in Legend of the Rangers have even considered how logical such a system would be ("Kung-Fu Weapons Batter New Babylon 5", "Rangers Ranks As Disappointment" and "For Rangers, Quality Was a Legend").
I'm not even talking about the fact that the holographic interface is ... well, visually flashier than just pushing buttons. A system that aims and fires the weapons based on your body motions would be so much faster than the old-fashioned Star Trek weapons console. That is, after all, why we developed the computer mouse and the point-and-click interface, so we wouldn't have to spend so much time typing commands (anyone remember MS-DOS?). Think of the holographic weapons system as "point-and-shoot" for outer space.
Such a system would be most logical on a ship about the size of the Leandra, with multiple weapons systems. It looks like the Leandra had at least four guns, maybe more, but it also looked like it only had a crew of ten or so. One engineer, one sensor operator, one comm specialist, one navigator, one tactical officer, one captain, one doctor (probably), one guy who "lifts very heavy things" ... we're running out of people fast!
I think the Leandra doesn't even have a big enough crew to have a separate gunner for each weapon, and one (or even two) people pushing buttons almost certainly wouldn't be fast enough to keep a minefield that dense from severely damaging, or even destroying, the Leandra. Now, what would be nice is to see how the holographic interface would respond to other gunners. Maybe it customizes itself according to the gunner's personality. A gunner who liked those Old West gunslinger movies might see himself as a cowboy with a pair of six-shooters, and when he wanted to pull out the big guns, he'd reach for a shotgun slung on his back. (In fact, I've read a book with a ship that has a holographic weapons interface that does exactly what I just described.)
Marcus Spears
mspears@cableone.net
agree with Mr. Ahearn to a large degree ("SF TV Has Yet to Reveal Cosmic Truth"). There haven't really been any SF series on TV that have been very deserving of awards, except for one, Babylon 5.
B5, as many devoted fans such as myself call it, truly did transcend the genre, as it was great every episode, without ones in there to just "fill the time." The reason for this is because it was unlike all other SF shows by having an overall storyline, with a beginning, middle and end, much like an extremely good novel. B5 did get a few awards, mostly for makeup I believe, but should have gotten many, many more. I'm sure all of the B5 fans that watched the series when it was first on and have followed it back [on the SCI FI Channel] for reruns would agree.
By the way, please make Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers into a series. It looks very promising and should be given a chance. Besides, it would be the only thing B5 on the air that's not reruns. Thanks to all of you for hearing me out.
Jeff Rosenfeld
b6_vorlon@hotmail.com
alon wrote an interesting article on Stargate SG-1. I had found this past fall's episodes very disappointing. I thought the characters had become caricatures of themselves, so I stopped watching. These obviously were the initial episodes written for the young male audience, but before the series killed off Daniel Jackson (the actor, Michael Shanks, who left the series in frustration over MGM's new direction for the series).
The SCI FI Channel really got ripped off. I agree with the fan who said that SCI FI should ask for its money back. They are not getting the demographic audience or the series premise of the original series (unless, of course, [Bonnie] Hammer at SCI FI was the one requesting they change the demographic audience).
If Hammer did agree with this new mediocre premise and boy-toy replacement of Michael Shanks, I am very disappointed in SCI FI. It's amazing how a studio's tinkering with a successful series can destroy a valuable product in the blink of an eye.
I am one of the women (with a lot of purchasing power) who watched and enjoyed every earlier episode of Stargate SG-1 as well as a lot of SCI-FI programming (other than the "live" psychic crap and those awful psychic commercials). Unless Stargate SG-1 returns to its original premise of visiting other worlds and brings back Michael Shanks as Daniel Jackson, the new episodes will not be watched by me and a lot of previously solid fans of the show. Send me some good news!
Chris Percival
chrispercival@earthlink.net
Science Fiction Weekly's editor-in-chief, Scott Edelman, comments:
For Bonnie Hammer's reponse to Stargate SG-1 fans, check out the
SCI FI Channel's recent statement.
have to say, I'm quite disappointed in your editorial staff. Of all the letters ("Michael Shanks Must Be Saved") that I have read as part of your newsletter that were discussing the issue of Michael Shanks leaving Stargate SG-1, only one has been an opposing view to those whom are begging for his return and at the supposed "demise" of SG-1 into "conspiracy-laden" shows. So far I have seen four to five letters of this type showing up here. While it's possible that those with the opposing view are lesser, they should still get their say on your letters page. For instance, a letter that I wrote several weeks back countered every single comment made by the original article/letter writer, but nothing ever came of that. Shame on you, you guys should present a more balanced view of the fans out there rather than touting only one.
Siobhan Gormley
73pixie@rogers.com
Science Fiction Weekly's editor-in-chief, Scott Edelman, comments:
Sadly, we can't print every letter we receive. We must pick and choose each week in a struggle to present a balanced sampling of fan opinion. I'm sorry that we didn't print your previous letter, but the volume of mail just worked against us, as it usually does.
Back to the top.
