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.
respectfully disagree with Mr. Papagermanos' comments ("SF Novels Need to Remain Solo"). I am 49 years old and have been reading science fiction all my life. I have no problem with reading a lengthy series of novels, as long as I know it is a series when I begin reading the first novel, and as long as the author maintains a quality story.
I also enjoy reading single, self-contained stories. If Mr. Papagermanos dislikes reading a series of novels and prefers reading single, self-contained books, may I suggest he read or re-read the classics of Robert A. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Fredric Brown, Edmond Hamilton and Leigh Brackett, among others, all of whom wrote self-contained stories as well as series. I often return to the classics when I fail to find a current story that interests me.
Perhaps the easiest solution for Mr. Papagermanos and other readers who have this same problem is to stop buying series. This would, of course, affect the livelihood of both the authors of SF series and their publishers.
Arthur L. Goodwin
Big_A52@hotmail.com
found Stuart Townsend to be an excellent Lestat [in Queen of the Damned]. He certainly was much better then Tom Cruise, who had no business playing the vampire. Although the movie was not as scary as you would want, it did keep to the main points of the book and even made Lestat a romantic figure which Anne Rice tries to convey in all her books.
Personally, my friends and I enjoyed the movie. By the way, we are not teenagers, we are all in our mid 30's and have been reading Anne Rice's books for a very long time. I have read all of her Vampire Chronicles as well as the witches. Thank you.
B. Douglas
redouglas@mindspring.com
couldn't help but respond to Eric Anchor's letter ("Hollywood Can't Be Trusted") regarding how Hollywood is stating "sex with anybody you're mildly acquainted with is OK" on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Um, Eric, did you actually see the episode where Buffy tells Tara (more or less) about Spike? Buffy isn't exactly happy about this—something is going on that Buffy doesn't understand (and therefore we don't either). Oh, and BTW—Buffy is more than "mildly acquainted" with Spike—she's known him for several years (at least since she was 16 or 17).
I think Joss Whedon has done an excellent job of portraying sex in the real world. Faith (the slayer now in prison) was the one who had casual sex with anyone she was "mildly acquainted with." Buffy was actually in love with Angel (too bad he was cursed), thought she was falling for Parker (typical Don Juan, but she learned from it), loved Riley (but not the way he needed her to love him), and personally I think she loves Spike but can't admit it what with that whole Angel fiasco. But she's trouble because if she doesn't love him, then she's just using Spike, which in her words is "just wrong."
These shows provide the perfect opportunity for parents to discuss sex and its ramifications with their teens (remember—Buffy isn't meant for the younger crowd). Let's hope some parents are taking advantage of it.
Rachel Maley
rmaley@cox.net
n regards to those saying it's not the responsibility of television networks to raise our children ("Networks Don't Raise Our Children" and "We Control the Horizontal"): I agree. But find me one new TV show that you can sit down and watch with your family. Sure, there may be some "family oriented" programming here and there, but it isn't that good and doesn't stick around long.
I remember when you could turn on the TV weeknights and sit around the television with your family while you watch some other family deal with problems that you could relate to. Often times you would come away with something. All you come away with from prime-time TV now is disgust and children that have a bunch of questions you don't want to answer!
Oh, and let's not forget about lovely shows dealing with such hard-hitting issues as "rolling a doobie" and getting wasted while you sleep with someone you don't know. And of course, all this is passed off as hilarious due to some over-used laugh track.
The problem isn't that this programming is being watched by children, the problem is that there isn't anything else for the children to watch.
Rob Mathelry
jimrob@jetnetinc.net
r. Anchor [in his letter ("Hollywood Can't Be Trusted")] says: "With all due respect, let's you, me, the censors and Hollywood get our priorities straight."
Excuse me but aren't we in America? When did censorship become a useful solution for anything? Others have by now written in and said it better but I wanted to let one more voice be heard on this. That of the author of your next letter in the same column, Mr. Fredrick Weaver ("Smallville's Superman Surprises") [says], "True heroism entails doing what's right even when it is unpopular, difficult or dangerous."
And what job is more unpopular, difficult and dangerous than parenting these days? Let the parents decide what their children watch. Government can't even fight a war on terrorism right (should I mention John Ashcroft's $8,600 curtain to cover naked statues while Osama may still be alive?), how can anyone seriously expect it to raise children?
Thanks for your time.
Colier Rannd
Colierrannd2@aol.com
f I may add a few rebuttals to your rebuttals. I do agree with Mr. Shambaugh ("Networks Don't Raise Our Children") that TV doesn't raise our kids. I also agree with Mr. Baker ("We Control the Horizontal") that we should sit down and see what our kids are watching so that we can "turn it off" when we disagree with what's on. I wish more parents would. But the truth is, ratings are not going to make your child stand up and say, "Gee, I'm too young for this, I'd better turn it." It'll probably make them watch more. And even though TV isn't "raising" your kids, if you think people like Buffy "who am I sleeping with this season" Summers, or even Britney "I wonder what low-cut, butt-shaking, breast-hugging outfit she's almost wearing this week" Spears isn't influencing what your young, teen-age, coming-of-age, hormone-sprouting daughters (or sons, for that matter) will be wearing and how they'll be acting, I think you'll find in the end, the joke's on you. And I still feel that, morally, some things should still not be on public TV, simply for the fact that it's so hard for concerned parents to monitor. I have spoken my peace, I shall say no more. Besides, what I'm really here to talk about is Enterprise.
I've heard many comments on how little Enterprise has shown to them as far as entertainment value. I just wanted to remind our readers that an '87 show called Star Trek: The Next Generation got very poor ratings its first season, and the second for that matter. What it had going for it at the time was patience. It takes time for an audience to get used to the characters, for inner relationships (Kirk-Spock, Data-LaForge, Sisko-Jadzia, etc.) to develop as the show progresses. I think all it really needs is a little time and we will all be pleasantly surprised in the end. I have high hopes for the NX-01. I hope they follow the history of the original series, because, if you remember, this is the time of the Earth-Romulan conflict, and if the writers are smart, they'll use that piece of history to their advantage. Maybe we'll even finally find out the big mystery of the two
Klingon species (though I wouldn't hold my breath on that one). Would the Earth-Romulan conflict actually be a good story line? The question has been put upon the table and is now open for discussion. Until next time. ...
Eric E. Anchor
eanchor@yahoo.com
he letters printed on Feb. 25 was perhaps the best collection of commentary on the site since I began reading them several years ago.
I wholeheartedly agree with Kent Shambaugh ("Networks Don't Raise Our Children") and Patrick Baker ("We Control the Horizontal") regarding Buffy the Vampire Slayer. As a parent myself (albeit toddlers) and as a fan of mature science fiction and fantasy, I certainly would not let my kids watch the show. However, that doesn't mean that I should tell you not to watch the show or even not to let your kids watch it. It is each parent's individual choice of how to raise their kids and the networks have no responsibility to do this for us.
I was also quite impressed with Jason Detchevery's comments about Enterprise ("Sex Isn't What Sells Enterprise"). Here is a young man who reminds us what science-fiction television is really supposed to be about: engaging stories that open up a world of wonders to us and and the dream of a better tomorrow. Virgil Yancy ("SF Fans Should Drop Petty Differences"), too, made a great case for fans to "get a life." In fact, I would dare say that he, or she, has stated a case for the very essence of Gene Roddenberry's dream: To put aside our differences and work together for a brighter future.
Michael Papagermanos ("SF Novels Need to Remain Solo") makes a good point when it comes to solo SF/F novels. Certainly, the market is glutted with these. At the same time, there are certain series that I do enjoy. The most notorious of these is Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time. I, too, am waiting for the end ... on Jordan's terms. I think what reading consumers have to realize is that, unfortunately, the publishing industry has become quite commercial and nothing works better for business than the franchise. (Ergo, five Trek series by now.) Although I have not
been fortunate enough to publish anything beyond my own webzine, I have always vowed to limit any "series" to three, perhaps a fourth, books and no more. I have distinct concepts for my writing and they do not include nauseating the reader for 20 years with the same characters. Perhaps this means my writing will be stuck on my own, or other low- or non-paying Web sites rather than with traditional publishers. Then again I still hope that up-and-coming authors will follow my lead and teach the industry that they don't have to stick authors with writing about the same characters their whole lives just to fill their pocket books.
Finally, I wanted to say that I thought Marcus Spears' comments about the Leandra's holographic weapons system ("Leandra Holo Weapons Are Logical") was well thought and that I also agree with G.E.'s comments about Kevin "Ares" Smith ("Farewell to a Xena Favorite"). He will be missed.
Kudos to all the letter writers ... we could use more thought-provoking, yet cool-headed commentary like this all over the 'Net.
Martin L. Cahn
Demensions Editor
editor@demensionszine.com
agree with the general tone of Michael Papagenmanos's comment ("SF Novels Need to Remain Solo") regarding the ideal size of a typical SF novel. This doesn't only apply to the written word, however. I have long ago ceased caring about the continuing storyline
on X-Files and I never did pursue Babylon 5 because I had no access to the first two seasons and didn't want to enter the story midway. Now that it's finished (and over what, five seasons in length!), I do not want to invest the time required to enjoy the story. This is in contrast to having a story stand alone though it incorporates the same characters/backgrounds, which is a different thing.
I do not however, share Michael's fears about trends. Linear thinking does insist that if things are getting bad, they will only get worse, suggesting in this case that it won't be long before every SF novel will be of the continuing variety. That, of course, will never happen. Like out-of-fashion clothes or haircuts, eventually what you personally prefer will become popular again. I understand this isn't a perfect analogy. I'm going bald and I'm pretty sure that pathway is linear. But my point is the stand alone-novel is not threatened with extinction.
Now, coincidentally, I'm about to start reading Gateway by Frederick Pohl, having already purchased the four sequels. Being caught up with the continuing Dune series and Foundation books, and after reading The Dispossessed by Le Guin as well as Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear, I think I can postulate that stand alone novels and continuing novels can peacefully co-exist.
As a sidebar, I have still refrained from infesting my eyes or brain with Harry Potter stories, to bring back the ghost of a debate from a few months ago.
Reid Babbitt
Qbitjr@hotmail.com
must say that while I am not surprised by the negativity that some of the viewers of Stargate SG-1 are expressing toward the show and Michael Shanks leaving, I am saddened and disgusted that the negative seems to be the only side being represented ("Stargate SG-1 Fans Favor Shanks" and "Stargate Debate Should Be Balanced"). I have watched SG-1 since the beginning and I feel that it has only gotten better and more interesting over the years. The
characters have grown and the writing has improved. I've talked to other fans online who feel the same and there is even a site supporting the upcoming season, www.geocities.com/sg1forward/ so the negative view
is not the only opinion that exists.
I realize that not everyone shares this view, but I am tired of being told that because I am a female viewer of the show I should be wailing and beating my chest at the departure of Michael Shanks. I am tired of having this opinion shoved down my throat as if it is the only valid opinion there is. He is one actor, who played one character, the show is about more than one character. It is about a team; the team has changed but it still exists. There are three other team members and three very talented actors that portray them that are continuing on with the show. I find it highly insulting to the cast and crew of Stargate SG-1 to say that the show is over because Michael Shanks is leaving.
If you don't want to watch the show because he is no longer a part of it, that's fine, that's why the remote allows you to change channels and even—gasp—turn the TV off. But don't presume that you speak for all fans, that is an impossibility. There are as many opinions as to what the fans want and like as there are fans out there. Each person watches for their own reasons, and while people may find common ground the reasons are never identical.
I used to like the character of Daniel Jackson. But this whole campaign of "he is the show" has turned me sour on the character. I am looking forward to a season without him and hopefully to a season of fans enjoying the show rather than tearing it apart because an actor decided that he wasn't getting what he wanted and left.
Lola Pudinski
pandora@softcom.net
y oh my, we do have our drawers in an uproar ("Stargate SG-1 Fans Favor Shanks" and "Stargate Debate Should Be Balanced") over Michael [Shanks'] departure from Stargate. Lots of views from watchers who insist the show will stink, be awful, etc. because he is leaving.
Well, here is a thought. In the U.S., Showtime hasn't even shown the last 10 episodes of season five, including the one (which one I don't know because I try to avoid spoilers, which in this case has been near impossible to miss) where he leaves the show.
How can a true opinion be formed when the episodes haven't even been aired yet? Are we that closed-minded that we form opinions without watching what happens?
Characters leave shows all the time. M*A*S*H survived, and perhaps was even stronger, after Larry Linville and McLean Stevenson left. Cheers survived without Shelly Long (and Coach) for many years. New characters (should) bring new dynamics to a show. After several years, our characters may get too comfortable with each other. When an actor leaves, for whatever reason, a good show such as I believe Stargate to be, can always bring in a new character which changes the dynamic of the show and opens possibilities for new episodes and character interaction. Heck, even Babylon 5 changed commanders after the first season and went on for four more. I am not entering this debate however. Personally, I liked Capt. Sinclair better but, again, this is a different argument.
The point is that the quality of B5 remained after this main character (suddenly) left.
Oh, how I wished for something like this to happen to Star Trek: TNG after the fifth season. It would have been so much better had Riker, Dr. Crusher, Geordi or even Picard to have been killed or replaced. Remember how Commander Shelby brought new life to Riker in TBOBW? It is those types of dynamics good shows use and it is that which I hope happens to Stargate.
Finally, let's look at Daniel's motivation for being involved in Stargate, through the end of season four (I don't believe any these are spoilers since "Absolute Power" aired in syndication last week), this is based more on the series than on the movie: He re-joined the Stargate program to find his gouald-infused wife, Sha're; found his wife but was unable to save her and Teal'c; ended up killing her after her child was born (the Harsesis child—excuse the spelling); continued his quest in SG-1 to find the child; found the child and discovered he was OK under Oma (spelling, again, I'm sorry); in "Absolute Power," found the child is plenty capable of helping himself and is of no further use to SG-1.
OK, so he found his wife (now dead) and the child is fine. Where is his story now? His character's story has reached a dead end. I think that Michael Shanks was not finding anything new in his character as well, and the writers, for whatever reason, have been unable (or unwilling, I don't know) to find a new arc for him.
I do know that I will continue to watch Stargate and that I will not form an opinion until the episodes in question air. I will give it a chance on the SCI FI Channel and hope that it remains the enjoyable program my wife and I have come to admire.
Dave Kopp
dolby1000@aol.com
fter reading William Travis' letter to Science Fiction Weekly ("Shuffling Timeslots Kill SF"), I find that I have absolutely no choice but to agree with him. In too many cases, it's the fault of the networks that sci-fi is dying, not the fault of the fans.
We are there, sometimes sitting on the edge of our seats, just trying to find what the networks did with our favorite shows. In the '60s, Star Trek barely lived through three seasons and each season, it was on at a different time. The Invaders didn't last as long on the air, but was shuffled around as well. Ironically, during the '60s, the Irwin Allen series (all four) were the only sci-fi series left somewhat alone in their original timeslots.
During the '70s, the few sci-fi series to make it onto the networks were only allowed 13 weeks to gather an audience. Westerns, soap operas, police shows and comedies faced the same fickle audiences as science fiction shows, but network vice-presidents felt more confident with these shows and many that had lower overall ratings than science fiction shows were allowed to stay on the air longer and gather momentum.
During this period, more science-fiction shows came to us through syndication and lasted far longer in that forum than they ever would have on any of the networks. This continued through the '80s and into the '90s. One has to wonder how long Star Trek: The Next Generation or Babylon 5 would have lasted if they had been on NBC or CBS.
Many have said that Fox was the best thing for science fiction TV to come along in years, and if they're only looking at The X-Files, they could be right, as that series has been maintained in only two time slots (Friday at 9, then Sunday at 9). However, while Millennium stayed in the Friday night 8 p.m. slot throughout its run, during each and every ratings sweep (November, February and May), Millennium was bumped for "specials." Then, Fox canceled it due to "low ratings." Think about it.
Now, with the digital age in full swing, it's worse than ever. It's not even that shows are getting moved around from night to night (although some are), what's worse is that these days, a show can debut, and with nearly instant access to polls and "the public," may last only two episodes. Granted, this has happened over the decades, but has happened with increasing frequency over the past ten years. OK, sometimes they may last four episodes (Does anybody remember Space Rangers?)
I recently read that the days of syndication are over. I hope this isn't true, because if so, then I fear the days of science fiction on TV may be numbered. Even the SCI FI Channel sometimes belies its name and features more horror than sci-fi and doesn't seem to give shows the chance they deserve. Oh, and don't forget First Wave. This show started on Friday nights at 10 p.m., then moved to Saturday nights, then finally ended on Monday nights. And this happened on TV's premiere science fiction network. The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne migrated between Friday and Saturday nights and then died out in only one season. Perhaps if it had been left alone, viewers might have been able to find it.
With Fox looking to revive Irwin Allen's The Time Tunnel and NBC seriously planning on reviving a more serious version of Lost In Space, and more genre shows being planned, we can only hope that the networks (whether they be broadcast or network) place the shows in a specific time slot and leave it there. Perhaps people might find the show and watch it.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
am afraid I must disagree with Mr. Spears' letter "Leandra Holo Weapons Are Logical." Ultimately such a system is
crude and relies on the hand-eye coordination of the user; I can't imagine a worse system for targeting on a futuristic starship. Indeed in most respects, such a system would be a throwback to the manually aimed anti-aircraft weaponry used on bombers in WWII.
Ultimately a realistic system would rely on user input solely for target and weapon selection; the actual aiming and firing would be handled by the computer in order to maximize the chances of hitting a target that is many tens or even hundreds of miles away.
Mr. Spears uses the analogy of the [computer] mouse to show why the holo-targeting system would be preferable, but I would argue that such an analogy is flawed. While the mouse makes a computer easier to use, it does not make it faster. I routinely use keyboard input on computers because in most cases
it is much faster to type a command than to find it in a menu (once you have gone through the trouble of memorizing the command).
Bill McHale
wmchal1@umbc.edu
abylon 5 fans, of which I am one, seem to tirelessly write letter after letter about the genius, wit and wisdom of the series. While I loved the first four seasons as much as anyone, I was mightily disappointed in the fifth season. Byron was a colossal bore. Everyone treated Lyta like a housemaid. The Laurel-and-Hardy act of new buds G'Kar and Londo was welcome at first, then just silly. The Centauri War was handled well, but then rushed to a conclusion. The scripts seemed phoned-in.
Legend of the Rangers had some moments, but was otherwise unremarkable. I'd love to see a try at a series, but I hope if one is done it will be with more gusto and commitment than the end of B5 showed.
Sean Carr
spcarr@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
