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.
wrote a little story called "The Death of the Island Doctor" which I like a lot, and nobody has paid the least attention to it ever," said Gene Wolfe in your interview. He added later, "I think it's a lovely little story, and I'm the only one who does."
Mr. Wolfe is not the only person who remembers this story fondly. It is collected in Stories from the Old Hotel" and I clearly remember reading it in 1988 when I bought Kerosina's hardcover edition. Fourteen years later, Mr. Wolfe's books still live on the shelves closest to where I do most of my reading and I usually reach for one of his collections when I feel the need for a short story.
Paul Duncanson
sirrobin@grouse.net.au
top the presses! There's sex on TV again! What is this? I'm beginning to think that this is a broken record, harping over and over about the same subject in a monotone. I've said it before and I'll say it again, like it or not, sex sells! It's been selling for years and honestly, I don't think it's going to stop selling.
It seems that every week someone is complaining about Jeri Ryan as Seven of
Nine or how Buffy shouldn't be watched by children ("Hollywood Can't Be Trusted") and how Enterprise is
using sex to sell its episodes ("Sex Is a Star Trek Staple"). What dreck! The networks have been using sex in one manner or another for decades to sell their product and it isn't going to stop. If it offends you, turn it off and don't let your children watch it.
Sex and violence has been a staple of television for decades and not just in the science-fiction genre. I don't care if it's sci-fi, police, mystery, comedy, variety or game shows, it's everywhere on TV.
Oh, let's not forget print, either. Don't just slam modern sci-fi TV. Let's step back several years and read anything written by Robert A. Heinlein in his later years. Hmmm, maybe you better not read it if sex offends you, because there's a lot there. Step back even further and check out something out of the classic "Lensman" series by E.E. "Doc" Smith. Written between the '30s and the '50s, it's veiled, but it's there, including, if you read close enough, pointers towards incest between the Children of the Lens.
Let's step back even further and look at The Bible. There is enough sex there to make a hooker blush, so if you can't stand sex on TV, back off and don't watch it, but be careful about what you read, too.
I realize we live in a sick, misguided society, but we have to be adult about it and we have to take some authority in hand where our children are concerned. Rather than harping about it, do something about it. If you don't want your children to watch it, don't let them. Find an alternative.
One last note: In the words of Robert Heinlein, "Any culture that's against sex doesn't last long. Have you ever seen a Shaker service?"
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
have, you may have noticed, had some complaints ("Hollywood Can't Be Trusted") about some of the content of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. What I didn't mention is that, despite my comments, I thought the show was highly entertaining as well. It was witty, adventurous, complex, gothic (I like gothic), the characters were likable (even Spike) and most of all, even when it was serious, it was fun. (I believe any show, even soap-opera type shows, can be fun as long as it's entertaining.) At least it was until this season. This season has been, for lack of any other words, pathetic. When Buffy died, the storyline was still somewhat alive. Now, it's the opposite. Buffy may have been resurrected, but the storyline has died a horrible death. It has been depressing, to say the least, and big tough Spike is little more than Buffy's punching bag and sex toy (no, I won't get into that again).
In other words, a big weenie, and, in my opinion, not the least bit entertaining anymore. Even the fun stuff isn't very fun anymore, and it's getting to the point where when they're crying, I'm gagging. Edgar Allen Poe is more sunny than Sunnydale this year, and the break-up of Xander and Anya on their wedding day was the "final nail in the coffin" in my opinion. (No pun intended.) I'll probably finish watching this season, but I'm not holding out much hope. I think that Buffy has run its course and [she] should just stay dead this time. I've heard that UPN planned two more seasons, but if this show actually has a next season, I will be incredibly shocked to say the least. I guarantee one thing. I will not be watching it.
Eric E. Anchor
eanchor@yahoo.com
part from the silly acting and poor writing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is really not much more than a pseudo-religious, sexual, B-grade horror show. There is no such thing as love on television anymore. It's all about how long you've been "friends" with someone and whether or not you can control your libido!
Apart from shows like The X-Files and Alias, there really aren't any really good shows that are based on good storytelling without every other character wanting to jump into bed with someone else. Mulder and Scully are prime examples of what good storytelling and sexual tension were about. Sure, by the end of last season, I think Mr. Carter felt the need to give in to some of the fans' silly desires to see the two of them "get it on." But, overall, the show was about monsters, aliens and government conspiracies.
As for Buffy ... Well, I was really interested in checking that show out for a long time after reading and hearing quite a few rave reviews for it. However, once I finally got a chance to see a few episodes, I'm really having a hard time figuring out what the excitement is all about!
Rachel Maley said, "remember—Buffy isn't meant for the younger crowd" ("Buffy's Sexuality Isn't Casual"). Well, what crowd is it for? I'm in my late 20s and I find the show really silly and immature. The dialogue is cheesy, the acting well below par compared to other programs of its like and when the sexual humor and scenery are thrown in for kicks, the balance is thrown off even more. There is really no such thing as development of relationships, anymore. As long as you "love" someone, then sex is the natural expression ... no! Why don't some of these characters show their love by abstaining until a real commitment, marriage, is affirmed?
Last week's wedding episode, what I saw of it, was a prime example. The whole dilemma that Xander was facing with getting married was really poorly executed, and I couldn't care less about all the characters' worries about it. And when Willow made the comment about "finding out" she was a lesbian?! Sorry, but Joss Whedon has never really proven that he is worth all the hype he's gotten in the last few years.
Dan Jeanes
DCJeanes@moheck.com
find myself completely agreeing with Keith Kitchen ("SF Is Troubled On TV") and William Travis ("Shuffling Timeslots Kill SF") in their comments about what is happening, and has happened to sci-fi shows.
But they both missed another problem area. With Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Roswell now on UPN, I find that more often than not, both of these are pre-empted for sports. Apparently the network believes that local games are infinitely better than series sci-fi with loyal fans. Audiences that do not care to watch the games will tune into another program and do get caught up in watching the one that is consistently there. It is extremely frustrating to guess when, or if, the series you enjoy viewing is being broadcast. I don't
know if there is anything that we as an audience can do about this, but I would appreciate any useful suggestions.
Pat Rogers
pafoxrogers@aol.com
must disagree with Mr. Mathelry ("TV Has Nothing to Offer Children"). My basic cable system has something like 50 channels, including Disney, Family, ABC-Family, Cartoon Network, Disney
Toons and Animal Planet and others. All of these networks show programs that I would allow, even encourage, my children to watch. In the sci-fi genre, my children and I watch and enjoy, Justice League and Batman Beyond. We also watch The Crocodile Hunter on Animal Planet. All of these program are on in primetime and are very family/child-oriented. I don't think it is all that hard to find something to watch with your children, you just have to try.
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62@yahoo.com
cience fiction is a delicate balance. There are those of use who spend thousands of dollars just to fill our shelves with trinkets and likenesses of our heroes. I am to blame for this act, too. We all love action figures, we all love posters and we all love telling our friends we saw The Mummy five times in the theater.
George Lucas, Laura Burns, Peter Jackson, Stephen Sommers and Majel Roddenberry, all make a majority of their profits from these "toys," but when a movie becomes more about marketing than just being a good movie, that's when the balance of science fiction is teetered.
I am sick of seeing movies that are made for the mainstream market. Science fiction fans are not mainstream! We like new ideas, and take risks and have movies that speak to us, and us only. I just wish Hollywood would get more directors like Peter Jackson or (young) George Lucas. Directors that are not afraid to dream, and create what they see. But I guess that day is yet to come, so until them, we'll have to settle for movies that are made for the common man.
George Northwind
joebobr@yahoo.com
athie Huddleston's review of Firestarter: Rekindled confirmed all my expectations or rather, the lack of any. What the heck was the SCI FI Channel thinking? Not only was Firestarter a weak book, but an even weaker movie. Did they buy the rights at a (gulp!) fire sale?
I fully understand that the SCI FI Channel does not have the production bucks of the big networks and Hollywood-backed stations, but when are they going to start putting what money they do have where the science fiction is?
Dune showed that SCI FI can get its dollars and talents together, but
Robocop and Firestarter and the low-rent "original movies" have left this viewer wondering what planet the collective entity currently running the SCI FI universe escaped from.
Then again, if SCI FI is considering a seven-course sequel to the "Lobster Man" episode from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, please disregard this letter.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
just finished reading the review of Firestarter: Rekindled and found that
something was bothering me. Skimming back through the review I saw what it was. In the info about the series before the review begins is the line, "based on the novel by Stephen King." The first sentence of the actual review begins, "Ten years after the events in Stephen King's Firestarter..."
Now is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by the seeming contradiction between these two sentences? It would be more accurate to say, "based on characters and concepts from the novel by Stephen King." I'm
assuming that this was some sort of marketing decision on the SCI FI Channel's part—more people are likely to watch a series with a "strong" Stephen King connection than a "soft" one. Still, the line is misleading.
A similar scenario would have the hypothetical movie "Harry Potter vs. James Bond" being touted with the line, "based on the book by J.K. Rowling." There's nothing wrong with sequels based on famous or semi-famous works, but we really shouldn't let them be advertised as anything other than what they are.
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
ou need to be more optimistic, Scott! ("I Read the News Today, Oh Boy")
So what if T-Rex was biologically capable of only 10 mph? If we can genetically resurrect him from the dead, we can surely train him to ride a giant motor-scooter. Just think of one of those Segway dealie-bobbers, times six!
I'll have to write Crichton to see if he can use this idea in [Jurassic] Park IV.
Joe Schembrie
joeschem@hotmail.com
t's disappointing that Paramount is releasing the Star Trek: The Next Generation DVD sets at such high prices. When you can go to any video store and purchase the first season set of Buffy the Vampire Slayer for $29, or Sex And The City for $39, it's clear Paramount is gouging the fans at $100 per set. I would have purchased it if the sets were more reasonable, but I guess I'll just stick with VHS and TNN for now!
John Kirk
trekker38@hotmail.com
wanted to add my few credits to the discussion ("B5 Ending Went Awry" and "Rangers' Weapons Are Too Weird"), if I may. I'm an adult female with a master's degree in English and certification in elementary education.
The writing and the novel-for-television format brought me to Babylon 5, and I fell in love with J.M. Straczynski's vision of the future. That being said, it did not blind me with plot flaws or discontinuity problems. Such things are unfortunate realities in a television series. That's why they call the process of viewing science fiction "suspension of disbelief."
Legend of the Rangers offers us a unique opportunity to learn more about the Rangers in general, this haunted ship (whose name I will not attempt to spell ... my Minbari isn't what it should be), and these individuals. Why does the weapons' specialist stand behind the wall of her introductory speech? What makes the young captain so stubbornly protective of his crew? I know others have compared him to Sheridan, but I suspect this young man has a totally different backstory. Can this group of misfits become a true team? I found it amazing that in such a short program I came to care for and about these new characters. Using the same cognitive tools I'd use reading a book, I find myself with more questions than answers at this point. And, I would truly love to know those answers.
I've read and see enough of Straczynski's work that I doubt there are simple answers to any of my questions. The man likes conundrums inside paradoxes tied up with Gordian knots, but often that is what truly makes his programs worth watching. That, and his ability to touch the truths in human relationships and the interactions between sentient beings, make his work worth watching.
In any case, thank you, SCI FI Channel, for making the movie and airing it for our enjoyment. If I get a vote, I'd love to see the series.
Cheri Hathaway
C1Hathaway@aol.com
his is a letter in support of Sean Carr in his "B5 Ending Went Awry." In it he brought up many of the same complaints I personally had with the program. After starting out with a bang and a story arc where you felt the tension build, the ending was almost as if, let's just fill our quota. I can attribute this to getting rid of Jeffery Sinclair the original commander of Babylon 5.
The story arc and tension between the Minbari and humans all but vanished after that happened. Instead we got treated to a love story by Delenn and Sheridan that seemed forced. I guess JMS forgot the Minbari ambassador was married to Sinclair (unknowingly) when each race shared their respective religious practices. I got a kick out of the way Sinclair handled his races approach to religion. He had lined up priests, monks, rabbis, Hindus, etc., to show that the human race was very diverse.
The first season ended and the second starts with Sheridan. Goodbye to the story arc that was in the "vision." So unlike the letter by another [writer] knocking the ending, I had a problem with B5 starting onward with Season 2.
Mark D. Bergman
mbergman@oneil.com
n response to Sean Carr ("B5 Ending Went Awry"), who wrote concerning his disappointment with the final series of Babylon 5: Personally, I found the story of Byron,
[as well as his] character, to be one of the more interesting things in B5 history. Lyta developed into what the Vorlons had always intended, then went beyond, which was fascinating. G'Kar and Londo showed us how life can turn anything on its head, with the right stimuli. Or in other words, someone who is your enemy today, might be your greatest ally tomorrow. Finally, I found the last episode to be one of the most moving pieces of SF I've ever seen. Season 5 was the one where we really got under the skin of the people, without the distractions of earlier years. The wars were won, and now they had to live their lives and meet their fates. That's what made Babylon 5's season 5 the best of the lot!
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
ast night I sat down to watch the new Showtime post-apocalyptic series Jeremiah. At first I was a little reluctant to take any interest after
Luke Perry's awful Invasion performance, but the idea of a world where children grew up without adults was enough to lure me in.
Aside from what I thought could have been a little better acting, Jeremiah was very deep and intense and has opened itself up for many great possible stories and situations as Jeremiah and Kurdy travel in search of more information on the Big Death and Valhalla Sector.
The skinheads were pretty scary (in essence anyway). They kind of added an element of more hate and disorder to a world already unruly and out of control. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of them just yet. As much as I enjoyed the "Theo" character played by Daniel Gillies, there were some moments in her performance that I felt could have been better. Even still, I think she could make a great reoccurring character. While she's tough and sort-of greedy, she seemed like she could be a good guy if given a chance. All in all I enjoyed the show and look forward to better and more intense progression.
T.W. Wallace
scribals_75@yahoo.com
evin Burns', Jon Jashni's and Fox's plans to resurrect four hackneyed Irwin Allen SF TV series beggars belief ("Allen SF Series Get New Life"). Has Fox totally lost its collective corporate mind? That must be the case, considering this news on top of all the garbage they've troweled out in recent years. This bespeaks no inventiveness or courage to seek out something really new for SF fans. I would hope Fox really suffers if they go ahead with this, but it would also mean the actors and crews, writers and directors, and of course, the fans would suffer along with them. Curse these hacks. There are scores of unused, viable SF properties out there and they want to give us retreads, and bad ones at that.
Dana Boden
etaonrish@cox.net
Back to the top.
