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.
ow. It's been a while. Issue 256? I remember when I was 16 or so, when I first stumbled onto this wonderful magazine, you guys only had about 30 [issues] under your belt. When I first posted to the Letters section it was Issue 43, and then next, much later, for Issue 53... (this I conveniently found
out by searching Science Fiction Weekly).
I was kind of amazed to see it still running. Great. Neat. Wow. How am I ever going to catch up? Perhaps best by diving in....
Marian said ("Time Machine Unstuck in Time"), in regards to the spirit of science fiction, boldly going and the Time Machine: "Worse, it's eventually shown, as a major plot point, that he only worked on his invention because he was miserably unhappy. Had he been able to marry the girl of his dreams, he would not have bothered to continue being an inventor. So people only become inventors and explorers if they are miserably unhappy in their personal lives? A happily married person leading a fulfilling life would never waste time being creative and working on new discoveries for the sheer joy of it? That message is the opposite of the spirit of science fiction and marks this the greatest anti-science fiction movie ever made."
Well.
I'm sure that's not the only message one can get from it. However, to go with what [Marian Powell] said, it seems like a lot of the good sci-fi out there is about exactly that which you despise; disgruntled and independent scientists. I mean, for an example or two, look at The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick, or even Heinlein's The Door into Summer. ... I mean, there are countless examples, but those came to mind immediately. Characters who are frustrated mechanics and artisans who just happen to be the heroes of the story. Good science fiction doesn't have to be anything. Come on! It's fiction first, before any highfalutin' ideals about peace and love and mankind and rot. It's not about feeling positive. I could care less about happy scientists. I want mad scientists. I loved the Rod Taylor version, but it's corny. It's like, to reference another letter from Issue 256, an Irwin Allen fantasy ("Irwin Allen Is a Guilty Pleasure"). H.G. Wells might read happy and proper, but let's get semi-serious here. Any man who tries to make a time machine in his basement is a mad scientist, and is certainly not a properly adjusted individual. Anyway, this is all smoke for what I'm really responding to.
"The spirit of science fiction ..." (Echo ... delay ... lots of reverb ...) ("Time Machine Unstuck in Time")
I'm sorry. I cannot accept this kind of talk. There has been far too much blood spilt across billions of feet of cheap printing paper to say that science fiction is a big furry bunny waiting to comfort you. It is not here to remind us of real scientists, who toil daily in their fields, nor is it here to promote morals or some kind of a value system (though people tend to get that a lot). In fact, based on [Marian Powell's] comments, one could almost surmise that you think there is a certain method to being a scientist. That if one happened to be depressed or a bit kookoo than they couldn't possibly understand the basics of physics or something, or, if they did, than it's simply a freak accident and not worthy of mention. Do you think all scientists work from a fountain of joy or something? Is that what science fiction is about? Or do you simply believe that people ... common, ordinary people who have read maybe three books in their lives, shouldn't be bombarded with harmful images of greasy, disheveled men with longish hair who happened to invent something? To go even further, should Raskolnikov be given the same fate as your purest science fiction?
In my opinion, science fiction is about Gully Foyle and his filthy Vorga. And Lazarus Long. And about bespectacled old men locked in bank vaults. About the burning of books. The end of the world. The birth of the world. Rape, murder, death, love ... space elevators, nuclear blasters, jaunting, telepathy, the pleasures of a towel rub-down ... and ... well, all of that junk. I ramble.
To get to the point ... if science fiction has a soul, I'm sure it wouldn't want to pin itself down to anything you or I or Roddenberry could come up, so why don't we just leave her be.
It's been a while since she's been golden, but she doesn't have to hear it from us.
Oh. And, for those who believe in Trek's "To boldly go where no man has gone before," just bear in mind that one doesn't always go in the right direction, and, further, when one steps boldly, one is apt to fall off a precipice.
As a side note, Kevin Ahearn's right on in his letter for issue 256 ("SF Should Be Enjoyed By All"). Also, Resident Evil sucked. Blade II rocked. Babylon 5 was bliss. Farscape is life. And I could care less if we see a revival of the Irwin Allen universe, because they'll only screw it up even more than it was already! Phew. Been a while since I ranted ... and I haven't even read a SF book in over a year!
Ben Nilsson
bebopbuhbenben@hotmail.com
n response to both Sean Carr's letter "B5 Ending Went Awry" and Nathan Brazil's "Season 5 Best Part of B5"—I want to add this observation. I
enjoyed all of the seasons of B5—from the beginning to the end of "Sleeping In Light" (even though "Sleeping In Light" was produced before Season 5).
[Warning: SPOILERS ahead.]
I enjoyed the story arcs of the Shadow War: From the beginning to the height of the Shadow War at Z'ha'dum to it's end with the departure of the Shadows and Vorlons at Coriana 6 to the liberation of Earth and then to the establishment of the Interstellar Alliance and it's move from Babylon 5 to Minbar and, in the end, the decommissioning of Babylon 5 in 2282 and Sheridan's final trip in Coriana 6 where he dies, as he knew he would 20 years before. To me, B5 started and ended well—it is a storyline of hope and friendship, of seeing everything for what it really is and knowing what is the right thing to do in a time of crisis— and ended a way few shows do—with the heroes coming back full circle in a mixture of happiness and sadness.
David Brookes
davidbrookes@wn.com.au
agree with all the points in Kevin Ahearn's letter "SF Should Be Enjoyed By All", but I wish to add something to it. It is a comment I heard made once regarding Star Trek—"Star Trek is a moral tale and everyone likes a moral
tale." To me, these days this is rarely the case. To me, it is this aspect of a "moral tale" as presented by directors such as George Lucas and Peter Jackson that makes the difference for me. This is where their stories are about good and evil—but where the whole point of the story can be just to save a soul. To me, this is demonstrated in Return of the Jedi, where at the end, Vader sacrifices himself for Luke—knowing he will die—yet willing to do it demonstrates that there still some good in him—thus the redemption
of a person through just one single act. To me this seems to be lacking these days in movies and TV shows. Shows such as Babylon 5 in the past and even possibly Angel (by him sacrificing humanity for the second hand in 250+ years in exchange for the survival of the one person he has ever loved and also willing to try and repent for what happened in the past) are what make us think about what we do each day and how we can make ourselves better. May this tradition of a "moral tale" continue into the future.
David Brookes
davidbrookes@wn.com.au
o boldly go where no man has gone before." That Star Trek slogan sums up all that science fiction is at its best. It's why I called the new Time Machine movie anti-science fiction ("Time Machine Unstuck in Time"). There was no fun in it, no sense of
wonder, no sense of adventure. [Warning: Spoiler ahead.] In it, man invents a time machine purely so he can change the past. He wants to save the life of the woman he loves. We are shown a glimpse of an alternate future in which he succeeds. He is happily married and so he tosses all plans for a time machine aside. That is so totally against every thing science fiction stands for at its best.
Science fiction at its best also takes current trends and extends them into the future. I say this because the letter by Thomas Sunich ("SF Doesn't Need To Preach Morality") in response to my letter showed that I must have written my letter poorly. He misunderstood my comments so totally that he ended up having me saying the exact opposite of what I said. I will state again that science fiction at its best is "what if," as in, "What if a current trend continues?" H.G. Wells did that in his novel by asking, "What if class distinctions continue and get worse?" and showing the human race dividing into Morlock and Eloi. The classic 1960 movie version took a different what if, since Wells' concern about class distinctions proved unnecessary. The movie took the then-current fears of nuclear war and suggested that the results of the devastation were the splitting of man into two species, Morlock and Eloi. The new movie version loses all touch with reality and shows the moon breaking up and hitting the Earth and somehow that causes the creation of Morlocks and Eloi. Then the movie drearily and boringly spends a lot of time discussing the various kinds of Morlocks, all of which slows the story down. The classic movie simply accepted that the Morlocks were really orcs and had Rod Taylor spend a lot of time battling them and inspiring the Eloi to stand up for themselves. Nothing like that happens in the new movie and that's another problem with it. It's dull, heavy handed and preachily moralistic. I say this because I'd like to advise Mr. Sunich to rent the original Time Machine and watch it if he wants a fun adventure movie. The original Time Machine is one of my favorite movies and truly captures the spirit of science fiction at its best.
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
have recently seen Time Machine and while I didn't enjoy it as much as the original, I did think it was a good movie, and I am surprised at Marian Powell's letter ("Time Machine Unstuck in Time") decrying its lack of a social theme. While the theme is different than that of H.G. Well's book and the original movie it did have a
significant, perhaps even more significant theme for our times, and the movie took great pains to see that we did not miss the that theme.
[Warning: SPOILERS ahead.]
The theme, that of when science and technology go too far, is first presented in the beginning of the movie with a discussion between Prof. Hartdegen and Philby. Philby, looking at pictures in Hartdegen's lab question, "When will it be too much?" To which Hartdegen replies, "Never." However, later Hartdegen, while watching the moon crumbling, says, "You were right, Philby." While my quotes probably aren't exact I think the theme is certainly evident.
It continues on further into the future to show the effects of taking technology too far and presents another aspect of that very theme in the newly envisioned Morlocks, who through selective breeding, a form of genetic engineering, have created several new races.
I think that the social theme presented in the new Time Machine is certainly a valid one, and what better medium to explore such a theme than through science fiction.
Time and again I read letters here from people who claim that science fiction today is in a state of decline, if it hasn't already hit rock bottom, and while I love the classic science fiction that I read as a boy I haven't turned my back on what it has become because it's not exactly the same as it's always been. Had I known the new Time Machine was going to be exactly the same as the original movie before I went to see it I probably would not have gone. Why see the same thing again? Science fiction has always been about different possibilities, about what could be, but all too often it seems as if all I see here are people lamenting that it is just that.
Dave Taylor
dtaylor@uttc.edu
n corresponding with fans of this Web site, I quoted "Klaatu barada nikto." One didn't know what I was talking about while another applauded my reference to Army of Darkness. Just last week, I called Sliders a time-travel series.
Doesn't anybody know this stuff?
Surely the SCI FI Channel does, and may be ignoring a vital and virtually unlimited programming source. Science-fiction encyclopedias exist in abundance and the Discovery Channel did a SF series narrated by Mark Hamill some years ago, but much still needs to be done to get us fans up to warp
speed.
The SCI FI Channel did make its own efforts with SCI-FI Buzz and SCI-FI Entertainment, but while both featured kernels of history and commentary, they came off as "happy talk" Hollywood news clones done better elsewhere.
(ESPN, a phenomenal success, started out broadcasting rodeos and other minor events, but the fledgling channel also aired "highlight films" of historic games, from tennis to football. The rest, as they say, is trivia.)
For the cost of yet another slate of lame reruns, let the SCI FI Channel launch a show to "boldly take us where science fiction has gone before!"
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
few more thoughts on Lexx.
I thought Lexx was interesting, and I liked it, because it was different. With the passage of episodes, there has become an over abundance of stupidity. I never considered watching it for stupidy's sake. I can understand ignorance, but I can't relate to rampant stupidity. If I wanted stupidity I would watch sitcoms. I don't, and therefore will no longer watch Lexx. I'm sorry, but Stan and Zev have got to be more intelligent than they are. And 790 needs to have an accident.
If you guys (meaning the producers of Lexx) can't come up with anything better than this then you'd better cut your losses a quick as you can.
It upsets me to watch a potentially good show become garbage.
Please don't take this personally. [This show] probably has many loyal viewers. I just wanted to let you know how I felt and that I'm no longer one of them.
Al Walls
alsjunk@attbi.com
here was a blurb in the
news briefs ("Sorbo Savors Andromeda") regarding Andromeda that saddened me. It was an announcement by Kevin Sorbo that the idea of recreating the Commonwealth would be dropped in favor of the Andromeda just going around and help people in need. Boo! Hiss! What looked like the potential to become a Babylon 5—a story of on man pulling a galaxy together in the face of Shadow-like enemy—is now going to become Hercules in outer space. It appears the brains and vision of the operation is leaving with Robert Hewitt Wolfe, and the show will go to less science fiction and more action.
Barbara Goldstein
Barb2051@aol.com
t seems there is so little quality left in the world, that it makes it more obvious when something good or worthwhile ends. Of course I'm talking about The Chronicle, the nameless "powers that be" admit that it is a good show in all respects (acting, storylines, production value, Saturn Nominations, etc.), their claim is that it never found it's audience. My claim is that the programming department kept hiding it from the audience. Juggling time slots is never good. With the finite size of the genre audience putting a good show looking for an audience against Dark Angel a science fiction show that probably has average ratings well above the combined ratings of SCI FI's top two or three shows, just can't be a good idea.
Look, it may be too late for The Chronicle (it might not, the finale lead me to believe this may have all been a marketing ploy), but for any new "good" show that [the SCI FI Channel] wants an audience for: put it in a permanent time slot that makes sense. I firmly believe if Jules Verne and First Wave did not start off competing against SG-1 they would still be on today. The SCI FI Channel has a responsibility to us, the sci-fi fans (their only viewers) to save us from all the endless police,
doctor, lawyer, formula sitcom and reality (lowest common denominator) shows that run the same plots over and over again. We want to be mentally, visually and auditorily stimulated, leaving us left wide-eyed with our imagination and suspension of disbelief in overdrive. Please, SCI FI, do me, do us and do yourself a couple of favors:
1) Don't put good, original programming up against other genre shows, save them so we don't have to make the choice.
2) You are the SCI FI Channel which implies you have a high tech audience. Broadcast in 5.1 channel Dolby Digital (Farscape, SG-1, Riverworld, Taken, Dune and B5 are begging for it) and get going on HDTV (making a plan to get there is a good first step).
The beginning of 2002 marks the end of the X-Files, SU2, Lexx, Earth: Final Conflict, The Chronicle and Roswell; all we are getting in return is Jeremiah, I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend.
Kurt Donley
kdonley@att.net
Back to the top.
