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 Kevin Ahearn's letter, "Hollywood SF Needs to Move Forward", he made the
point about sci-fi novels being turned into movies, remakes and rehashing the same movies ad absurdum. I agreed with a majority of the points risen by the letter ... sans the rather impugnable comment regarding Fahrenheit 451. For those who didn't read the letter, Mr. Ahearn stated that "in the light of the information superhighway, [Fahrenheit 451 is] at best quaint, if not irrelevant."
I dearly wish I could say that I agree, however, I'm afraid that this comment is untrue and, in fact, indicative of the political correctness infestation pervading our society. If one recalls a certain non-SF book by Michael Moore entitled Stupid White Men, it was almost never published because of what it said regarding the U.S. President and revealed his dealings with a company none other than Enron itself (before the 24-hr news networks "broke" the story). Wisely, the publisher boldly went where none others would have gone and chose to publish it unabridged and unburned, per se; though it was at the cusp of being tossed to the glorified fire-men (or, should I be PC to say "fire-people"?) because of what was written within.
This one point illustrates that we still have our book burners in our society. Lest we forget, books have been banned from our own public schools, our libraries and even regions of the U.S. by those who disagree with the messages of such banned books. Ironically, all this in a country where free speech is allegedly protected under the Bill of Rights! I realize that people may not view this as science fiction directly, but if we're to make a better future for ourselves and achieve at least an iota of the dreams laid in this genre, then we need to make the changes now. In order to make changes, we still need to realize the ails of our society, such as censorship itself. Despite the Internet and all these egocentric technological advancements, we still have censorship. However, it's not the books that experience censorship, it's the news networks, newspapers, online 'zines and whatever medium is available for exploitation by those who wield power unjustly.
If someone does not believe me, then I ask that they look at the evidence that can be found by merely asking (for starters) and make their own educated opinions from therein—because 451 is no more "quaint" than learning the lessons painfully taught to us by history and our own arrogance.
Joe Beaudoin
JoeBeaud2@aol.com
here have been a number of complaints lately concerning the quality of science-fiction movies coming out of Hollywood ("SF Films Needs to Evolve", "Quality SF Isn't Owned By Books" and "Good SF Is In Books, Not TV"). Actually, it's the same old problem once again rearing its ugly head: Most of Hollywood doesn't understand science fiction.
Yes, there are the occasional standout successes, both commercial and critical, that capture our attention, make us think and entertain us like good science fiction, or any good fiction period, should. Unfortunately, as I've said time and time again, studios are in the business to make money and
if they don't understand something, they either avoid it completely or do it to the best of their ability, no matter how badly it is, to cash in on a current fad.
Currently, we seem to be going through a fad of remakes, from Irwin Allen's TV series through The Time Machine and Planet Of The Apes on screen, just skimming the top of the current crop of films.
Hollywood has always used novels as a basis for its movies and has always made remakes, whether science fiction, or otherwise (Think The Jazz Singer—Al Jolson, Danny Thomas and Neil Diamond—and try not to shudder too badly). There have been occasions when a remake actually turns out better than the original, though it is rare. Still, the public has a tendency to gravitate to that which is familiar over something new and different. With the current economy, given the choice between a movie with an untested story and stars and a movie which is part of a franchise (Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.), most people will choose the franchise, even if the other movie could be better!
As for novels, Hollywood has a dismal record of matching a screenplay to a novel. In some cases, it is flatly impossible. In other cases, it certainly seems that the studio gave the screenwriter a healthy dose of LSD-25 along with a salary. Yet, when a movie and a novel do match up fairly well, invariably people complain that they could have done with "just reading the book ... there wasn't much difference between it and the movie." Obviously, a Catch-22.
Then again, anyone who has read Pierre Boulle's Planet Of The Apes, then watched the 1968 screen version, then Tim Burton's recent remake, are probably scratching their heads in confusion and dismay. A faithful adaptation of the original novel (including its "surprise" ending) would have
been excellent, but it never happened. I happen to like the "original" movie, but have never been quite able to truly enjoy the numerous sequels (the quality sank with each one) and the latest remake was worth one viewing.
I would look forward to new, original movies that came out of the imagination of some writer/director trying to "break out," but I'm also a realist. George Lucas was very, very lucky with Star Wars in 1977, as was J.K. Rowling with her Harry Potter series in the '90s. Anyone trying to bring something new and original out now had better have a very large lucky rabbit's foot and be related to someone with serious connections to the executive level in Hollywood.
Still, as much as I do like the old, new would be good. ...
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
n a recent book review [of Permanence], we are told that "Allying herself finally with Max, Rue and her hastily assembled crew manage to make a visit to the Lasa ship. But after a cursory survey, its enormity confounds them, and they are forced to enter into an agreement with the military." Are we to assume that the capacity for great evil of the ship confounds them? I didn't think so.
It's a sad and tired thing, our language, but it's the only one we have. Be nice to it.
Alan Kornheiser
akornhis@optonline.net
Copyeditor Greg Ross responds:
Some people think "enormity" should mean only "excessive wickedness or outrageousness," and not "excessive size," but the latter is in increasingly common use, and the American Heritage Dictionary says "this distinction between enormity and enormousness has not always existed historically." Only 59% of their usage panel recommend changing it in usages like this, and I believe this number is dropping. Thanks, though, for keeping me on my toes!
Best,
Greg
y thanks to the two readers, one public ("Opinions and Facts Collide") and one not so public who corrected my mistake ("SF Should Leave the Shocks to Horror") regarding the authors of After Worlds Collide. As many times as I use those books as references, you'd think I would remember the authors.
However, my point about the character Shirley was my own personal rant about how she was viewed by the engineers on the planet. Whether or not she was actually called a bimbo, there were repeated references to her lack of education and their amazement that she could do what they could not. My
point, as my husband pointed out right back to me, was that the stereotype was broken and Shirley was actually the key player in the drama. I like my sci-fi to be thought-provoking. When and After Worlds Collide, fit that description.
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@mail.com
fter watching the 21 April episode of The X-Files, in which they promised a wrap-up on The Lone Gunmen, I am completely frustrated and angry at the outcome. [Warning: Spoilers follow.] Most probably my anger should be directed at Chris Carter, but I'm sure there are others responsible for this unnecessary ending to three of television's most lovable truth-seekers.
I've put up with a lot the last few seasons, from the horrible season 7 opening episode to the travesty of Mulder's resurrection, the downward spiral of the story arc to the shameful mishandling of Mulder's disappearance. I've been a die-hard fan through all this because the first six seasons were worth it, and I kept hoping there would be redemption with a smashing reveal-all ending that would neatly tie up the loose ends and eventually make sense out of all that happened since the beginning of season 7. How naive of me to think it would get better.
The deaths of The Lone Gunmen was the final appalling insult. They could simply have left the Gunmen alone. It would have been somehow comforting to know they were still the one continuous thread looking for the truth.
Julie Mourar
julie.mourar@compaq.com
ith regards to Ms. Catanzaro's response ("SF Should Leave the Shocks to Horror") to my letter ("SF Has Become Too Safe") in Science Fiction Weekly; I apologize for any misleading
comments or statements in the way I expressed my views. I won't bore you with a lengthy discourse on what I intended to convey, simply that I do not desire the horror and SF genres to be classed as indistinguishable (I hate it when Buffy or Blade are referred to as sci-fi!). Nor do I intend "shocking" to mean cheap B-movie style blood-fest thrills (aliens, mutants, etc., substituted for the more traditional vampire/werewolf supernatural terrors).
Had I the time and space, I would have elaborated on the fact that I consider the very best (and amongst the oldest) SF to be an attempt on the part of the author/director to "shock" the audience out of a comfortable, apathetic viewpoint or set of pre-conceptions. The master himself, Mr. Wells, when penning The War of the Worlds, had intended to create a rattling good adventure yarn, while also shocking Victorians with a colorful metaphor for the evils of Imperialism; "What the British Empire is doing to the world, the Martians are doing to us! It's not nice to be bullied, is it?"
While I accept that escapism has its place in the SF universe, all I ask for is that the balance be redressed, and that soap-opera style pulp escapism be countered with more thought-provoking, unsettling varieties of the medium. Too often, (on TV and film, at least) SF has become a synonym for fast, flashy, disposable confection, where good conquers evil and the status quo is restored, and space or the future, for example, become mere backdrops to the "human interest" dramas beloved of modern audiences.
Anyway, I could go on interminably about this pet hate. ...
Adrian Haythorne
adrianhaythorne@yahoo.co.uk
alk yet again of a Battlestar Galactica revival without the original cast ("SCI FI Slate Announced")? What is the matter with [the programming] people at the SCI FI Channel? For years, thousands of people have put their support behind a Battlestar Galactica revival, as long at it included the original cast and themes. We supported Richard Hatch in his efforts, and then supported to Tom DeSanto because he listened to us.
Go ahead and make [the] mini-series. If it includes the original cast, it will be a huge success and make millions of dollars for SCI FI and USA [Networks]. If it doesn't include the original cast and themes, it might have a few viewers, but it won't be nearly as many as the viewers that [the SCI FI Channel] will have lost forever, myself included.
Paula Kennedy
goldsquadron@hotmail.com
'm one of those Star Trek fans who really didn't get into Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that well—and at the same time will say I liked the series. I personally liked Star Trek: Voyager more. So the comment that Voyager is the weakest Trek series ("DS9 Gets Trek's Cold Shoulder") is just a matter of opinion.
I've been a huge Trek fan since I was 12 years old (and I'm 42 now!), and haven't seen one episode of the last season of DS9. Yes, I'm sure I missed some good episodes and will probably catch up ... someday. I really thought the series was just too political, and I never got into it
as I did with the other series.
As for Wesley Crusher coming back (with a hint of a return of Robin Lefler played by Ashley Judd?) in Nemesis, I think it's terrific! I know Wesley was a huge fan issue early in the series, yet I really liked the handling of the character in later episodes such as "The Game" and "The First Duty."
Yep, that's my opinion too, but I'm betting that when push come to shove, it's really the opinion of the majority of Trek fans too!
John E. Kirk
trekker38@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
