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.
inotopia is more dinosaur than utopia. What's utopian about a world where: you can't eat meat, you can't have weapons, men bond with reptiles instead of women, townspeople are too stupid to go indoors when a pteranodon attack is imminent, your ruler looks like a fat Zippy the Pinhead, carnivorous animals are prevented from exercising their carnivorous nature
(on humans, anyway) by unreliable glowing rocks, rebellious attitudes and independent thought are hypnotized out of you by the rhythmic beating of drums in a ceremony reminiscent of brainwashing
cults, you must always put others before yourself, you have to have a permit to blow up ancient rock statues, you have to go to school, the princess is nothing special to look at and you can never go home, not because it's physically impossible, but because the society won't let you.
This is not a world I'd want to live in—not even for a minute. Too scary for me!
Indeed, it's too much like reality. When I indulge in fiction, it is to escape reality for a short time and live in a more pleasant place. The Dinotopian world is not at all pleasant. Here's what would make it so: The people of Waterfall City discover that pteranodons cannot penetrate
the two-foot-thick rock walls of their buildings, and so decide to stay inside reading a Robert Heinlein book instead of going outside to hear some hokey public prayer; a massive brush fire destroys the crops and Dinotopian people have to eat meat to stay alive; they discover they like the taste of meat and give up their silly notions about vegetarianism; people who have been crammed into a tiny cage of a paddy wagon and held captive for trying to save the world later take vengeance on those
who imprisoned them, burn down the courtroom where they were convicted and sentenced, and feed the judge/mayor to the next hungry T-rex that comes around; Dinotopians realize that neither their government nor the sunstones can protect them all the time, and take it upon themselves to develop weapons of self-defense; David and Freefall go into business carrying anyone and his boat out past
the razor reef, and there's more demand than they can handle; 26 gets made into dino-jerky, and Karl is freed of the obligations imposed by parenthood—at this point he realizes he was brainwashed and forced against his will into bonding with the scaley, and dedicates his life to freeing all the other people who have been so brainwashed, acquiring a really cool fully-automatic belt-fed flintlock to help him in his quest; a cargo ship wrecks, and a crate marked "Victoria's Secret" washes ashore, Marion gets a makeover and starts wearing things found in the crate.
Well, that's my wish list for the show. I hope its producers and writers are reading this. Cool special effects are great, but if the show doesn't take me to a fun world, I won't watch it.
Rod Heil
rodheil@yahoo.com
ardboard characters, muddled story, insipid dialogue, tepid romance, cartoonish effects,"—the critics are snapping at George Lucas' Episode II like hungry jackals, emboldened by what they believe is the scent of blood.
Wrong, you ignorant, gutless dogs. It's sweat.
Attack of the Clones, whatever flaws and faults you pontificating hounds have every right to believe the film may have, is the vision of one man, and I'll take that over the latest "re-imagining" of a late great author's science-fiction classic by an ego-driven director playing F/X games or yet
another Hollywood continuation of a TV series that belongs on a small screen or a committee effort to bring a 40- or 50-year-old comic-book hero to life.
In the history of fantasy and science fiction, Star Wars stands alone as a phenomenon, a veritable universe unique unto itself. By comparison, Harry Potter, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Rings, Matrix, Terminator, James Bond, Batman, Superman and Spider-Man are cinematic pygmies scurrying in Vader's shadow.
"Do or do not. There is no try,'" said Yoda. George Lucas has done. Everybody else keeps trying to catch up.
May The Force be with them.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
f you watch the arena scene [in Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones] very closely when the Jedi light their sabers from the stands and move forward into the arena itself, the ['N Sync] guys are cleverly in disguise: Justin, Lance and JC (T'welliks) with plenty of make-up, mingling with several aliens. Jedi and Chris and Joey are off to the left in the next frame amongst several Jedi. They are all killed in two separate explosions. There are so many things going on you'd hardly notice, much less be looking for them. However, if you look really hard after the second explosion, you can see Joey (who had just clearly gotten killed) fighting off a nasty Geonosian creature. George [Lucas] put them in there but used the magic of editing to mask and blend them in. After all, in a scene that starts off with 200 Jedi and ends with only about 20, he needed plenty of extras. By the way, look at those same Jedi and you'll also see the man that played Boba Fett in the original trilogy.
T.W. Wallace
scribals_75@yahoo.com
Reviewer Patrick Lee responds:
If they're there, I didn't see 'em, nor did my companion, which is why I said "no apparent" cameos. But I wondered if they were there, and am glad you pointed them out for me.
Best,
Patrick
egarding Wil McCarthy's column ["The Physics of Spider-Man"]: "Venom, the evil Spider-Man, wears a nanotech-based supersuit which may in fact be capable of carrying nerve impulses...."
Well, far be it from me, a lowly superfan of Spider-Man, to contradict you, who seem never to have watched any cartoon or read any comic based on the character, but Venom was not possessed of a suit of nanotechnological robots. The Venom suit was an alien biological organism which once belonged to Peter Parker himself.
I want so much to argue a few other points to you that don't sound right to me, but sadly, I have very little formal education in the engineering and higher sciences—a passing interest, but no real formal education.
James Rice
Foxspire@aol.com
Columnist Wil McCarthy responds:
Thanks for writing, James. It's true, I wasn't a close follower of Spider-Man during the Venom years, and should have run that wording by a Spider-Man expert like yourself. I'll keep your e-mail address on file.
Best,
Wil
yberpunk is an elusive title ("Repo Man Ain't Cyberpunk, Punk"). I always thought of it as high-tech Raymond Chandler on acid. The stories usually revolved around edge-of-society characters plying their way through corporate societies, often playing the inadvertent anti-hero. It reflected the take-what-you-can-get attitude of the '80s, and that's why I believe it was such a popular facet of the sci-fi genre at the time. What's funny now is that, as enjoyable as it still is to read, it seems dated. Japan, reeling under a decade-long recession, is not the powerhouse that Gibson pictured in his early novels, and punk itself has been absorbed to a great extent into our
culture. I think "cyberpunk" was what "punk" started out to be, commentary about the disenfranchised in a seemingly indifferent society. It's also about people trying to adapt to societies where change arrives by the minute. I thought it was a breath of fresh air when it first made its way into sci-fi, just like the New Wave movement of the '60s. However, and luckily, it hasn't proved as visionary as it
seemed. New technology, instead of depriving a human voice, has provided one to people who were sick of corporate and government manipulation. Look at the Enron scandal. All in all, though, cyberpunk was a great ride while it lasted and it provides an interesting perspective on the decade that helped
engender it.
Brett
Brettb@aol.com
'm very sad to see Roswell end. I thought it was a great show. I would love to see a come-back story later on, like a reunion or maybe even a movie of their adventures after [leaving] Roswell. I just hope to see the stars on more things. I loved Forsaken with Brendan Fehr.
I just think they are all really great actors, not to mention, the guys are great to look at.
Angel Kelley
Bren117@aol.com
y wife and I were firm followers of Earth: Final Conflict during the first several years. [Warning: Spoilers follow.] Although difficult to follow in concept at times, and disappointing also at times, the decision to eliminate Liam in exchange for Renee was just too much. Sorry, the character has all the attraction of a rock. Left the show and followed only on this venue. Keep episodes from years one, two and three. Trash the balance.
Richard Coyle
richardcoyle@ezol.com
fter reading Stuart Howson's letter ("Endgame Needn't Be the End") regarding Highlander: Endgame, I had to stop and ponder the surprising fact
that someone appeared to have enjoyed the movie. First, let me avoid the inevitable criticism of, "Oh, your opinion doesn't matter because you're obviously just not a big enough fan," by prefacing my further comments with the statement that yes, I am a fan. However, let me clarify—I'm a fan of
the original idea presented in Highlander. The story was simple, the special effects little more than mediocre, and most of the duels (by today's movie-making standards, anyway) were less than they could have been. Still the movie captured my imagination. Why? Because the characters were, at
their cores, human.
Connor and the rest of his ilk were immortal, sure, but they had to deal with all of the emotional and physical pain of being human. The conflict between good and evil made sense, with the idea of the Kurgan's victory clearly signaling an eternity of darkness for all mankind. To say that this simplest of elements was missing from Endgame is to understate the nature of the movie. In fact, upon reflecting on the last (and let me stress that I hope that word truly applies) Highlander film, the one word I can think of that best sums up my opinion is "offensive."
That's right, I found it offensive. I thought it offensive that the producers were allowed to make this movie. I found it offensive that any actor (supposedly) worth his salt would be willing to act in it. And most of all, I found it offensive that the audience was expected to find the film not only enjoyable, but in any way coherent. The dialogue was atrocious and could have been improved upon by most American eighth-graders. The plot was more simplistic than a majority of the series' episodes (and that's really saying something), and the characters! To be honest, I don't even have the
words. Let me just sum up by saying that the characters had absolutely no depth or motivation, and several of the immortals lacked the common sense God gave a common lemming. And here I would have assumed that human beings would have gotten smarter as they grew older.
Now I'm not going to get into one of my senseless diatribes, and I'll resist the urge to point out even the most basic inconsistencies between the series and the latest movie. I will simply sum up by saying that while this film had potential, its writers obviously abandoned any idea of creating interesting stories and telling a well-constructed story in favor of coming up with a way to string together a series of swordfights. The result was a movie that literally had me laughing in the theater. I can only hope that this franchise will now rest as silently as most slain immortals.
Norm de Moose
obinorm@netscape.net
egarding the "Giles Will Haunt The BBC" story, let's hope that Ripper/The Watcher also haunts one of the networks on the U.S. side of the Atlantic. If The Powers That Be don't think that there's a market for the Giles show over here, they need to get their heads examined.
Mac Breck
macbreck@access995.com
dam Boudreaux claims ("Little Space for God in Trek") that Roddenberry was a secular humanist. I do not know if it is true or wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Boudreaux, who is
obviously one himself, but I do know two other things; first, Roddenberry left most religion out of Trek because he did not want to show a future of division among humanity, but of unity. I am quite convinced that the only drum he wanted to beat in the Star Trek universe is one of optimism and hope. Like most good Americans (like the staunch Presbyterian who writes this note), Roddenberry considered religion something personal, and not to be insulted by unwashed barbarians who think they know how the universe ticks.
And second, with regard to the lack of popularity of the Enterprise theme, people don't like it because it whines. Whenever I listen to it, I am reminded of ... well, in my evil past as a boy of 10, I used to grab the family cat and stroke its tail backward; the resulting caterwaul compares favorably with how that unfortunate theme song affects most listeners. Believe me, Mr. Boudreaux, its low approval rating has nothing to do with the words; it's just plain bad music.
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell@walsworth.com
n a recent letters column, Adam Boudreaux ("Little Space for God in Trek") attempts to explain the dislike of the theme song to the new Enterprise series. Granted, everyone is entitled to their opinion about the song (I personally like it a great deal), but Adam's explanation is more off course than Capt. Janeway on a Sunday drive.
Adam's premise is that Trek fans bristle when they hear the Enterprise [theme] song because it promotes religion. He says, "A song about 'Faith of the Heart' (in other words, 'the soul') is the last thing Gene would have wanted associated with any Trek show, because in his future, almost everyone on Earth is an atheist." Adam takes a wrong turn here. He may be correct about the atheism in the Trek future. However, an acknowledgement of a human "soul" is still a long way from acknowledgement and worship of God or a "god," which is the essence of most religions and, by definition, the difference between atheism and theism.
One of the consistent themes of all Trek shows is the exploration of the question, "What does it mean to be human?" That's why we find the characters of the Spock, Data and Seven-of-Nine so compelling. We see them draw on human qualities as strengths. The song should be taken literally,
and if it is, it is an appropriate summation of the Trek spirit. The song proclaims how the human spirit is stronger than any other force; and if we draw from that strength, we can do anything. This is much more a secular humanist point of view than one associated with religion. A religious song
would proclaim that our strength as humans comes from God. Adam obviously dislikes religion to the point of seeing it where it does not exist.
Dwayne Takeda
dytakeda@netzero.net
read with interest Mr. Adam Boudreaux's letter "Little Space for God in Trek"; his points are valid, but I'm not sure he completely gets the message.
I'm not a huge fan of the Enterprise theme song, but at the same time, I don't believe that the song (or the show) is talking about established religion or a god-figure, as such; rather, it emphasizes faith in oneself and the ability to get past any obstacles using self-determination and inner strength (something that most Trek has done, with the possible exceptions of Deep Space Nine's prophets—an interesting plot device, in my opinion—and Voyager's resident Borg Barbie and her Swiss Army implants—an uninteresting and massively overused plot device).
One need not be Christian or (fill in religion here) to have faith of the heart; it just requires belief in oneself and willingness to use that belief to move past obstacles in the way of a given goal. Wouldn't you say, Mr. Boudreaux, that that is the main thesis of all the shows?
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@cox.net
Back to the top.
