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.
or the loyal, diehard fan, science fiction is almost an obsession. With all the remakes and re-imaginings, rip-offs and take-offs flooding TV, the movie theaters and the book stores, finding something new and exciting is cause for celebration.
Did I dash to the library to unearth a dated classic or rummage through the shelves of a used book store? Neither. All it took was a couple of clicks of my mouse.
There's tons of sci-fi on the Internet, at sci-fi sites and writers workshops, but sadly, most of it is glaringly amateurish or fan episodes of Star Trek, Star Wars and X-Files. At publishers' sites, there are sample chapters available, but I'm not looking to be teased or tempted to spend money on a book that will be either the first of a seven-volume series or fade quickly after a promising start. I just want a complete science fiction experience without a lot of hassle.
In desperation, I tried [SCI Fiction]. Ellen Datlow, who used to be OMNI's story editor, runs the site, but a name editor is never a guarantee. I'd been here before and came away disappointed, but for the true SF fan, hope springs eternal.
The featured novelette was "Voice of Steel" by Sean McMullen, some "award-winning Australian" I'd never heard of. But hey, I'm here, it's free, let's see what this guy's got.
The story began with a quaint premise. OK, I'll buy into it, but push the envelope, author! I'm a demanding reader—lazy, selfish and impatient. Reading is work. Entertain me now or I'll run to the tube!
A couple of paragraphs went by and I got interested. A few more...One little slip and I'm outta here!...and I was hooked. This writer was passing the ultimate test: He kept me reading.
In less than a half hour it was over and I was overjoyed. Thank you and congratulations, Mr. McMullen and Ms. Datlow. You made me think, wonder and chuckle. In less time than it would take to watch a rerun of Buffy, Star Trek, Smallville or The X-Files, "Voice of Steel" took me on a fresh and original voyage of the imagination.
So why are you reading my rant when you could be reading science fiction?
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
s there a problem with Obi Wan's age in the Star Wars movies? In The Phantom Menace I would have guessed his age to be somewhere in the 20s.
But if A New Hope takes place 30 years later, then he would be in his 50s... Doesn't it seem like Alec Guinness was a bit older than that? Sixty-something?
Maybe Obi Wan was just out of shape?
Mark Kassius
kassius@peoplepc.com
r. Edelman's editorial of August 19 ("Worldcons Future, Worldcons Past") struck a special chord with me. Even though I've never attended a Worldcon, his article reminded me of just how important cons have always been to me, and how agonizing it is to know that those days are over.
I was born with Muscular Dystrophy, and have also been ventilator-dependent since the age of seven. Besides my beloved family, I credit SF with helping me maintain some semblance of sanity, during periods of prolonged boredom. It wasn't until the summer of 1983, however, when I attended my first con, that I realized I wasn't the only madman on the planet. I literally shook with excitement at hearing living, breathing people speak words like "Fremen," "Asimov," "Dalek" and "Heinlein," because up until then, the only place I'd heard these sorts of words was inside my own head. As we all know, SF fans are the only group that's still held up for ridicule, with society landing on the side of the bigots. But walk (or, in my case, roll) into a con and—aaah! It's like taking a deep breath, after holding it for the other 362 days of the year.
I continued to attend cons for the next 15 years. Then, due to a lack of assistance and the trend of cons to move to bigger cities, this era came to an end. My friends, realizing that I'd never attend another SF con was one of the most painful, most devastating truths I've ever had to face.
"No problem," I told myself. "I'll just go to cons online." What a joke! Although I've met some interesting people online, most of the moderated chats I've been to usually end up crashing, or else hacked by worthless little punks, who flood the serious chatters with endless streams of f-words.
Don't get me wrong. For someone in my situation, an online community is better than nothing at all. But at the same time, I hope that upcoming generations won't be content to just sit in front of a monitor. Stuffy, motel conference rooms, panels that never start on time, greasy nachos from the con suite, impromptu discussions in corridors and scouring the dealer's room for that one, rare paperback.
There's nothing like it in the world!
Mike Murphy
mmurphy@globaldialog.com
ith the passing away of Lexx ends an intriguing albeit smarmy experiment in sci-fantasy. One that breaks with conventions, or should I say, cliches of TV sci-fi of the '90s. The politically correct pabulum, the multicultural indoctrination, the Bladerunner motifs, and not the least—the steroid mutated superbabes that can punch the lights out of men, but never get punched back in return!?
How about creating a new sci-fi anthology with none of the puerile baggage of Rod Serling, Gene Roddenberry, Rockne O' Bannon, etc., etc. It is time to end their reign of Left-wing innuendo, their
anti-American, anti-mankind cynicism and fatalism.
Let us create a future of infinite possibilities devoid of the agenda of the social engineers who work their corruption on us through the one-way world of television (kind of how the liberal-left have always worked). A world where anything is possible but not everything is possible. Anything can happen, but not all things can happen at once. That is what time is for, to keep all things from happening at the same moment. That shall be the only rule of our new fantasy world. That an event happens only once. What has been done, cannot be undone. There is no turning back the sands of time. You can review the past but you cannot change the past. That a vision of a possible future, to the present, must be taken in the context of the present. A cosmos not governed by compassion or tolerance or equality, but common sense and merit. A universe of strange and totally new lifeforms and not distorted reflections of human characters in our present world, just to make some social allegory—that is the insipid barren road of Political Correctness that sci-fi entertainment has been a slave to for so many years.
The future is not the current events of our world thrown into outer space. The future is not with the Liberals, not with the Multiculturalists (both hate America), and it is certainly not to be found in Canada! The future is not written, the future is unformed.
Chad Castagana
sontarrin@cs.com
n response to Kevin Ahearn's [letter] "SF's Future Is Not in the Past": "Have all the trails blazed by science-fiction classics been forever trodden?"
No, that's never been the problem. The problem is lawyers and accountants taking decisions which should be reserved for editors and producers. Nowadays, it is very much more difficult for an original
idea to have its chance on TV, or in print. Because the people making the decisions are basing their judgement purely on projected returns. How much money can a product generate. So, they go for reworks, back stories and endless reruns of proven product. I need only two words to illustrate what can happen when a great idea does get the support it deserves—Harry Potter.
Sadly, for everyone including the finance directors, all of the source material which gained popularity in the first place did so by being different! It's a classic Catch-22 situation. The accountants hate to risk company money on an untried concept, but only fresh material can truly excite the audience. Worst of all, when something does break through, in defiance of convention, like Babylon 5, the decision makers, and executives to whom they report, see their judgement thrown into question. It seems clear enough to me that several attempts were made to sabotage J. Michael Straczynski, and someone made damn sure that his "fluke" success with Babylon 5 would not be repeated with Crusade.
Kevin also asked, "Where's my plastic space cadet when I need him most?" To which the answer is, he's in the White House.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
he debate over the Prime Directive of Star Trek ("Prime Directive Isn't Always Right", "Prime Directive Based on Fear" and "Reader Letters Inspire Response") is as baffling as the even older debate over the Three Laws of Robotics of Isaac Asimov.
Both subjects identify themselves as foundation philosophies, and both sound worthy in their application. But both are works of fiction by master story-tellers.
The Laws of Robotics are essentially an elaboration of the biblical commandment: "Treat others as you would have them treat you." The major difference is that Asimov reworked the concept for artificial intelligence which depended on logical processes of thought. No inspiration, no blasts of creative energy, no leaps of intuition. Similarly, the Prime Directive reworks the concept, but less successfully.
I say less successfully because the situations in which the Prime Directive might be invoked involve the supposed development of societies. While a stranger and strange articles introduced into an unique society might cause dramatic change to such a society, the newly introduced influences are simply part of the development of the society. It seems to me that the situation Capt. Archer and others discussed and reacted to in a recent episode of Enterprise fairly illustrated this point. Certainly, introducing a medical treatment would have dramatically altered the relationship between two races of people on one planet, but that introduction would itself become part of the environment.
To argue otherwise is akin to saying the modern medical world should have no part in the lives of people living in this world now who do not have such technology in their own backyards. The Prime Directive, applied on Earth, would require any people sufficiently advanced in technology to refrain from direct contact with any other people not so advanced. Ridiculous!
Bruce Burn
bburn@xtra.co.nz
n regards to August 19th's letters on the Prime Directive ("Prime Directive Based on Fear" and "Reader Letters Inspire Response"), I had to shake my head twice on the final line of one:
"What I want to know is, how many alien species have we lost, because of that little clause?" ("Prime Directive Isn't Always Right").
Well ... none. These "aliens" are actors. The whole Federation is a television show and movie franchise. The Enterprise is constructed primarily of plastic and plywood on a sound stage. We have put a finite number of people into space in all of humanity's history, and none further than our own moon.
While I enjoy Enterprise and its sister shows (except the original, now
that I have had 30 years of endless repeats), I must say, folks: It ain't real!
Now, let the barrage start, as I am sure it will.
Brian L. Miller
SilverfoxPublications@comcast.net
he prime directive may have flaws, but it has more good points ("Prime Directive Isn't Always Right", "Prime Directive Based on Fear" and "Reader Letters Inspire Response"). "What if" can be worn out, so I won't do any [conjectures]. [My] main point is [that] it saves more cultures than it destroys.
In the original series, a book on mobsters turned a planet into a planet of gangsters. Those were violent times in our past, and it showed in the planet's people. Kirk only helped because chaos would ensue if the mob leaders continued to fight.
We may not like watching other people repeat mistakes we made in our past, or make new ones, but no one learns without experience. We do homework because experience makes us learn better. A teacher can't
preach all day, then expect everyone to grasp it immediately. Experience is the key to the Prime Directive, and without it, cultures will repeat the past mistakes they make.
Ed Lawrence
godzillaguy@netzero.net
really enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan's Signs (despite the cheap editing that allows us to to see the mic several times) as I did his other movies. By the way, I don't feel a great movie like Signs, Sixth Sense or Unbreakable could have any justice done to them by a sequel. It would only cheapen them.
Let's take a lesson from George Lucas and understand that most often it is not so easy to recapture the same splendor and impact the second time around.
T.W. Wallace
scribals_75@yahoo.com
saw Signs last night—what a ripoff! This is almost the same plot used in War of the Worlds—and not done as well.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
Again, an invasion in a corn field, a terrorized rural community (by the way I live near the area and it is nothing like the town shown in the movie—in truth it is Yuppie-hood), an alien defeated by water (wasn't it rain water in War of the Worlds or Invaders from Mars?) and the movie ends with a religious note—as War of the Worlds ends with a quote from the Bible. I am soooo disappointed this was not mentioned in any of the reviews. This is the second strike out from this writer and director. I remember seeing Sixth Sense and realizing that Bruce Willis was dead because that same plot was used in comic books I read growing up.
I think before Time calls him the next Steven Spielberg—he needs to produce some original work as Spielberg did with a new twist on Peter Pan in Hook. Now, that was original.
Gloria A. Hoffner
Gloriah@phillynews.com
Back to the top.
