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.
ell, the 2002 Worldcon is over and done with, the Hugos have been presented and—*gasp*—a fantasy novel won the Best novel Hugo. Again.
Before the complaints start about "how could such a thing happen," let me suggest that unless you were a member of ConJose, you are part of your perceived problem of fantasy winning the Hugo.
924 valid ballots were received by ConJose. Was yours one of them? If not, then you have no cause to complain and the voters have no cause to be bothered by you.
It's dreadfully simple to nominate and vote for the Hugo. You have to be a member of the Worldcon. There are three seated Worldcons; if you're reading this then you have Web access and you can visit their sites:
2003: Toronto, www.torcon3.on.ca
2004: Boston, www.noreascon.org
2005: Glasgow, www.interaction.worldcon.org.uk
And remember these three things about conventions: Do good, avoid evil, throw a room party.
Michael Walsh
publisher@oldearthbooks.com
he 2001 Hugo Awards show the shape of things to come. The chosen novel, novelette, short story and dramatic presentation were all fantasies. The lone science-fiction winner was in the novella category.
Is fantasy taking over the SF and F market? Has science fiction lost its dominance in the hearts and imaginations of writers and readers?
Not a knock on fantasy. The voters judge the genres equally. Let quality rule. Next year is anybody's guess. But there was one Hugo that should make every fan sit up and take notice: SCIFI.COM's Ellen Datlow for best editor [for editing SCI FICTION]. Her first award and more importantly, the first ever for an Internet editor—the Hugo committee has finally recognized that more and better science fiction and fantasy are not in bookstores, multiplexes or on TV screens, but on the net. And some of it is being professionally edited!
Admittedly there are reams of SF and F in the vast Internet universe and the great majority of it is unedited and far from professional. Such were the original fanzines of generations ago that later spawned Grand Masters. Imagine discovering one on your own.
Are you ready "To seek out new novels and new short stories ... To boldly go where too few readers have gone before?"
SF and F and the Internet are the waves of the future. Sooner or later, their combined flow will crash out and rock the world. It's just a matter of time. And you.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
lthough I'm not a Resident Evil fan, I can understand where T.W. Wallace is coming from ("Exclusivity Offers No Consolation").
It's the eternal dilemma of the fan: Should I buy something I really want now, or wait in hopes that a deluxe version of the same thing will be offered that I'll want even more? Harlan Ellison fans who purchased copies of his book The Essential Ellison: A 35-Year Retrospective were rewarded
with the news that a revised edition (The Essential Ellison: A 50-Year Retrospective) would be published with mostly the same contents. Robyn Hitchcock fans who purchased his CDs when they were available only as expensive imports were rewarded with the news that they would be reissued by a U.S. domestic label with bonus tracks. Fans who purchased DVDs of The Princess Bride when it was first available are now faced with the choice of whether or not to buy the new collector's edition just for the commentary tracks and extras or not.
Of course, no one is forcing anyone to buy any of this stuff. But it's always been the curse of the longtime fan of anything to be faced with such a choice later. And offering free copies to anyone turning in an older version isn't really practical, much though I'd like to dream otherwise. ...
Stewart Tame
sbt@ans.net
find T.W. Wallace's complaints ("Exclusivity Offers No Consolation") concerning video game exclusivity are largely misplaced. Exclusivity of game titles and franchises was a fact of gaming life long before the original Sony Playstation was released. His complaints on Nintendo's cartridge-based systems and their incompatibility make no sense. Part of the reasoning is issues with the hardware design, and admittedly, it wouldn't have been too hard for say, the Nintendo 64 to play Super NES titles, though the changes in controller button configuration would have taken some adjustment on the part of the gamer. However, all of that is now a moot point.
Nintendo's Gamecube is the company's first system to abandon the cartridge format entirely, a fact that is bringing more developers, such as Square, back to create games for it. Nintendo faced problems largely [because] of the fact that at a time when Sony and Sega were releasing CD-based systems, the Nintendo 64's cartridge format was restrictive in terms of developmental freedom. Graphics on a cartridge will never look as good as they can on a CD unless the ROM boards are heavily packed with more RAM, which in turn increases the overall cost of the game, and the idea that a cartridge will
ever produce sound as good as a CD can is laughable.
Another point to make is that Nintendo is offering backwards compatibility with its Gameboy Advance. The handheld platform is capable of playing every last Gameboy title ever created, which is a number in the several hundreds. Also, many companies are working on ports of older Super NES and original NES titles that play just as well, if not better, than the original console games. Similarly, the upcoming Gamecube title Animal Crossing will feature straight unlockable ports of many old NES titles.
As for the fact that Nintendo now has the exclusive rights to the Resident Evil series, well, tough luck. If you don't get a Gamecube, you'll never be able to play the Resident Evil remake or any future RE titles (for the time being). The decision to make the series Nintendo exclusive was just as much a decision on Capcom's side as it was Nintendo's.
A quote of Mr. Wallace's that struck me as being particularly absurd is this:
"I love Playstation due to the fact that they seem to sincerely care about their customers as well as their pocket books. I was quite happy about my PS2. Now, as a hardcore RE fan I'm forced to buy a GC. Where is the love for the original fans who have been there from day one?"
This sounds more like the whining of a Sony fanboy than anything else. So RE is on Gamecube instead of the Playstation now. So what? The Dreamcast's Shenmue II is now an Xbox title, and let's not forget the massive coup Sony pulled all those years ago when Square jumped Nintendo's ship to give the Playstation all of their titles exclusively from Final Fantasy VII through XI. The list could go on and on. Furthermore, a lot of high quality games are also being released on more than one platform.
Quit bellyaching, fanboy. If you want to play the new Resident Evil, get a Gamecube. Otherwise, you're out of luck.
Justin Graham
jgraham_70@hotmail.com
ot only as a Catholic woman who happens to be the full-time secretary of the church, but as a multi-published speculative-fiction author in my own right, I find the Left Behind series is a slap in the face. The anti-Catholicism is there, though thinly veiled, but since I am also a convert from a very rigid Baptist upbringing that espoused all the stuff I'm reading in the Left Behind books, I can see it where others might not. It is not by chance that one of the bad guys is a Catholic minister turned grasping con-man Pope.
Charlee
seachance@hotmail.com
t the beginning of SCI FI's new summer season, there were dire predictions for Stargate SG-1 from a segment of fandom. Or should I say fans of a particular actor? It was doomed to failure because of the departure of the character of Daniel Jackson played by Michael Shanks. After all, the character of Daniel Jackson was the "heart and soul" of the show according to some. And there was no way the show could survive without him.
Well, the first half of the season has aired and it is now on hiatus until January. The numbers speak loud and clear as to the status of Stargate SG-1. Contrary to the dismal predictions of horrible ratings and loss of viewership because of an actor's decision to leave, the show has done quite well. In fact, it is thriving. In most cases, SG-1 came in as SCI FI's highest rated show, in fact the summer finale attained SCI FI's highest rating for an original series ever and even beat all basic cable competition in its timeslot ("SG-1 Breaks Rating Record"). Not too
bad for a show that was, according to some, destined for failure in June. In fact the rumor around the Net is that there may even be a seventh season of Stargate.
So how did Stargate flourish when critics predicted that it would flounder? Credit should go to the cast and crew of the show. Not only has the acting been wonderful and a joy to watch, the writing has been excellent and the effects awesome. The actors seem to be enjoying themselves this season, more so than in past seasons, and we are seeing a more humorous side to Carter and Teal'c. The introduction of Jonas has brought a renewed sense of wonder and awe. O'Neill just keeps getting better and better through all his trials and tribulation. The writers are not sticking to "meet and greet" stories, which were the mainstay of the first few seasons, but are daring to expand, grow and experiment with new things while tying up loose ends. And the effects people never cease to surprise and delight me; their work is definitely movie quality.
It proves that the show is more than one character, more than one actor. It is a show about a team. And that team is a success.
I can't wait to see what else they have in store for the rest of season six and January can't come soon enough.
Lola Pudinski
pandora@softcom.net
ear SCI FI: Good-bye. The SCI FI Channel may well be the only specialty channel that does not target their core audience at all, but rather the widest possible audience.
For example, what are these non-science fiction shows doing on "The SCI FI Channel?" The Flintstones, Abbott and Costello, Jonathan Frakes' show Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction, The Dead Zone and Crossing Over with John Edward are not science fiction.
Frakes has a tenuous scifi connection as Cmdr. Riker of Star Trek: The Next Generation. The Dead Zone is an excellent show based on a book by horror genre master Stephen King. (Horror is not sci-fi) In addition, Crossing Over with John Edward, what is this ersatz phony doing on a channel supposedly dedicated to science fiction?
Babylon 5 series creator Joe Michael Straczynski said they wanted to drop the "hardware sci-fi," which is why they didn't pick up B5: The Legend of the Rangers. This goes along with their track record. Except for Farscape and some episodes of Stargate SG-1, most of their new first-run science-fiction shows are basically down-to-earth shows that can be produced anywhere and very cheaply but only have the occasional cheap special-effect scenes to still classify it "sci-fi."
Examples: Sliders is filmed on Warner Brother's back lot or something, many episodes with only the token wormhole. Invisible Man, is filmed in Los Angeles, with the token invisible effect. First Wave is filmed in Vancouver, with the occasional alien effect. Then they announced they wanted to do another Quantum Leap series. It is another earth-based science-fiction that can be filmed on whatever location is available, with only the rare leaping effects to worry about. They don't want science-fiction. They want "hardware scifi" FX/CG light with a token science-fiction label.
Apparently, money talks, merit walks, on "The New SCI FI Channel." These are the reasons I am changing my cable provider.
John von Oesen
dvo47p@yahoo.com
n response to the letter submitted by Mr. Kassius ("Obi Wan Is Aging Poorly"), I'll point out a fact (fiction) that many seem to forget about Star Wars:
It happened "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."
There is no reason to believe that just because Obi Wan looked to be 20ish, that that was his actual age range. They are all alien to us. Who knows how long they live or how well they age? They even have symbiots in their blood. Yoda said to Luke in Episode V, "When you reach 900 years, look so good you will not." It is very possible that the meta-thingies in their blood retard the aging process or even accelerate it. Maybe using The Force takes a toll on the body whether you are an agent of the light or darkness.
For an even simpler explanation, try this: Obi Wan ends up living in the wilderness of a desert planet. How good do you think your skin will look after being blasted by sandy winds for X number of years. Heck, the Tuscan Raiders wear full body coverings and wraps.
Cut Kenobi some slack.
Sash Scott
Cptsscott@aol.com
K Mark ("Obi Wan Is Aging Poorly"), answer this: How long is a year on Tatooine, or
Naboo, or Coruscant? Plus, there was an incredibly destructive war between Episode I and Episode IV. No one I've ever seen, with the probable exceptions of Audie Murphy and my own baby-faced father, ever fought and came through a war without visible evidence of aging.
And besides, if the age of the actor were actually a considering factor in casting circles, no one in his right mind would have cast Marlon Brando as the young, virile, brunette Jor-El in the first Superman movie.
Diane Catanzaro
catanz@mail.com
y nine-year-old daughter and I are tremendous fans of the Friday night line up of sci-fi shows on the SCI FI Channel. Stargate is solid story writing, if a bit formulaic, and Farscape is probably the best-written show on television today. Character development is the key and Farscape has probably developed its characters better than any science fiction series I've seen in my 40 years on planet Earth.
Which brings me to a question that borders on a complaint: Why is there so long a hiatus between episode blocks? In April, we had waited over nine months for the final four episodes of season three to conclude. Then we waited until the end of May or early June to see the commencement of season four. Now, half way into season four, we're told not to expect new episodes until January 2003! What exactly is fueling this bizarre time schedule? Surely the ratings on these shows are substantial and significant; SCI FI announced they've had their best summer ratings ever for that time slot. So what would possess a network to delay a hot show for another four months, when we've only seen half of the season?
I realize that Science Fiction Weekly is an independent staff of writers and editors who have nothing to do with programming, but perhaps you can run this letter in your letters to the editor page of the weekly to register my strong complaint about this frustrating scheduling policy. If there is an explanation, I'd love to hear it. Thanks for your consideration of my letter and please keep up the good work with your fine publication. I always take the opportunity to read your weekly articles on movies, books and Web sites and value the various reviews. Although I don't always agree with them, they're honest and written by folks who understand sci-fi ... something we don't see in the mainstream press. Best regards and many thanks.
Robert Marino
Rmmarino1@aol.com
've been reading with interest the views on the aliens in Signs and I've begun to wonder if we didn't miss Mr. Shyamalan's intent ("Water Wasn't the Answer to Signs", "Shyamalan This Generation's Hitchcock", "Alien Motives Prove Illogical" and "Signs Offers Coincidence and Miracle").
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
Much has been said about how illogical the aliens were. Why would a technologically advanced race need crop circles to navigate? Why need (or even want) humans for food? Why would they be so stupid as to come down unarmed and fight humans bare-handed (bare-clawed)? Why can't they open a door? I believe the aliens in Signs were never real and neither was much of the story.
I believe it was in Mel Gibson's mind, his way of working through his crisis of faith and the loss of his wife. Did
you notice the symbolism at the start of the movie? The way the world shimmered as we looked through the glass pane? It looked very like the dream sequences in old movies didn't it? And what were his little girl's first words? "Are you in my dream too?" The end of the movie has a time shift from the events of the summer to winter, again panning through a shimmery glass pane. In this view, the aliens make perfect sense as agents of chaos in his formally ordered world. I'm sure I've missed most of the subtlety here.
Thoughts anyone?
Gary Tweed
gtweed@charter.net
Back to the top.
