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.
evin Ahearn's most recent letter ("Warner's Kryptonite Weakens Superman") raised some interesting points concerning Superman. I must agree that it would be entirely wrong for a studio to "re-image" Superman, or any long established character. To do so would be an insult to the reader, writers and actors who have gone before.
Far more intriguing to me was the Kevin's description of the man of steel: "Superman is not just American, he is America—our truth, our justice and our way!"
No re-imagining required, Superman is not American. He's not even human! But I take the point about him representing certain values. The kind of values which are currently being crushed under jack boots. What interests me in particular about Kevin's description is the psychology of American culture, and how it has been media engineered for at least 50 years to revolve around larger than life idols and ultra violence. That is to say, heroes whose exploits are entirely fictitious, such as Hulk Hogan, or any character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Such people are at least as glorified as genuine American heroes, like a Mohammed Ali.
Does this not make Superman the perfect example of falsehood? He never really existed, and the only people to try and make his like or claim the heritage of supermen, were the Nazis! Indeed, the perfect society of Krypton has more in common with Aryan thinking than Democracy.
But maybe Superman is a victim of the times in which he was created? Anyone following the excellent Rising Stars comic will have read how supermen might react in today's world, and more importantly, how our leaders might react to them.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
he problem with Superman is not the character or Warner Brothers ("Warner's Kryptonite Weakens Superman"). The problem is that he is a creation of another era. If WB wants to redo Superman, they will. We as consumers can boycott anything that doesn't jive with the Superman mythos and characterization.
For example, people didn't go in droves to see the last Batman film because it stunk. Once word got out that it stunk, people avoided it. That's how a market works.
What people, and mostly we science-fiction fans, want to see is a good story, particularly one that engages our minds and imaginations. Superheroes are a great and fun vehicle for adventure, but we're a savvy bunch in our modern era. We want and demand that our superheroes today have a good reason for being superheroes. Take The Matrix. It's a great movie. It falls under the blanket of science-fiction and superhero genre. Neo is basically a superhero in a virtual world, but a normal man in the real world. (I know, it's fiction.) Neo's powers make sense in the story and in our modern era. We've played video games and can do wondrous things in them, just imagine being able to live in one and you have The Matrix.
Now go back to Superman. Not terribly scientific and not really believable, if you really want to break the character down, but he falls under some kind of grandfather clause. He's a part of American pop culture. What Warner Brothers needs to do is create a story that fits in with the modern times,
find a real good conflict and create vicious super-villains for Superman. Don't break what isn't broke. Superman will draw people to theaters, just give him a good villain to fight, and we'll go. Recreate him and you wouldn't be able to pay people to go see the sequel. It's what killed the Batman movie franchise. WB wanted to shed itself from the dark knight image created by Tim Burton (closer to the comic) and go campy in dark costumes (Adam West and Burt Ward in dark tights), as well as forgo the Batman canon. Bad move.
Science fiction has plenty of room for new superheroes and old ones. We just need to respect the characters for what they are, and where they came from. What happens if/when Superman becomes irrelevant? What about creating a movie where Superman is old, or set in the future. Don't tweak the
character, tweak the setting and his environment. I think the biggest problem isn't the character, it's the lack of imagination on the parts of the studio heads at WB. When you're motivated by profit and
trying to play off the recent success of the Spiderman movie, it would be better to wait for a good script/story, and create a good film, rather than toss out a lousy attempt at a movie, and bury a great character.
Dave
dgrhm@hotmail.com
think that having a new show centered around Dawn ("Faith-Based Buffy Series Would Slay") will lose the core audience that has watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer for seven years. I think a better spin-off would be a show around Willow. She has been around from day one. Willow has grown from awkward, geeky nerd-girl to powerful but vulnerable wicca.
How she deals with responsibilities and guilt of her power would be an interesting show in itself.
Besides, would Willow work with Faith?
Tom Vallejos
flyingwombat@earthlink.net
ou can debate whether the glorious science fiction available on television in the '90s was spawned by
Star Trek: Next Generation or X-Files, but the era has certainly come to a close. The new science fiction television season pretty much sucks! No new show has become "must see TV" for me, although Birds of Prey is still to come.
I had hopes for Firefly, and even though the main character is an appealing rogue with a heart, the show is too much a Western for me. It evokes The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne, which can't be good.
It's not that Twilight Zone is bad, but when it has to remake an old movie, Death Takes a Holiday in the first episode, you have to wonder about a dearth of originality.
Worse, Saturday afternoon science-fiction syndication seems to be running re-runs of Relic Hunter, Beastmaster and Lost World, rather than giving us fresh material, other than Adventures, Inc.
The closest any new series has to any real science fiction seems to be Starhunter, and I'm not sure that's saying much.
Sadly, it seems as if television executives have learned that real science fiction appeals to so limited a group that it's not to be done. But it's insult to injury when the SCI FI Channel buys into that. It's psychotic breakdown in canceling Farscape screams how they are becoming out of touch with their constituents in a quest to be more broadly watched.
Yes, I have returning favorites, but overall, this is the most dismal science-fiction television season that I can remember in a long time. What a bummer!
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll@7662www0.nyc2.aens.net
have never been tempted to write a letter to you before, but the news article ("King To Quit. Really.") about Stephen King's proposed retirement has lit a fire. I believe I have read all of Stephen King's books, good and bad. I will continue to read any he publishes in the future, which brings me to my point.
Does an author write only for his own gain? He has an audience out there; people who buy his books and make him the rich man that he is. I have no idea how much work is involved in writing a book, but I'm sure there is quite a lot. If he is tired of doing all that work, then so be it. If he has run out of ideas, then so be it. If he is afraid the public will no longer buy his books, then so be it. If he is so rich he doesn't care about the money, then let him give any proceeds of future books to his
favorite charities. If he is going to write anyway, this seem like a workable solution. The reading public profits, the charity's profit and he becomes more of a humanitarian.
Besides, I've heard J.D. Salinger is a bit strange anyway. Does Mr. King want to be put in that category?
Joan Engoran
Address withheld by request
n response to the arguments over politics and sci-fi ("Star Trek Is Just Television", "Trek's Future Is Beyond Prejudice"): Many people have been picking on Star Trek for using political ideologies to give the stories meaning. So what!? What sci-fi show hasn't, whether obviously or subtly?
One of sci-fi's greatest achievements is presenting alternative forms of government, culture and mind-sets. Examples are everywhere. Star Trek, as we mentioned earlier, is about peace and tolerance among alien races without capitalism or fascism.
In Star Wars, we are presented with a politically united galaxy, but riven between factions. Also notice the distinct anti-globalist message in Episode I involving the Trade Federation.
In Logan's Run, 1984, The Time Machine and Demolition Man we are presented with rigid forms of social engineering.
Then there are the ethical preachings and warnings such as The Terminator, Jurassic Park and Mad Max. I could go on for weeks on this. Morality has always been a vital part of the sci-fi genre. Let shows present whatever they want. If you don't like it, don't watch.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
have been reading the letters regarding Star Trek's political leanings with great interest ("Star Trek Is Just Television", "Trek's Future Is Beyond Prejudice"). Show me any form of entertainment, be it a TV show, movie, book, magazine, etc., that does not have its own agenda. Some of the best genre literature addressed social ills, and in doing so, upset many people—look at Gulliver's Travels or David Gerrold's excellent War Against the Chtorr series, for example.
Naturally, Trek's leanings have evolved since the '60s. How could it not? Gene Roddenberry himself was actively interested in a presenting a world (universe?) that embodied the best of humanity. Any show that embraces ideas, challenges us to recognize change. It seems to me that change and big ideas threaten far too many people, and in doing so, causes some to decry "liberalism." If showing concern for those who are disadvantaged; those who lead lives less fortunate; pointing out social and gender inequity; and hard raising issues for examination—be it painful or critical, I applaud and accept the label of liberal. However, I must point out that labels force unwanted limitations upon us—often shutting down the ability to dialogue with those we disagree. Any time name-calling is invoked we lose the ability to discuss ideas of importance without fear of being dragged through the proverbial "mud." We gain nothing by pointing fingers, saying, "liberal, liberal" or "right-wing conservative!"
Kirk's Trek was born in a time of great society upheaval; Picard's Trek (while oftentimes lacking the passion of its predecessor) promoted equality and acceptance—truly embracing the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC; Sisko's Trek recognized that none of these ideals came easily and not without a fight; Janeway's Trek incorporated all of the above and attempted to return to Trek's roots of exploration. Where is Enterprise going? Who knows? The journey is in enjoying where it leads us... presumably to where we were first introduced to Trek nearly 40 years ago.
Roddenberry dearly loved discourse. It has been said again and again he chose a science-fiction venue to address societal woes. Today, as in 1966, Trek is still discussing issues that force us to examine our shortcomings. It's interesting we still have intellectual baggage with which to carry a discourse. I think Roddenberry would be proud to know his child continues to thrive ... and then one could say, "Relax, it's just a TV show! (If it educates and entertains, all the more power to it.)"
Douglas Mappin
dmappin@earthlink.net
ontrary to Arlan Andrews' beliefs ("Star Trek Boldly Goes to the Left"), Star Trek's politics are not just to the left, they are beyond comprehension and as such there has never been any true effort by any writer in Star Trek's history to even attempt the politics of the Federation.
Yes, there is a Federation president and yes, there is a Federation Council, but how is anyone appointed to any of these posts? It has never been explained, because the producers and writers have a) not attempted to describe it because politics change from generation to generation and within
300 years would be incomprehensible, or b) there was never any need to describe the politics because they actually somewhat reflect the U.S. government or hopes of what that government may idealistically become.
I would tend to believe the former. Gene Roddenberry created a wonderful premise in Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, yet Mr. Roddenberry knew where his limits lay. With the exception of the matte painting of the city of Mojave in "The Cage," no attempt was ever made to depict what a city on Earth would look like in the 20th century. In The Making of Star Trek, written jointly by Mr. Roddenberry and Stephen Whitfield, this was explained by two facts: 1) it would be too expensive to depict and 2) no one had a clue! We were able to visit Earth during The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise due mainly to advances in CGI and increases in budgets allotted to the Star Trek franchise.
Economics was touched on briefly, but again left mainly to the imagination. Money is a thing of the past on Earth of Star Trek's universe, but money of some sort has to be used with more primitive races that do use it—where would this come from? Some sort of advanced barter? Credit was used during The Next Generation's pilot episode and Gold Plated Latinum was used in dealing with the Ferengi in Deep Space Nine, as well as being mentioned on Voyager.
Yet politics, aside from the coup plot by members of Starfleet in Deep Space Nine and visits by various members of the Federation Council, was left to the imagination of the viewers.
Patrick Stewart may be a leftist (I believe he claimed to be a Socialist on [Jay] Leno['s show], but it has been a long time) and that is fine—he is entitled to his beliefs. Are Star Trek's politics leftist? I don't think so—I think that, while naive, Star Trek's politics are the politics of the hopeful, just like the entire premise of the show. If we work together, we will advance together and meet the future with stars in our eyes and the day in hand, ready to face anything fate has to place in our way.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu1@aol.com
atrick Stewart's statement that "the fate of the big-screen franchise depends on Trek fandom supporting the upcoming Star Trek: Nemesis" clearly reveals what's wrong with this enterprise: Instead of coming up with a fresh and original adventure transcending the genre, Paramount continues to cater to an ever-shrinking fan base. Same old cast. Same old framework and when all is said and done, all is well for yet another same old movie.
"We've done our part now in all of this," insists Stewart. "Everyone from Rick Berman to the cast, the writer and the director has played their part. But now it's up to the fans."
No, Capt. Picard. It is not. If Paramount has produced yet another mediocre, stretched-out TV episode and thinks this fan is going to shell out $8 and up to see it, you and the studio suits have been spending too much time in the holodeck.
Star Trek's success has been its own undoing. Bogged down with light years of backstory and Federation exposition going in, plus an ensemble cast demanding "character development," there's little time left for story. Moreover, we already know that nobody's going to die. (Star Trek's done that before.) The good news is that our favorite crew will be back and all will get their scenes and fandom will be satisfied.
Not this loyal Trekker. But I certainly do not want the big-screen franchise to end. Is there yet some place to boldly go where Star Trek has not gone before?
The future of the franchise may lie in its past—Capt. Sulu and his crew facing a compelling unknown in an unexplored region of the Star Trek universe. Make that so and the series will get a new lease on life. And so will us fans!
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
CI FI was the channel that voted to help the Hensons push the envelope on a new science-fiction series. We all wanted something new, something different, something better than the 2-D Enterprise going where no one has gone before (again). We wanted aliens that didn't look humanoid (or speak English), heroes who didn't always get along or spout technical gobbledygook every other second, and continuous, character-impacting storylines. And really, can you solve everyone's planetary wars in 50 minutes? In short, we wanted a series that could be really fun, without the stiff formalities of Starfleet, the Academy or the Prime Directive—and we got it.
John Crichton [of Farscape] is the man—the antithesis of squeaky-clean momma's boy Wesley and bold, no-nonsense Capt. Picard. The guy's more of an everyman than any captain who piloted a Starfleet vessel.
Remember the premise? Pioneering space experimenter John Crichton got sucked down a wormhole that shunted him out on the other side of the universe. He had to make his home on a living ship with convicted prisoners while evading the overbearing Peacekeepers (who are probably the first villains in sci-fi not to look too much like each other—remember Klingons and Cardassians?) If this was a Star Trek concept, John Crichton would've gotten back to Earth in the last five minutes of the episode.
Fortunately, SCI FI gave us four seasons of misadventures. [The fans] just want one more, but we're hoping for two or even three. You see, John never attended Starfleet Academy. He doesn't know anything about the Prime Directive except what was on his own TV. He wasn't a captain, he never commanded a starship and he doesn't always know how to solve every problem.
Throw in fellow actors who plumb the depths of their souls (and their acting abilities) to bring authenticity to their characters, and we have what makes Farscape fun. It's always difficult to watch Enterprise. Somehow the actors never seem to lose themselves in their roles the way the members of Moya's crew can. I can't even tell you the name of Scott Bakula's character. I just know he's the captain.
Saturn Award-winning Farscape was canceled by SCI FI for the same reasons Chevrolet gave when it stopped making Camaros.
Farscape is too good to be doomed to rerun and convention hell. The viewership alone should cost too much to SCI FI for that. My faith in the programmers over at the SCI FI channel has been betrayed and broken. If the SCI FI channel is going to duck and run every time a great series comes
along, where are we, avid and loyal fans of science fiction, supposed to get cutting-edge works? Where is SCI FI's responsibility to its viewership?
Farscape, like The Invisible Man, was much too good to be cut off in its SCI FI Prime.
S. O'Ryan
orionm35@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
