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.
ust a quick note: Many of your readers have, in recent letters to the editor ("Only Faith Can Fill Slayer's Shoes" and "Willow Is Best as Buffy Replacement"), been referring to Willow as a Wiccan. Given her behavior on the show, this is an inaccurate and frankly insulting statement. Willow has demonstrated none of the ethical, moral or philosophical principles that accompany virtually every
form of Wicca with which I am familiar. While it is true that even Wiccans—let alone pagans in general—are a diverse lot, Willow is so far outside of the spectrum of the Wiccan faith that to call her a practitioner of it is akin to calling a kilo of uranium-238 a tablespoon of peanut butter.
Don't get me wrong—Willow is one of my favorite characters and I think she's become one of the most interesting people on the show. It's just that she shouldn't be classified as something she clearly is not, and I wish the fans and producers of Buffy [the Vampire Slayer] alike would come to understand this.
Spencer M. Lease
beyondzine@softhome.net
hanks for the review on Buffy [the Vampire Slayer musical]—Joss [Whedon's] controversial attempt to step out of the box. Controversial because of the Emmy fiasco, controversial because of the editing done in some markets because the episode ran over its allotted hour time slot, controversial because this unique show spurred other shows to reach out and make their actors stretch. (Shudder: see Even Stevens.)
And, while I understand what you were
saying about its durability, isn't that true of any musical? Some songs are strong enough to stand alone, but most need to be heard in context to be really understood. (Sometimes that isn't enough, either. Have you heard the original soundtrack of Chess by ABBA? Great music, absolutely no logical storyline.)
Sheila M. Greenberg
twriter@mucow.com
egarding the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical "Once More, With Feeling": While I enjoyed this episode, I think the creators owe a lot to Xena: Warrior Princess for exploring the genre musical twice before the Buffster.
The episodes The Bitter Suite and Lyre, Lyre, Hearts on Fire were exciting, funny and poignant. Can't get much weirder than the take-off on Bye Bye Birdie in Lyre. And Lawless' voice is awesome.
Mark Reyes
tomacbeth@aol.com
eff Berkwits, in his review of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer "Once More With Feeling" CD, reveals himself to be neither a hard-core Buffy fan nor a musical theatre fan when he claims that this CD probably won't stand the test of time. Truth to tell, the people for whom this disc was released will probably be listening to it for many years to come.
Some friends and I, Buffy fans all, recently had a party where among the background music was, indeed, this CD, a use which Berkwits disclaims. And the musical episode itself is building a large cult-like following. At this year's Marcon (a large regional SF/F convention held in Columbus on Memorial Day weekend), a previously unpublicized sing-along presentation of the musical episode was nearly standing room only. That sing-along will likely be presented again next year; a large number of fans have requested its return.
And musical theatre itself is a genre of music that defies the listening habits associated with nearly all other musical styles. People unfamiliar with the conventions of the genre are likely to shake their heads in confusion at those of us who will listen to such oddities as Sweeney Todd
the way most people listen to Beethoven, The Beatles or Britney Spears. It takes a particular mindset to accept musicals in this way, and some people simply won't allow themselves to experience that mindset.
The fact of the matter is, this Buffy CD was aimed at a particular group of fans who clamored for its release from the moment the musical episode was announced, and will remain a mainstay of the musical collections of those fans for a very long time.
Mark D. McKean
qpanda@quantumpanda.com
Reviewer Jeff Berkwits responds:
Any creative endeavor inherently reflects the period in which it was crafted, but unlike a stand-alone stage or film musical, "Once More, With Feeling" is only one installment of an ongoing series—in essence, a living, maturing entity—that grows and changes with time. A theatrical production, unless totally rewritten or otherwise significantly adapted, remains a static story; e.g., at the end of West Side Story, we know what will happen to Maria and Tony, regardless of when or where the play is staged. With Buffy the Vampire Slayer, we (and perhaps even Joss Whedon) don't yet know where the various players will end up. Therefore, in many respects the program remains a work in progress, and so the songs reflect feelings and events that, for various reasons, may no longer be appropriate for the individual characters as they, by necessity, grow and learn from the action and events that surround them. This does not mean that the CD is neither clever nor worthwhile, only that the jury is still out as to whether the album will truly stand the test of time. In that area, I have my doubts.
Best,
Jeff
just read about the sci-fi writers signing a petition opposing the U.S. war with Iraq ("SF&F Writers Oppose War"), and I must say I am disappointed and angry. Any one with half a brain can see why a war with Iraq is necessary. The fact that Saddam and Bin Laden's murderous bunch have vowed to see America destroyed, and promise to use whatever means necessary, isn't "science fiction," which put the subject outside these writers realm of expertise. Are these folk willing to take personal responsibility, should Saddam give Bin Laden a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon that ends up being detonated in New York or L.A., killing hundreds of thousands of Americans? I don't think so. For anyone to think that Saddam wouldn't do this is naive and out-right moronic, and an "I'm sorry" or an "I never thought he would do it" will not bring one bit of comfort to those who lose loved ones in such an attack. The fact that we have waited as long as we have will result in a great deal more American and/or allied forces casualties, as Saddam has had over four months to prepare for our troops arrival, and you can bet he hasn't been just sitting there thinking good thoughts and watching Star Wars!
The vast majority of folks really don't want to go to war, including the U.S. Government, but some times we have to do things we don't like, especially in order to protect ourselves, and that is what this war with Iraq is about! It isn't about cheap oil, for that is just an excuse the anti-war folks try to use in order to put a guilt trip on Americans for the coming war, and to cloud the real issues involved here.
Actors and writers should concentrate on what they do best ... act and write, and leave the war to those who understand what is going on. I wonder what these actors and writers would say, if Bin Laden's terrorist detonated a nuke in Hollywood, then found out that it came from Iraq (provided that they survived the attack)? It is true these folks are entitled to their own opinions, but when they try to influence policies and events that effect my family's, my country's and my own safety, then I take offense!
Mark Beardsley
aorian@brtc.net
just read your paragraph, "SF&F Writers Oppose War", in your "News of the Week" column.
This is such utter drivel as to leave me almost speechless.
Almost.
First: The petition has (as of the moment I checked it) all of 311 signatures.
Wow. Now there's a big number. I'd almost have to take my shoes off to count that high.
(The last online petition I signed, asking for a reversal of an INS position on Cambodian adoptions, had some 7,000 signatures when I signed it—the day it was posted—and has collected well over 12,000.)
As for your list of authors signing—I've been reading SF&F since the mid '60s. I've bought thousands of books, continue to read at a fair clip, and the only author in that list that I would consider anywhere near being "influential" is [Michael] Moorcock—and he's more of a cult sci-fi author than what I'd consider "influential"; and from what I remember about his writing (I last read something of his back in '81) his expressing an opinion "for" would be a good reason to take a position "against."
Last: This isn't the '60s. We're not going to Vietnam, we're not fighting the Cong, it's not going to be in the jungles (at least not this round), we don't have a conscript army, and there is a legitimate cause. Put away the Steve Young music and join the new millennium, OK?
Paul A. Golupski
paulg@chartermi.net
hy have we regressed? Back in the '50s, they started making 3-D movies and they were a big hit. I'd
like to know why they stopped making them, if they were so popular? I've seen a lot of recent movies that would have been better in 3-D and some flops that could have been hits. I'm not saying all movies should be 3-D, just sci-fi or horror. I would love to see 3-D movies make a comeback and I'm sure others would, too.
George J. Kennedy
timetrvel@cnet.com.u
am going to be having withdrawal pains for losing some of the best science-fiction TV shows I have ever seen—Witchblade, one of the very best storylines of all time. It was about time that the ladies got a fair shake to being the good "guy" for a change. The character was played to perfection. This is a favorite of favorites, and a loss for all of us who love sci-fi.
Maybe the worst offense is what the SCI FI Channel did to its Friday-night lineup. Actually, I refuse to watch the junk that is up there now. I do enjoy watching our physic shaman do his thing, but it is not going to hold my interest for long. Come on, people, the only thing we have out there now is X-Men and Andromeda. Let's get our sci-fi back on the front burners. I do not want to have to watch other channels just because the SCI FI network thinks it knows what we want. Just try finding any new shows that will replace what you have, and then why should we trust SCI FI to keep any thing that is good with its track record of discarding the best of the best already. Next season has no promise at all.
In fact, do any of you want my TV? I can not see a reason to keep it anymore.
Harold T. Kelley
htbud@attbi.com
ust had to write to commend everyone involved in the new WB production of Birds of Prey. I can say that I haven't enjoyed a good fantasy show like this in a long time.
Of course, being 45 years old, I remember fondly reading the comic books of Batman and Robin. Loved the [original] television series which premiered on my birthday and that was an added treat at the time!
Then came the Batman movies that Tim Burton did. He is one of the best directors around and he did a remarkable job creating the tone of the old comics.
Now comes a television show that I really do enjoy. I am not that familiar with all of the BOP comic series, but I do love the idea of a future generation of Gotham City heroes. I do remember that there was a lot of controversy by die-hard fans when the comic first came out.
As to the television show on the WB ... well, I love it. It has been a long time that I have enjoyed a fantasy/action series as this one. I am very impressed with the imagination that is going into this show. The computer images are very well done. The production values are just wonderful and as to the writing, I think it is very witty with dark humor.
The real bonus is the three beautiful actresses in the show. Dina Meyer is wonderful as her character and I have been a fan of hers now since Starship Troopers. Rachel Skarsten is a wonderful young actress who succeeds in portraying the angst of growing up as a young teenager and a special one at that. Ashley Scott is just fantastic as the Huntress. She is very talented and shows that special something that makes an up and coming actress. She shows that spunk that her character needs. Tough, yet vulnerable. I am sure we will see more of her in the future.
What can I say? I just love these three stars and they should be proud of the good work that they are doing on the show.
Jim Morrow
j2morrow@hotmail.com
hen I read Keith Kitchen's response ("Superman Is an American Immigrant") to my letter concerning Superman ("Superman Is Not the American Way"), I had to wonder if he was wearing his reading glasses at the time he read my comments. While always very pleased to engage in debate and take in other views, I'm not all that keen of having words put in my mouth, or my meaning grossly misrepresented. At no point did I compare Superman with the leaders of the Third Reich. What I said was, the perfect society of Krypton had more in common with Aryan thinking than it did with Democracy.
Superman is not an immigrant in a nation of immigrants, he's a refugee. The young Kal El did not choose to come to America, nor did his parents deliberately aim for there. The capsule just happened to
land in Smallville. But whatever the technicalities of his status, does Superman think he's American? In most other countries, people put their national identity first, and ethnicity second. In America, however, it is very common for people to identify themselves as African-American, Irish-American, Italian-American and so on. I raise this point, as it would surely also apply to Superman, having been brought up the American Way. If he thinks he is American, why does he never refer to himself as as Kryptonian-American? Could it be that Superman is bigger than any nationalistic thinking, and regards himself as a citizen of the planet Earth?
Keith went on to say that "we are proud of our country! We are also proud of Superman." This made me wonder how he, and other readers here, think Superman would and should react to the events unfolding in
today's America? If Superman truly exemplifies the best of America, would he rebel against corrupt government, as the superpowered characters in [J. Michael Straczynski's comic] Rising Stars have done? Or would he steadfastly support the regime, no matter what it did?
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
eith Kitchen wrote: "As a matter of fact, with the exception of Native Americans, we are all
either immigrants or descendents of immigrants." ("Superman Is an American Immigrant")
Just FYI, the Kennewick man skull discovered in Washington State raises a serious question as to whether "native americans" weren't actually invaders that wiped out a preexisting civilization some 10,000 years ago. If true, then even the alleged "native americans" are descendants of immigrants that destroyed the prior occupants of North America. Just thought you might be interested.
Tucker Neilson
timelord@charter.net
athan Brazil writes of Superman: "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 ["Superman Is Not the American Way"]."
The big problem with the Nazis wasn't that they were trying to be supermen, it was that they were trying to push everyone else around. There's nothing wrong with being smarter and stronger than everyone else. There is very much indeed something wrong with enslaving and killing everyone else.
Also, the Nazis went astray in assigning race as the defining characteristic of "superpersonhood." As most sane, objective people can recognize, there are intelligent and talented individuals in all races. The way to determine the superiority of an individual is through non-violent competition in a
free society—not through the distinction of a totally irrelevant characteristic such as skin color or ethnic origin.
Superman is actually the Anti-Nazi, in that he could have ruled the world through his superior powers, but instead chose to save the world. And after a hard day of defeating Lex Luthor without receiving any financial compensation for doing so, Superman puts on his glasses, draws a middle-class paycheck, and goes home to his studio apartment. Oh, and the love of his life is not some glamorous movie starlet or gorgeous "supermodel," but his college-educated 30-something co-worker sitting at
the next desk!
Despite that, it's obvious that Superman is having fun. He's certainly having more fun than any supposed "Aryan superman" did during World War II!
Yes, Superman never existed, but that's the point. Superman is a myth, which points us toward an ideal. Superman is an ideal role model for those who attain positions of superior power. They can see, through the telling of the Superman myth, that power is more fun and satisfying to possess if you use it to non-coercively help people, than it is if you use it to oppress and brutalize people.
For example: America today is like Superman, in that we are the world's lone superpower. Will we use that power like Neitzche's Superman, to subjugate the rest of the world under our imperialistic heel—or will we use our power like Krypton's Superman, to fight for peace and freedom? I don't see us living in a happier world if we use it like Neitzche advocated. Come to think of it, Neitzche was no more a happy man than was Hitler!
I for one am glad that there are myths like Superman, infusing American children with the belief that those who have power should be benevolent and tolerant toward those who do not. I certainly hope American children take that message to heart.
Joe Schembrie
joeschem@hotmail.com
'm here to defend William Shatner and Star Trek V ("Shatner Didn't Cause Trek Troubles"). It was not the disaster
that everyone is bellyaching about. It had a pretty good story, very good acting and comes off pretty decent considering the butcher job that Paramount did on it before, during and after it was filmed. The creatures were cut, as well as the entire identity of the "demon-god." It was also not advertised properly, opening just a month before Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Paramount felt that Indy needed the publicity more than a franchise with tons of fans who would come see Star Trek anyway. Shatner, using Roddenberry's original storyline, did a fine job and is not to be blamed.
The real disaster is Star Trek VI. Filled with idiotic plot devices, unbelievable characters and a bad script, this film is easily the worst of the Trek series. One example is when the Enterprise is racing into Klingon territory to rescue Kirk and McCoy. A Klingon outpost asks them to identify themselves. The Enterprise crew, getting out their Klingon Dictionaries (printed books are very rare, remember?) and state that they are there "condemning food." The Klingon, instead of sounding the alarm, laughs it off and lets them pass. Stupid scene 2: At Kittimer, with a room filled with Klingons, Kirk moves through them to get to the podium. He walks right by the woman whose father she thinks Kirk killed. What does she do? She lets him go by without a blink. These are not Klingons. Real Klingons would have blown up the Enterprise and also put about 15 knives into Kirk as he walked by. Two moronic scenes in a film filled with them.
Tom Tiernan
thomastiernan@hotmail.com
or those who took seriously my gentle (but deserved) jabs at France ("Star Trek Boldly Goes to the Left") and Frenchmen regarding Star Trek: The Next Generation, I suggest that you click on the GlennBeck.com Web site and listen to another American's take on French culture, a great song entitled "I Love The French"—which comments on their national attributes of ingratitude, arrogance and bloated self-importance—all stereotypical, of course, having no relation to the current French obstructionism in prosecuting the war on Iraq, itself another example of French colonialism, which was so very, very successful all over the world... compared to British colonialism, which gave us the only truly near-free societies in the world—USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. (OK, OK, so we can discuss the case of Canada elsewhere, offline. I am indeed becoming a bit weary of the never-ending whining of those northern neighbors of ours who always hide behind America's skirts ... and then bite us in the rear when they can get away with it. Or maybe that's just the influence of the insidious Quebecois?)
Get a life, fellow fen—do a Google search on me and see if you still think I am a Nazi, Aryan, etc. Far from it. (Just today I was called a "fascist" by websiter/radio host Jeff Rense, so I am getting it from all sides. I must be doing something right.)
I am reminded of an old song, " ... clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle ... "
Arlan Andrews Sr.
arlan@thingsto.com
ocks and shoals ahead for Andromeda! If the producers and writers really plan (according to the SciFiWire's news) a lightening of Andromeda's mood and the disillusionment of its hero, this series is doomed ("Andromeda Lightens Up"). Does Sorbo long too much for the good old days of Hercules? Doesn't he get it about science fiction? That fans want grand scope and intriguing continuity and not just interstellar cotton-candy fun every week? And who
is going to care about a hero who no longer cares about what he's created? Sorbo could use some pointers from Richard Dean Anderson on Stargate SG-1.
If they really go with this idea for the season, it wouldn't matter to me if the women on Andromeda ran around in skimpy bikinis all the time. It will stink so bad it won't be worth my time watching. And if it tanks in the ratings, it will serve Sorbo and company right.
Dana H. Boden
etaonrish@cox.net
ooray! Hurrah! And hallelujah! By conducting a UFO offensive to draw attention to its alien abduction series Taken, the SCI FI Channel has finally created worthwhile science fiction.
SFC's publicity campaign calls for "declassification of secret government records on UFOs," ("SCI FI Backs UFO Disclosure") including a "Freedom of Information Act initiative to obtain government records on cases involving retrieval of objects of unknown origin" plus a report by independent journalist Leslie Kean "to document the government's failure to carry out systematic scientific research into the UFO phenomenon" and a symposium at George Washington University "exploring the potential for interstellar travel and the evidence of unidentified aerial phenomena" as well as the formation of the Coalition for Freedom of
Information Web site "to generate public support for greater disclosure of government records and for more scientific investigation."
Now that's science fiction!
"There's got be something out there better than Man, has to be," said Charlton Heston in the original Planet of the Apes, and most of us probably hope so, but that doesn't mean this planet has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings.
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, an astronomer and former Air Force investigator who became the leader of the UFO community for more than 20 years, summed up the Pentagon's position on UFOs being alien spacecraft as "It can't be, therefore it isn't." UFOlogists play the flip side: "It could be, therefore it is."
Well, it ain't. Not yet. In writing a novel of first contact (which some of you have read), I spent years researching UFOs and while I found some of the reports to be fascinating, even compelling, not one shred of evidence of alien visitation has ever been produced by anybody.
But what about Roswell, the crown jewel of UFOlogy? The U.S. Government lied about the Vietnam War, Watergate and CIA drug experiments. Hard evidence confirmed it. Yet the Army reports that a "flying disc" constructed "like a box kite" (read the fine print!) crashed in New Mexico and everybody believes it!
I spent four years in the Air Force Security Service as an intelligence analyst. We were briefed on the "incident." At Roswell, something did go wrong. With a "bait and switch" scam, the Pentagon hid a "top secret device" (not Project Mogul) in plain sight and later used it to pull off the intelligence coup of the Cold War. And not one UFOlogist ever caught wind of it?
Kill the goose that laid the golden saucer? Books, TV shows and movies continue to make millions and Roswell is still raking in the tourist dollars.
Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer and Pulitzer Prize-winning author once called exobiology, the study of life beyond earth, a "science without data." With a library full of books, scores of videos and volumes of eyewitness testimony, UFOlogy is, and always has been ... data without science.
Does that make anyone who claims to see a UFO a crank or a fool or a liar? Not at all! For two years I have served as a UFO "expert" on allexperts.com and have gotten dozens of letters from people who have seen things in the sky they could not identify. That's why they call them Unidentified Flying Objects! President Carter saw a UFO. So did I. So what? That doesn't make these inexplicable sightings alien starships.
Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly? This stuff is more than 15 years old—recycled UFO blowback. With the newly developed technology, especially in recon and surveillance, shouldn't there be more UFO sighting than ever? So much the opposite that the UFO community has to trot out ancient history in order to have something to talk about.
The CIA-UFO connection? During the Cold War, when fear of a Soviet nuclear first strike ran high, the CIA was convinced that Communist agents in the U.S. would create a UFO "flap" to camouflage incoming Russian missiles. With the implosion of the USSR 10 years ago, CIA interest vanished.
Alien abduction cases? Stories have been told, testimony has been taken, sometimes relying on hypnosis (which has been proven to be even more unreliable than lie-detector tests) and extensive studies have been done, but while these "victims" may have suffered life-altering experiences, no proof whatsoever has ever confirmed involvement with unearthly kidnappers. Or is the "phenomenon" simply nightmares influenced by sci-fi movies and psychological wish fulfillment? Each can only be judged on a case by case basis. None has ever produced any alien artifacts or residue of any kind.
But the plot continues to be stirred by those with self-interest—movie and TV producers and authors in pursuit of dollars and ratings rather than truth.
UFOs remain unidentified flying objects and all the symposiums and expert testimony and scientific speculation in the world will not change that. The concept of alien visitation, whether it be to abduct earthlings or for any other purpose at any time in history is not an "enigma" or a "phenomenon," but a market exploiting the fact that people will believe what they want to believe when they want to believe it.
Buy into this pseudo-science daisy chain if you want to, but if you do, the SCI FI Channel has the perfect word for what you'll be: taken.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
Back to the top.
