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.
couldn't help but think that during Matthew McGowan's review of the movie Left Behind II: Tribulation Force, he was reviewing the beliefs behind the movie as much as the movie itself. It's pretty clear from the opening paragraph of his commentary what his viewpoint is:
"...it's no surprise that viewers get more of the same in this installment—much self-righteous proselytizing..."
Isn't that the whole point of the Left Behind series? To proselytize about The Rapture and its associated events? It would seem to me that to attempt to review a movie such as this while at the same time looking down your nose at the beliefs behind it is on the silly side. The fact is that Christianity, no different than pretty much any other religion that exists, is self-righteous, and a Christian movie is going to attempt to preach to the audience.
I have not seen the movie. His comments about the production values and acting could be right on the money. But to somehow expect that a Christian movie depicting an interpretation of events in The Bible will not be self-righteous and won't attempt to preach to the audience is the height of absurdity.
Burt Smith
burt@pslashg.org
hile checking out Joss Whedon's Firefly recently, I noticed several promos for a series called John Doe. Somehow, in the midst of all the hype for the new Whedon series, I missed any mention of this new entry onto Fox's fall lineup.
What a pleasant surprise this series is. Somehow, the show's creators took MacGyver, The Pretender and Nowhere Man, mixed in the X-Files and Monk and came out with a wonderful little mystery series with a science-fiction undertone.
Admittedly, I've seen only one episode (thus far) and further viewings will be needed before I can make any concrete decisions concerning the series, but it's been a long time since I saw a single episode of any series that caught my attention so thoroughly.
Yes, I noticed some flaws, and like many current series, it seemed as if the writers were trying to push too much information into a one-hour episode (read: 40-42 minute episode), which unfortunately cuts down on the quality of most series.
Still, the hour flew by and I enjoyed John Doe far more than the multiple-cliche episode of Firefly that preceded it.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu1@aol.com
think Mark Beardsley disproved his own argument ("SF Petition Won't Bring Peace") when he declared that "Any one with half a brain can see why a war with Iraq is necessary."
It seems to me that the SF writers Mark criticizes have taken the time to find out what they're talking about ("SF&F Writers Oppose War"). They aren't anti-American, they're anti-corruption and anti-needless death. If the U.S. invades Iraq, it's about one thing and one thing only, Big Oil. There's also a very good chance that it will turn into your biggest loss since Vietnam. What happens if Saddam does have a crude nuke, and is cornered? Perhaps he'll set it off and take 50,000 U.S. troops with him.
What upset me the most was when Mark said, "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." The truth is, Mark, these writers and actors are best at imagining the future. The future they currently see is scaring the hell out of them. So rather than munch another cheeseburger and believe what the TV tells them, they're trying to help people to wake up. So please, stop living in the Matrix, and just open your eyes to reality. Here's an example for you; Iraq currently has its military in just one country, Iraq. The U.S. currently has its military in 106 places around the globe.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
hile I think the sci-fi petition ("SF&F Writers Oppose War") against an Iraqi War is a laudable goal I think the writers' visions and influence are best set in their craft. I honestly feel that the sci-fi portrayals of post-nuclear worlds and the effects of nuclear devastation greatly influenced our attitudes towards such a conflict.
Works like On the Beach and others showed us the ramifications of nuclear devastation. Writers such as [Joe] Haldeman, who I believe was a Vietnam vet, emoted the harsh and brutal reality of war as it really is. Writers influence best through the power of their words and imagination. Why not produce an anthology based around their arguments? Grabbing the imagination of people is a great way to subtly influence people and, in my mind, not a frivolous way to do it.
Brett B
Brettb@aol.com
petition ("SF&F Writers Oppose War"), whether it be signed by science-fiction writers or sanitation workers or shoe salesmen, whether it's for a war or against one or supports or condemns anything whatsoever, whether a million people sign it or just a lone individual, is a right enjoyed by Americans to put their names where their beliefs are.
Those who ridicule that right ("SF Petition Won't Bring Peace" and "Anti-War Writers Live in the Past") say more about themselves than any petition possibly could.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
tried to like Birds of Prey on different levels, but if a show is good, one
shouldn't have to find excuses to like it. The writing seems to be pulled in two directions. On one hand, you have a show entirely based on the Batman mythos, yet in the third episode, the Reese character never heard of him. And this is supposed to be the one cop who follows the weird goings-on in Gotham.
Metahuman seems to be the equivalent of "mutant" and the show goes to great lengths to point out that Huntress is half-metahuman. What exactly does that mean? I thought it meant if you have extraordinary abilities you're a metahuman. So either you are or you aren't. This show is implying that these "metahumans" are a separate race. How else can one be half-meta? By the way, does this mean either Batman or Catwoman is a metahuman? And if neither are and Huntress discovers that Batman isn't her father, wouldn't that change the whole idea of the show?
Huntress/Helena comes across as bratty and self-centered, an immature know-it-all who rebels against Barbara and doesn't want to continue helping people as a super-hero. Yeah, she's a knockout, but I really don't care what she has to say. And the second episode mimics adversary, my god—use a damn
batarang if you can't get close to fight the enemy! Who trained this imbecile? (And how did Oracle get her wheelchair onto the rooftop at the end? Hmmm. ...)
Masks and costumes are totally abandoned, which raises the question of personal safety for Huntress. What happens when Reese or an enemy walks into her bar and recognizes her? A fatal flaw on the show. Not that she needs to wear a mask, but maybe a different hairstyle or something that distinguishes her from her normal everyday dress.
Dinah is annoying. Three episodes in and no one has bothered to contact her family (Barbara might be brought up on kidnapping charges), her abilities are vague and she's brings the show to a dead stop. Her character is needs to be beefed up to make her interesting and not just cute.
Dina Meyer is the show's saving grace as Oracle. She brings a level of professionalism to a show ridden with cliches and window dressing. If only the romance subplot could disappear or be made interesting. Her suitor is a cookie-cutter "perfect guy" who has no depth and shows no reason why she
should be into him. With all the various allies that Batgirl has made over the years, why would she be interested in this dull teacher? She should not settle for the mundane at all. It doesn't ring true.
Overall, the show looks good, but there's not much under the surface. Pretty faces only go so far. The producers should take a chance and have these characters break away from the Buffy-Xena mold and distinguish it from other hip shows. The source material (the comic book) has more interesting characterization by far than this Smallville clone. Why tamper with it? Maybe, just maybe, audiences would enjoy seeing strong women like Black Canary instead of these annoying models. And did anyone notice that the third episode was 37 minutes long without commercials? Pretty skimpy.
James Babbo
Max_Meanie@yahoo.com
thoroughly enjoyed your interview with Frank Kelly Freas. I have a story about him I hope you'll enjoy:
Attending a science fiction convention in Nashville in 1976, I was privileged to interview Mr. Freas, publisher Donald A. Wolheim and the SFWA President at that time, Andy Offutt, for a mainstream article on the past, present and future of science fiction. He was very cordial, graciously answering all my questions.
Near the end of the convention, after he had packed up the prints and paintings at his booth, he proceeded to sketch some of the attendees. I approached him hoping, like the others, to acquire a Kelly Freas original of myself. When I sat down, a sly smile crossed his face as he said, "At last—a soldier worthy of my steel."
I still have the drawing.
Tom Heath
ventoux55@msn.com
Interviewer Jeff Berkwits responds:
Not surprisingly, it seems that Tom had much the same experience interviewing Kelly as I did. Despite his assertion that he doesn't "understand" people, once you've met him, it's abundantly clear why he's considered "the most popular SF artist in the history of the field" and why, quite fittingly, he has been chosen as the artist guest of honor at Torcon, the 2003 World Science Fiction Convention. I was thrilled to have the chance to talk with him, and I'm glad the piece successfully conveyed his personality and perceptions.
Best,
Jeff
just have to comment on the accusations regarding William Shatner's role in the supposed "bad" Trek film, The Final Frontier ("Shatner Didn't Cause Trek Troubles"). First off, I am a trekkie and have been one for sometime, although I am not wearing my uniform as I am typing this, nor am I a member of a starfleet club or group. But I must say, that of all the Trek films, part V was the most down to Earth, and dare I say it—humane Trek film ever made with the old crew.
The relationship between Uhura and Scotty, Bones' agitation with Kirk and his
climbing antics, Spock coming face-to-face with his past. ... And the laughs! Scotty [walking] head first into the hull ... unforgettable. This fifth film showed a side of the crew that was missing in every other film. It gave life to some of the most beloved characters known to sci-fi. I cannot believe
that this film is considered anything but a gem.
Of all the Star Trek films I own, this is the one I put on for a feel-good, nostalgic moment of utter indulgence. Don't blame Shatner for the bad budget, praise him for doing for the crew of the Enterprise A what no one else has done before—made them flesh and blood and not just the same old follow-the-leader characters on a mediocre set, from a now-defunct era.
Bob Gilligan
B&G@hotmail.com
n response to the letter by one Kevin Ahearn ("The Truth Is Ready to Be Taken"), how do you know?
I could talk your ear off (or in this case write your eye off) with my theories about the relationship between aliens and the government, but the fact remains that we know nothing about UFOs. They could be anything from natural phenomena (unlikely, but possible) atmospheric craft made by some
country or other (not unlikely) or full-on extraterrestrial the-invasion-has-already-started spacecraft.
All we have are theories, and where there's a theory, there's science fiction.
Every science-fiction writer has written about aliens at some point or another. Heck, Stephen King has written about them twice, and he's not even strictly a sci-fi writer. This is because the possibility of aliens from outer space represents something mostly lost in these latter days:
mythology.
Centuries ago, people believed in spirits both benevolent and malevolent, either indifferent to mankind or directly interfering with mankind's affairs. We have replaced him with Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and of course, the Little Green Man (although more often today, he is gray). The spirits of the past were magically possible; today's spirits are scientifically possible.
What all this aimless ranting of mine means is that if a sci-fi writer or director makes a story or film about aliens, it isn't strictly because he's being capitalistic. It means he is as curious as everyone else, and is using his talents to arrive at a belief about them. Just one possible explanation.
Personally, I like to think that the U.S. government is covering up the fact that it knows nothing, and that we are being "monitored" until we are ready to join the general spacefaring community.
But then, I'm an aspiring SF writer, and that again is just one possible explanation.
Shane Stephenson
FSFan1@yahoo.com
hile I do love science fiction, I have to admit that the only reason I watch the SCI FI Channel is for Farscape. Some may find irony in that statement, but the answer lies in the programming of the channel. To put it simply, it just isn't science-fiction oriented any more. Sure we get the occasional Outer Limits, which is always good, but there are a great preponderance of bad paranormal shows and mediocre, dated B-horror flicks that even a seriously dedicated horror fan (I enjoy good horror) would be embarrassed to own.
Farscape had everything a good science-fiction show should have, and more. The actors are, and here's a shock for most audiences, actually convincing in their rolls, which allows the audience to fall back into a comfortable suspension of disbelief. The emotional bonds between the characters is very well communicated to the audience and is perhaps responsible for the unusually large female fan base. The writing is absolutely fantastic and some episodes have so many unforeseen plot twists that the best of us are left on the edges of our seats fully engrossed and eagerly awaiting the next curve. Farscape also has some of the best special effects I have seen in a TV show in quite some time. I would say the effects are on par with Babylon 5 and Sea Quest DSV, if not better. Then there are the incredible and awe-inspiring designs for the sets, ships, consoles, floors, passageways, costumes and a myriad of other
alien environments. Oh yeah, and there's this company called Henson Creature Shop. They need neither an introduction nor showering praise, as they are already giants among men.
So this wonderful, original, witty and quirky show is going to go the way of the dinosaur, because it is cheaper to produce the average non-science fiction garbage the channels are already overstocked with. I don't know about all the other SCI FI Channel viewers out there in TV land, but I would gladly give up the other 150+ channels I have for a single channel playing Farscape, preferably seasons 1 through 10. I wouldn't mind if real science-fiction shows, preferably made in the last 10 years, were tossed in just to mix it up a bit.
What has become of this channel that was supposed to be a refuge for science-fiction lovers and a bastion against the banality of average network programming? It has grown a little older, a little wiser, a little stingier and realized that "unique" and "interesting" are somewhat speculative, risky and relatively costly to produce. Well, guess what? "Unique" and "interesting" are the only reasons I watch.
Jonas Boymel
jonas.boymel@rinasystems.com
Back to the top.
