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.
he real factor in Trek deaths has nothing to do with race ("Race Is a Factor in Trek Deaths"). Peter Boghossian's assertion that black people are immune to death is laughable. Any established actor on a regular appearing TV series is likely to avoid the perils of death on a weekly basis if his contract says so. Capitalism, not race, is the factor in Trek deaths.
When Capt. Kirk was killed off in Star Trek: Generations, the reasons were for money, plain and simple. Paramount believed that Next Generation fans, who hated the original Trek with a passion, would come out in droves to see Kirk get his due. He didn't need to die, but since Paramount was through with Kirk and the previous crew, why not kill him off for a little extra cash?
After all, killing off Spock had been a big cash cow for Paramount. The released of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan saw the largest opening, three-day weekend, box-office draw in motion-picture history. With rumors that Leonard Nimoy would never again return to the role that made him famous, everyone wanted to see the Vulcan die. Even the often stoic Harlan Ellison was said to have shed a tear to see the pointed-eared thespian take the final curtain call.
I am surprised Paramount didn't kill the rest of the old crew off, in features of their own, given the money they had made. But never say die, Paramount has returned to their old ways with Star Trek: Nemesis.
Rumors are rapid and rampant over the impending death of Lt. Commander Data. Everyone is in an uproar that this might be the end for the Next Generation. And from the trailers I have seen (if Paramount wants to continue the franchise), it looks like the Federation is going to have to build another starship named Enterprise.
Isn't it funny how we are not entertained unless somebody or something dies? But then, that is where the money is, and Paramount knows how to get it. Story is about conflict, and, in Hollywood, that usually means the death of characters. So, why are we so surprised when the dream makers turn their visions into nightmares?
Money, not race, is at the root of the conspiracy to kill off characters. Death is a symbol for change for all those that survive. And if Paramount can turn the change in your pockets into theirs, by killing or threatening to kill off their own property, then isn't it all so much the better for them?
Brian L. Raney
brian_l_raney@hotmail.com
n his letter "Race Is a Factor in Trek Deaths," Peter Boghossian suggests that the reason Mr. Mayweather didn't really die in the episode "Dead Stop" is because he is black. I think Mr.
Boghossian is forgetting a few important factors.
1) Major characters almost never die in a TV series. The examples of Tasha Yar and Jadzia Dax
don't support Mr. Boghossian's theory, because in both cases the actress playing the character
wanted to leave the show. Perhaps if Anthony Montgomery wanted off, then Mayweather would have stayed dead. As for the doctor in the pilot episode of Voyager, I don't think you can really refer to a character that dies in the very first episode as "major."
2) Sooner or later everybody dies in Trek. Of course I'm exaggerating, but it is a common plot
device throughout Trek history for a character to appear dead only to get better by the end of the episode, or by the next movie. Just about everyone in the original cast was believed to be dead at
one point, some more than once. In Voyager, all but two of the crew were killed once, only to get
better in time for the closing credits.
I really don't think "Dead Stop" is an example of racism in favor of black characters.
Dominic Lopez
dominic@lopez.net
hile reading Peter Boghossian's letter ("Race Is a Factor in Trek Deaths,") about racism and Star Trek deaths, it became quite clear to me that his argument is way off the mark.
True, I hate PC storylines as much as the next guy. But Mr. Boghossian's claim that Travis Mayweather was allowed to live simply because of the color of his skin was misguided.
First of all, this is Star Trek, where just about every regular character will die (or be presumed dead) and come back to life in some way (Kirk in "The Tholian Web," Spock in The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock, LaForge and Ro in The Next Generation, Data in The Next Generation, Harry Kim in Voyager, etc.). This is a recurring idea the Trek writers play with. Mayweather's "death" was simply another example of this trend.
Mr. Boghossian's point that non-black Trek characters have been allowed to die is also baseless. Tasha Yar and Jadzia Dax were killed off because the actors wanted off the show. The original doctor on Voyager was killed off in the first episode to pave the way for Robert Picardo's character. I'm sure if LeVar Burton would have wanted to have LaForge killed off before the end of TNG, the writers would have found a way to do it.
The fact is, Anthony Montgomery is a regular cast member. You don't just "off" one of your actors to further a storyline (well, on series TV anyway).
Mr. Boghossian claimed that allowing Mayweather to live does not allow blacks to achieve social equality. In fact, I think that allowing Mayweather to live allows another black character to join the ranks of all races (and other alien beings) on Star Trek who have found a way to cheat death. Sounds like equality to me.
Jeff Zeiber
jzeiber@hotmail.com
ell, Fox is doing it yet again! The network has just announced that it will give Firefly "another chance" and has ordered a whole two more episodes ("Firefly Gets A Shot") and plans on airing the next episodes (including the thus far unseen pilot) starting December 6! As usual, Fox is airing its unwanted shows after the sweeps are over. This, of course, will give the network the "proof" it needs to show no one is watching and pull the plug. This is how Fox moved the schedule around to kill Millennium, among other shows.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that Firefly hasn't really won me over, but there are those who are already avid fans and this is a crass move on Fox's part, to say the least. It's almost as if Fox is playing a nasty game with its viewers.
All I can suggest to Fox is to either give Firefly the rest of the season to try to garner a better fan base or cancel the show and stop treating your viewers like children. Whether or not you realize it, we, the viewers, make it possible for you to collect your six- and seven-figure salaries. Without us, you can just pack up your whole network and go home.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu1@aol.com
s I was reading Joss Whedon's comments ("Whedon Helms Firefly Ep") about how the cast of his new series Firefly get along well with each other, I was pondering why such a big deal is often made of this issue. How often do we witness tabloid headlines or gossip column articles about how such and such cast members are not getting along? Why are we supposed to care?
In any other workplace it's taken for granted that you may not like every co-worker. You're expected to try to be polite and professional but never expected to love everyone you work with. So it always strikes me as odd that we focus on this issue when it comes to celebrities.
As for Firefly, I think holding the pilot hurt the beginning of the show. I am starting to like it more and more as I learn more about the characters and the mysteries in their past. As always he's taken the time to develop complex characters that I can believe in. My only reservation is the Western-themed episodes. I think many of us who grew up with lots of Westerns on TV are tired of that setting—although I understand his rationale.
I prefer the episodes in space or technologically sophisticated settings. I hope Joss gets enough time to develop his show—or at least give it a good send off!
Tapati Sarasvati
sarasvati@labyris.com
am a long time, diehard fan of the series Forever Knight. I was absolutely ecstatic when I heard it was coming back on SCI FI. Now I notice it is not airing again until December 16. I hope [the SCI FI Channel is] not planning to cancel it.
Being a student of history, I find Forever Knight more historically sound in aspects of medieval history than most shows of this type. You might just say there is action and romance to every episode. Check out your forum on the SCI FI Website on Forever Knight and you will see the fans discussing it on a daily basis. Please keep it on the air.
Debra
daggeromind@hotmail.com
egarding "Buffy Must Go Out With a Bang" by Barbara Goldstein—I couldn't agree more, but will add for clarity: a positive bang.
I, too, was sickened and devastated at the choice of ending for Xena. In times like these, we need to know that good can prevail and the characters we've grown to know and love don't always have to die. Better to leave one's imagination open to the futures of our heroes than to just say it's over, and they are dead. To me, that is the sci-fi and fantasy world motto. Always leave room for the viewer or reader to take a thought or a theory and allow it to bloom. Otherwise, don't call yourself sci-fi writers. Call yourself Drama Kings and Queens.
Sci-fi forever!
Trisha Lu
lunalu69@hotmail.com
'm finding more and more reasons to write in to the Science Fiction Weekly letters column—pretty soon I'll be a staple like Kevin Ahearn!
What I want to mention this time around is the incredible lack of practicality a lot of letter writers seem to have ingrained in their personalities. Which is odd, since the majority of really good heroes from a lot of sci-fi are eminently practical people. Look at Heinlein's characters. And Larry Niven's. Would Luis Wu be in a huff about an entertainment program being killed off because it made no money? I wouldn't like to think so.
I think a lot of people are confusing art with entertainment, and the practical necessities of producing it. Art is there regardless of who views it, and the artist makes it because it is impossible not to. Entertainment is produced with an eye toward profit. Now, before the majority of fanboys start ranting about "it shouldn't all be about profit" I'm afraid it is.
E. Fugazi ("Ratings Don't Reflect Popularity") is, sorry to say, completely wrong. Ratings are the only practical method of measuring popularity. Dedication is not the same as popularity. Neither is loyalty. It's not even the same thing as quality. Companies, be they entertainment, automobile or anything else at all, cannot continue to operate without a product that is popular, rather than just quality. You wouldn't ask Sony to stop making audio/visual products, their most popular line of equipment, just because Spider-Man made a mint. A quality product does not eclipse quality. The popular things often bankroll the less popular things, but we have to remember—even though you like it, there is no inherent quality to it simply for that fact. If you !
like dookie, it's still dookie. Therefore, few others will watch it, and it will founder.
Another letter this week mentions that 16,000 people signed a particular petition to keep a show around ("Moore's Galactica Is Still Less"). Let's look at the practicality of this. For the sake of argument, a given episode of this show costs $1 million to produce. If there is no advertising at all, then those 16,000 viewers need to kick in $62.50 to get the show produced. Each episode. Does that show really mean that much to you? I didn't think so. I don't even want to pay an equal amount for the entire first season of B5 on DVD, and B5 is my preferred sci-fi on TV. And that's just to break even. Theoretically, SCI FI has to charge advertisers $62.50 per proven viewer to break even. That's just to cover costs of production. There's costs to !
promotion, the actual airing, etc., etc. Juan Rico wouldn't find this practical.
Sure, there is dookie out there that gets great ratings. Cop shows, soaps and med dramas are usually cookie cutter versions of each other, but they are popular. And so they make money.
I like sci-fi. It's my preferred mode of entertainment, be it books, movies, etc. But I would rather see a dubious show with bad ratings go the way of the dodo and make room for the really good stuff if there aren't enough other people watching.
Adrian Hunter
adrian.hunter@pop.snet.net
oncerning Mr. Darren Simpson's comments ("Lexx Goes Where Trek Fears to Tread") about Lexx being one of the few series daring to make fun at the genre: You are absolutely right in saying that there are very few series doing that. Star Trek does not dare to, for sure. You then proceeded to name the few series you thought had this ability. I also agree on all of them, but have to say you missed the most important, namely Farscape.
Farscape had this wonderful self-deprecating humor, but it went even further. While all the other shows you pointed out concentrate on being funny or intentionally camp, Farscape dared to encompass all emotions, [sometimes] even in the same episode. Sadly, I believe that is one of the reason it was not getting a bigger audience. People were not smart enough to appreciate a show that was funny and serious at the same time.
Lisa Mobrand
l_mobrand@yahoo.se
K, what idiot decided to put the movie Braveheart on the SCI FI Channel. That is not a science-fiction film, not a fantasy film (like Lord of the Rings, Legend, Dragonheart, etc.) That [film] is about an actual person that actually existed several hundred years ago in Scotland.
I mean, really, this film is good but has no real business being on the SCI FI Channel in the first place. As one Internet posting clearly stated: "Putting Braveheart on the SCI FI Channel is like putting Saving Private Ryan on the Comedy Channel."
And I thought that this Crossing Over With John Edward is bad enough. Is the management of the SCI FI Channel so dense and stupid that fans won't notice? I think not.
Sharon Booker
sharon25booker@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
