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.
ver watch paint dry? Fascinating sport. It's never really allowed to dry completely, of course. (Hence the reason for sport.) People sit in their easy chairs, watching the one color on their wall, waiting for that moment when the very last droplet of moisture evaporates—and then—they start painting the wall, again.
How do they keep score? No one knows, but everyone has an opinion.
Eric E. Anchor ("Star Trek's Motives Remain Unknown") seems to be of the opinion that people are expressing too many petty opinions he doesn't like. Because we are on the precipice of war, he believes we should all look at the bigger picture. Seems that he's the only one who can see it from his own ivory tower view.
I know some people go crazy when questions are raised about the competency of the current inheritors of anything Star Trek, but please don't tell us that you think we should concentrate on other issues because of any concerns over the inevitable impending war with Iraq. If we are not permitted to express our opinions about anything SF in the Letters to the Editor department of Science Fiction Weekly, then where are we suppose to express these views?
Let's not be under the delusion that people only express opinions in order to advance their political or racial motives. Some people actually express opinions on the favorite forms of entertainment, devoid of any intentional chicanery, just to comment on the state of the art.
I just love it, though, when some people tell me that I got all my facts wrong or that it is all just my opinion. Opinions may have facts but are not about facts, and the ones that some people disagree with the most strongly make the best essays. I especially love it when some people argue that while they don't agree with me, they would fight for my freedom to express it; all the while reminding the rest of us how lucky we are to live in a land that guarantees such freedoms. Because, if our freedoms were really up to them, they would take them all away from us in a heartbeat.
People will always express their opinions, whether we agree with them or not. And in a democracy, bellyaching about how we should all remain silent and count our blessing will not change that, no matter how loudly anyone yells.
Unless, of course, you like watching paint dry.
Brian L. Raney
brian_l_raney@hotmail.com
n October, 1999, a world of magic unfolded before our eyes as the Roswell pilot came into our homes for the first time! People all over the world took this small show into their hearts and passed on the joy it gave them through the many charity fan functions and parties that were organized in the show's name. To date, approximately $250,000 has been raised by Roswell fans, most of it going to help children in need and the 9/11
victims. The Roswell "Healing Hands" quilt, designed and created by fans after 9/11, was on display in Washington, D.C. through September 2002 after an extensive display tour to numerous other Federal Museums around the United States. The quilt sent to the NYC Police still hangs in their main
office as a reminder of the Roswellians world wide who sent their love, prayers and money to the victims and their families.
On May 14, 2002, Roswell aired for the last time. A giant emptiness was felt by millions of people around the world as we bid farewell to the town and characters that had come to mean so much to us.
But now we have good news! On Jan. 13, 2003, the SCI FI Channel will begin airing all three seasons of Roswell! Millions of us are anxiously counting down the days to this event! We are looking forward to once again experiencing the magic that is Roswell!
The fans of Roswell continue to band together, as additional charity fan functions are currently being planned. The legacy of caring that has become so widely associated with Roswell around the world still lives! Events such as the Fan Event SCI FI Premiere Party scheduled to take place in New York City the weekend of Jan. 11 and 12, 2003, the Roswell/Zeke Lerner Bowl-a-Thon in Los Angeles in February, and the Roswell Convention in Australia, all have proceeds directed towards Roswell fans' current children's charity project, FSMA (Families of Spinal Muscular Atrophy). These events will not only be attended by thousands of fans world wide, but also members of the Roswell cast. The true magic of Roswell continues!
The SCI FI Channel is watched by millions of people who love science-fiction programming. Many of these viewers have never experienced the world of Roswell! We, the established fans of Roswell, are doing all we can to help promote the airing of the series on SCI FI! The CRAVE Campaign echoes the voices of millions who anxiously await the premiere of Roswell on SCI FI! They are currently raising funds to place an ad in Variety magazine to increase awareness of, and generate publicity for, SCI FI's reairing of the full three seasons of the series. It is hoped that millions of new fans will join our family and help to convince SCI FI to continue this wonderful story
in some way. Don't miss the magic! Watch Roswell, premiering on the SCI FI Channel, Jan. 13, 2002!
Carol Hagerman
mtndew99@attbi.com
his is in response to the letter by Michael Lustig ("Abductions Are Fiction, Not Fact"). I have just one question for him: Have you ever heard of gravity? Because a universe without aliens is as odd an idea as a universe without gravity. Granted, the idea that aliens have visited Earth is improbable, but it is far from impossible. It is, in fact, accepted scientific theory that aliens exist. Even if the odds are one in a million against intelligent life, there must still be billions of intelligent lifeforms out there. If that's the case, then the odds are very good that at least some of them are more intelligent than we are. If they are more intelligent than we are, they might have spacecraft capable of interstellar flight. If they have spacecraft capable of interstellar flight, they may have visited Earth. Granted, that is quite a few "ifs" and "may haves," but that is what speculative fiction is about.
If aliens have never visited Earth, then what you are suggesting is that half to most of the United States population is suffering from mass hysteria by believing in it.
If an alien race had discovered Earth, they would begin an extensive campaign to monitor us with unmanned and manned spacecraft to learn as much about us as they can. They might even abduct us to learn key things about our physiology and psychology. The point is that it is not impossible, not
by any modern socially or scientifically accepted theory.
And that's what sci-fi and spec-fi is about: theory, not fact.
Shane Stephenson
fsfan1@yahoo.com
have to take exception with TV networks constantly pushing Roswell and little green men into sci-fi. I have been a sci-fi reader all my life and I have never read a book that had little green men in it. I have watched all of Taken and I have enjoyed it to an extent.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
When I watch bad sci-fi, I try to see if the story and the characters are interesting, even though the science sucks. In the case of Taken, it does have some good acting and an interesting story. The first week had a lot of characters that didn't last very long. At least the second week allowed some people to live more than one episode. I don't know if alien abductions really happen. I think the
phenomenon is more likely a form or mass hysteria. I also think that the extensive work done on the subject by The X-Files and Roswell and the numerous Roswell movies and miniseries of the past, precludes the need for a new Roswell movie. I am not surprised by the high ratings. [Steven] Speilberg's name is enough to get ratings on any show. Speilberg himself has an affinity for the bad sci-fi that includes little green men. He is not a sci-fi reader and that is why he doesn't know what it is about. I loved Close Encounters [of the Third Kind], but I have boycotted E.T., and I hated A.I. Any science-fiction show should have some basis in science even if it is its own science. A.I. had none of that. I think it is about time that the SCI FI Channel starts to give real sci-fi authors a chance. The two Dune miniseries are a great way to start. Now let's see some real sci fi that doesn't have little green men, alien abductions or Steven Speilberg involved.
I would be glad to give you a list of books and authors that could make compelling television.
Mike
slinger@wideopenwest.com
omebody needs badly to show [Steven] Spielberg what Lubbock, TX looks like.
What you filmed on Taken definitely wasn't Lubbock! I can't believe that you tried to pass off a panorama with hills in it as Lubbock! I lived there for 25 years, and there's not a hill nor tree in sight. Even green grass is a stretch sometimes.
And, then you show the Roswell crash site as being on the side of a hill. There are no hills around Lubbock nor Roswell!
And, by the way, you spelled Tucumcari, N.M. incorrectly.
Stony Smith
stonysmith@attbi.com
looked forward to Taken, with Spielberg attached I figured it had to be a winner. I have to ask if there is one SF movie or television show that hasn't been ripped off by Taken? The "smoking man" and brain cancer-implants from The X-Files, half alien-half human little girl savior from V, floating light alien ships from Close Encounters [of the Third Kind].
I'm watching now just to see what show they'll rip off next.
Gary Roelli
gjwr@mhtc.net
ear 2003 could be looking up on SCI FI. And Taken has softened my harsh criticism of recent programming choices. Yes, I still think canceling Farscape is self-mutilation of a perfectly healthy organ, and that Sabretooth was in fact the garbage I said it was.
But I have to tip my hat to SCI FI for an amazing experience. Never have I so eagerly waited for the next installment of any genre media as I have with Taken. We certainly wish all genre shows could have such high production levels, excellent writing and acting, and overall entertainment value.
Many have pointed to money as a driving factor for the recent cancellations and movie selections. Seeing Taken, I'd have to say, they saved for a rainy day and spent their money wisely. Still, junk is junk, and I hope the high ratings on Taken prove that quality yields ratings and encourage them to keep the dollars flowing for future deserving projects.
Happy Holidays! Taken has been great.
Tom Loveman
tloveman@earthlink.net
lease pass on my thanks to Mr. Nolan ("Potter Is Not the Brit to Fear") for giving me the opportunity to explain the Evangelical furor over the Harry Potter stories. A disclaimer: Though I understand their position, I do not share it, having just seen and thoroughly enjoyed the second movie myself two weekends ago.
We Orthodox and Fundamentalist Christians (I consider myself a member of the former, not the latter) understand that a duality exists in the universe. We serve a loving Creator who died for our sins, and rose from the dead to provide us the road to eternal salvation, which we receive by faith, not works. Opposite that loving and all-perfect Creator is a completely evil, completely corrupt anti-light person most often called in Western society by the names Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, the Devil and the like. All Christians are severely enjoined by their Faith to have nothing to do with this dark adversary, for he is the corrupter of souls, and he will deceive us unto eternal death, if we give him the chance.
At one time, if one assumed the label of wizard/witch/warlock, society considered, however wrongly they might be, that one was admitting that he/she had made a pact with that person of darkness. It is this one-time association with the name of Satan which chills some Christian factions into condemning these wholesome movies/books.
I personally am able to separate the Devil from Harry Potter. As Mr. Nolan points out, Harry Potter is the quintessential Good Boy. He is no more allied with the forces of darkness than Aladdin was. Besides, if my faith really did tell me to throw out any story that featured wizards/witches in prominent and kind roles, then I would have to toss into the dumpster such marvelous masterpieces as The Wizard of Oz, and The Chronicles of Narnia (which possesses one or two wizards), as well as The Lord of the Rings (Gandalf is a wizard who does lots of magic), and the tales of Arthur Pendragon, regardless of their author. I would also have to toss out Kathryn Kurtz's Deryni novels, all of which I find to be quite kind to Christianity.
Rumor has it that [Harry Potter author J.K.] Rowling is a Wiccan. Though I wish we shared a similar faith, to worship as a Wiccan is her choice. Regardless, I, a confessed Christian, recognize that Wiccans are not Satanists. They do not believe as I do, and I fear for their souls, but they are not devil worshippers, and Harry Potter, a good kid who tries to do the right thing is not in league with Lucifer. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Harry Potter is a practicing Anglican.
And finally, this is the most telling point; the Harry Potter stories are exactly that: stories. They're entertainment, and extremely well done at that. If Christian parents are concerned that these books might have malicious effects on their children, then they should take the time to explain that they are pretend, and that Christians can also invoke magic in the form of prayer.
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell@walsworth.com
lthough Kasey Myers ("Braveheart Is Legitimate SF") made a formidable
well-written attempt to try and convince us that Braveheart belonged on the SCI FI Channel, it is completely misguided. Braveheart is in no way, shape or form to be considered science fiction or fantasy!! Would you find the Braveheart novelization in the sci-fi section of your local bookstore? I think not. Braveheart is simply historical fiction. Actual events (such as the battles) and actual people (William Wallace) are written about in stories that may have some historical truth to them but are more about the fictional drama written by the author in which the historical setting is used as a backdrop. Was the movie Gettysburg or for that matter the upcoming movie Gods & Generals about the Civil War to be considered sci-fi too? Sure, it will be more historically accurate than Braveheart, since we know more about the Civil War. However, it is still fiction, since we don't know every word uttered by Robert E. Lee or his generals making most of the dialogue in the movie fiction. The same can be said for Saving Private Ryan. In fact, according to your logic, that movie is even more fantasy since there was no actual Private Ryan, whereas William Wallace was a real person at one time.
If you want to say alternative history is fantasy then I'll be more inclined to agree with you, and in fact most bookstores would as well since that's where you'd find alternative history novels like those of Harry Turtledove, but that is completely different than Braveheart. The fact is that if you follow your logic for putting Braveheart on the SCI FI Channel then you can pretty much put any movie on it. That's not what the SCI FI Channel was supposed to be about. I can visit TNT, TBS, HBO, etc., if I want to see the movies that follow your reasoning.
Opening up the definition of sci-fi and fantasy to include these movies belittles the sci-fi/fantasy genre. This is not to say anything bad about those movies—they are great on their own—but sci-fi authors/screenwriters have worked hard to legitimize the genre and give it the respect it so richly deserves. Bad sci-fi (which there is plenty of on the SCI FI Channel) as well as bad interpretation of what can be considered sci-fi are the two things still dragging the genre down. When the SCI FI Channel came into existence I was extremely happy, since there was now an entire channel dedicated to my favorite genre which I thought would help to legitimize it further while providing us fans with the programming we desire. However, with a few exceptions, the SCI FI Channel has miserably failed at this. The extremely poor programming decisions by the SCI FI Channel executives have turned away the very fans they were supposed to cater too. I know I hardly watch it anymore. For good sci-fi these days, it seems like the only place to go is your local bookstore or library. You just can't beat Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, Heinlein, Baxter, Bear, Sawyer, etc.
Rob Caldera
rcaldera@comcast.net
had great hopes for [Firefly] and was initially terribly disappointed, but due to lack of anything else compelling decided to give it a few more tries. Why? Because of the producer, because of the milieu, I thought it could yet find promise in a poor American west metaphor. While the premise
itself is nothing to write home about, but the actual writing, the individual stories and the personalities of the cast as they emerged finally won me over. I think it has a great uphill battle to fight, but I think it could win it, if left to find its legs.
The greater question for me is why is it so hard to make compelling sci-fi/fantasy for the mass audience. I think Firefly is an excellent example of why:
1. Cost—This is not a cheap show to make, and as the cast grows in stature it will only get more expensive.
2. Setting—There is so much to familiarize the audience with that you are saddled with either boring exposition/backstory or leaving the audience to say, "Huh? Where did that come from?" This is a very difficult balancing act. Success is rare.
3. Characters—This is a huge cast. It will take a season just to begin to reveal the characters' most basic natures and two to begin to put depth into the writing of them and their interacting relationships. (Remember there's only around 40 minutes of actual show there to draw from).
Why is it so difficult? Let me make this analogy: If you wanted to tell the story of The Lord of the Rings as a weekly series, think of how difficult it would be to build an audience if that story were not already known in advance. You have this fantastic story, but you have to dole it out at roughly 40 pages a week (less really, since you now have to include character background, scenario explanations) and rather than continue the quest each week you're forced to end a given story, while continuing the overall story arc of the quest.
Could you prove the concept in eight weeks? Could you prove it well enough to justify the cost? Try to introduce eight characters in one 40-page script.
Babylon 5 is the closest to a success story I can present to having done something of this nature well. But how many networks did it flee to just to continue the next season?
Good fiction, really good fiction, is an evolving process that moves to an ending through complication and reversal. It ultimately builds expectation and excitement as it approaches what will be the closing of a chapter in a larger story. This is very difficult to do in the small drops that the
weekly TV format dictates. It is also one that TV is not especially good at. It is like digging with a pitchfork—you can do it, but it isn't easy and the results are usually not what you'd like them to be.
As long as the majority of viewing audiences are unwilling to give a complex show time to settle in, and networks are impatiently looking for the next cheap fad/craze that pays off well, waiting for a decent, but imperfect show—no matter what promise it may evidence—to become more than a
couldabeen, will be a way of life for those of us that crave simply good fiction (SF, fantasy or other). In this scenario, the possibility of great fiction is more remote than the farthest star.
Dirk Griffin
ddgryphon@netscape.net
am writing about Firefly's poor ratings. The largest fault, I believe, lies with Fox network itself. It settled the show in a time slot that historically performs poorly, and then failed to advertise the show after Firefly's initial airing. Fox also forced producers to pull the original two-hour pilot, calling it "boring." I've read the script for this pilot, and even that dry reading was far from "boring." I can only imagine what this pilot, which set up the show's world, characters, and motivations admirably, is like, and I hope that Fox will stick to its promise to air this pilot in December. Unfortunately, Fox then aired the episodes out of order, beginning with the two weakest episodes. This move sacrificed important character development, and gave the viewers a muddled impression of the Firefly world and characters that took several episodes to dispel. Just when the show began to truly gain momentum, Fox removed it from their lineup for two weeks, losing even some devoted viewers who believed it was canceled.
Amazingly, Firefly has risen above these difficulties, rewarding those viewers who made the effort to continue watching past the first episode (that in and of itself difficult, due to baseball preemptions in many areas).
First of all, this show flies right out of all its assigned genres. It isn't simply a western, a sci-fi, a drama or a comedy—it's a satisfyingly balanced mix of all four, smoothly integrating many varied elements. The dialogue crackles with jokes and dramatic intensity, sometimes both within the same line!
The stories are innovative and untraditional—more in line with the ambiguous Clint Eastwood antiheroism who has had so much success in motion pictures than the treacly and predictable good-or-bad characters that populate most of television. Firefly's plots can simply entertain or else spawn analysis and contemplation with equal ease. This is television meant to be watched, not just background noise. Close attention is rewarded.
The actors and actresses do an incredible job. They make it more than easy to believe in this strange world—they make it feel illogical not to believe. There is a genuine camaraderie and earnestness in their work here. They even follow and post on the show's board, taking valuable free time to answer fans' questions and thank us for our devotion.
While I am grateful to the Fox network for bringing me Firefly to begin with, and feel that it has not made any effort to make viewers aware of it and then complains that not enough people are watching. I assume that the network is not as unintelligent as this would make them appear, and I hope that they will give this innovative show the chance it deserves, either bringing it back in a better time slot or else promoting it decently for the time slot it is in. After all, how many long-running hit shows did well right out of the gate (both Cheers and X-Files remained in the very bottom of the ratings for their first seasons, after all), even when they weren't laboring under network handicaps to begin with?
Keep Firefly flying!
Karen M. Keen
Odalisques@aol.com
very intelligent review [of the film Back to the Future]....
Your remark about [Robert] Zemeckis, et. al., expecting the audience to "get it" without detailed explanations, is not quite correct. Rather, Zemeckis is unexcelled at laying everything out in a perfectly clear and unambiguous fashion. He is also virtually unique in being able to direct special-effects-laden films in which the audience is never aware of the special effects, as demonstrated so wonderfully in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. He would have been the perfect choice for the Harry Potter films.
William Sommerwerck
williams@nwlink.com
Reviewer Paul Di Filippo responds:
William—many thanks for your kind words about my BTTF review. You make an important distinction about Zemeckis' flair for inserting info painlessly. I'll keep that in mind watching future films of his!
Best,
Paul
have to disagree with some elements of Tasha Robinson's review of Pratchett's Night Watch. I think it is a major work in the Vimes arc, and apart from a few inconsistencies about Vetinari in the final scene, it hung together very well.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Vimes repeatedly commented to himself about the changes he was making from those he remembered, but the end result was the same (because it was the same). The monks never made it clear if Vimes was always John Keel, and that it was his memories of the earlier events that was causing him to change things. If you read Discworld Science: The Globe, you'll understand Pratchett's views about the mutability of time and how he managed to avoid explaining any of this in Night Watch.
Finally, that Vimes would return to his own time was never the issue. Unhappy endings is not in Pratchett's style. The issue was would the Vimes that returned be the Vimes that left, or would he have been someone who finally had let the beast run loose.
My only complaint about Night Watch was that Vetinari never finally explained to Vimes why he let the Night Watch collapse over the ensuing years, until Vimes finally became Commander in Guards! Guards!.
Nev Angove
lecygne@iprimus.com.au
Reviewer Tasha Robinson responds:
I don't have any argument with Pratchett's views about the mutibility of time. It's his storytelling style I'm questioning. Night Watch takes pains to hide the nature of its final conflict from the reader, even though that conflict has already happened in one timeline, and is past history for some of the characters. In this case, I believe the book would have been more dramatic had we known what Vimes was walking into from the beginning, without knowing how or whether his presence would change things. It's the old Hitchcock school of plotting: If a bomb explodes in a restaurant during a film, the audience jumps. But the audience can be kept on the edge of their seats indefinitely if they know the bomb is there before it explodes. In this sense, Pratchett deliberately hid his bomb from the very beginning, when the Watch veterans were talking in circles around the climactic events.
I was not expecting an unhappy ending; you're right, that's not Pratchett's style. But in other recent books—The Fifth Elephant in particular—he had me convinced that an unhappy ending was possible. Not so in Night Watch.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book. I just felt it fell short of Pratchett's impeccably high standards, and his many other fabulous novels.
Best,
Tasha
Back to the top.
