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 warnings that one should watch Fellowship of the Ring again before seeing The Two Towers was the perfect excuse for me to watch the DVD director's cut. I had expected it to be the same with a few extra scenes. While that's technically true, the result feels like a different movie. The longer version is much richer, gives depth to the characters and more complex motivations and actually feels closer to the book in tone.
Example: After the prologue, the movie begins with Frodo under a tree jumping up to greet Gandalf. The longer version begins with Bilbo starting to write The Hobbit and gives loving attention to The Shire. A little later in the movie we see Frodo and Sam leaving a local inn, the last happy scene in the Shire. In the longer version, we spend time inside the inn with Merry and Pippin dancing on a table singing a drinking song. Later in the movie, we spend more time with Aragorn and come to understand how doubtful he is of his
ability to resist the power of the ring and we have more scenes with Boromir. Most important, the whole Lothlorien scene with Galadriel, which felt very short in the [original version of the] movie, is given a lengthy treatment including Galadriel giving gifts to each member of the Fellowship, not just Frodo.
I hope eventually they'll show it in the movie houses. They could if they included an intermission. Meanwhile, I highly recommend it to anyone who has a chance to see it.
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
hat was an excellent review of the movie [The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers].
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
There were a few things, believe it or not, I didn't like about the movie. First, they left out a lot from the books. The storming of Isengard, the reuniting of Aragorn, Gimli, Gandalf, Legolas with Merry and Pipin, the meeting of Shelob for Frodo and Sam, etc. I haven't read The Return of the King yet, so I wonder if Jackson felt there wasn't enough in the third book for stand-alone material and will borrow some from The Two Towers.
Second, the pacing of the movie was very difficult, I'm sure. I couldn't imagine any director trying to keep track of three major groups of characters. But, I felt the Battle of Helm's Deep needed to be one long segment, instead of the constant interruption of Merry and Pipin with the Ents.
Third, I'm uncertain if Faramir's motives and action were the same as the book. As far as I recall, when Faramir learns what Boromir did and that Frodo has the Ring, he denies the want for it, knowing what it did to his brother. In the book, Faramir finds Boromir's body after it went over the falls and realizes something evil befell his brother. Maybe I'm wrong; I'd have to recheck it.
Overall, I agree the movie deserves an A rating. And as for the Aragorn, Eowyn and Arwen [love triangle], the book doesn't go into it much either. At least not that I recall. Anyway, just wanted to share my thoughts with you, as I did with some of [reviewer Patrick Lee's] other reviews. Have a good day!
Bernard E. Cana
talonkane@cfl.rr.com
found John A.M. Darnell's comments concerning his religious faith in
relation to fantasy works quite refreshing ("Harry Potter Is Hardly Evil"). What he proved was that common sense and religious belief are not mutually exclusive, and that's a lesson some Fundamentalists need to learn. I recently lost an old friend to Born Again Christianity. I say lost, as this chap—a well educated fellow in his late 40s—has gone from being someone who could see all perspectives, to someone who spouts happy claptrap and thinks that God doesn't want him to read Harry Potter! So it's good to see that a self-confessed Christian saw and enjoyed Chamber of Secrets without bursting into flames.
Those who do have strong faith and open minds might like to spend a few minutes thinking about things from the other side of the theological fence. To atheists, belief in any religion as the literal
truth is as incompressible as thinking that Dumbledore, Aslan or Gandalf are real people. What fantasy and religion have in common, though, is the ability to affect change by telling stories and giving examples. In the end, what does it matter if something really happened, or is approved by an official religion, providing what it promotes is beneficial. As John pointed out, Harry Potter is essentially a good boy. If power is not, of itself, good or bad, then Harry Potter is demonstrably using that power to combat evil at every opportunity. Satan, Sauron, Voldemort, they're all embodiments of the same thing. Surely, that makes Harry Potter an ally of Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, etc., not their enemy?
Finally, John's line that he "wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Harry Potter is a practicing Anglican," is something I'm taking as an example of Christian humor. Possibly the most valuable things that Harry Potter shows adults and children alike is that a rigid system of faith is not a mandatory requirement in order to do good, and that unless we consciously choose otherwise, power corrupts. Regardless of who holds that power, or where it came from.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
want to thank [reviewer Paul Di Filippo] for reviewing Kube-McDowell's latest novel Vectors. Wasn't it great? A rather different mix for a SF novel. I have been a big fan of K-Mc ever since his first novel, Emprise, came out in 1985 or so. At that time he was living in my home town of Goshen, Ind., but unfortunately, I never got to know him before he moved to Michigan.
I have read all of his novels since then except his Star Wars trilogy. Unfortunately, he hasn't got the attention he deserves even with his novel The Quiet Pools making the final ballot for the Hugo award in 1991. Hopefully, with the help of [Paul Di Filippo] and others, he will get noticed more for his latest novel and become a bigger name. I am looking forward to the sequel, Fragments.
Lee Pfahler
weluvbooks1@juno.com
saw Star Trek Nemesis this weekend. I was disappointed, to said the least.
I expected the movie to be full of life, [but] I came away with the feeling that I was robbed. Where was the playfulness and the interaction between the crew members? What purpose did Whoopi [Goldberg] and Will [Wheaton] serve in the movie?
I could go on and on pointing out things wrong with this movie. If this is the best they can do, they should stop making movies.
Kathy D. Davis
Deshund@worldnet.att.net
am forced to agree with much of Michael Lustig's comments, "Abductions Are Fiction, Not Fact" from the Dec. 9 issue of Science Fiction Weekly. I would add a few points of my own.
The alien abduction idea, once relegated to the paranoid backroom of the cult conspiracy theorist, has managed to achieve even less credibility upon going mainstream. Put simply, the concept has been mined to exhaustion, both in fictional representation and in quasi-official exploration. Now the abduction hypothesis is a sad cliche, and so much of the "cutting edge" television and motion picture capital being expended on this tired premise winds up stinking heavily of cliche.
There are no new ideas in SF, it has been said. I'd propose a corollary: There are even fewer new ideas when it comes to hackneyed abduction/UFO scripts.
What happened to Golden- and Silver-Age SF, when humanity was the go-getter, venturing ever outward into space in grand conquest of the stars? If the current fixation on UFO/abduction prattle is any indication, we've entered an SF dark age that forever turns inward, making humans into perpetual
victims at the hands of interstellar molesters and perverts.
Frankly, I smell the toxic ooze of postmodernism and political correctness in all of this.
If there is to be a return to the Golden and Silver Ages of SF, then that return cannot come soon enough for me!
Brad Torgersen
sub-odeon@attbi.com
don't necessarily want to go back-and-forth ad infinitum with a defense of my letter ("Abductions Are Fiction, Not Fact"), but I feel that I should at least respond publicly to the counter-letter that was published. Shane Stephenson ("SF Is All About Theory, Not Fact") has obviously read my letter, but misses the point. I never said that there weren't alien lifeforms out there (my references to "good" SF should probably have alerted him to the fact that I'm generally a fan), rather that none of them have ever visited us, particularly in the (relatively) extremely short timespan that we've been "conscious" as a race.
"Theory" is a nice concept to bat around, but the essence of developing a theory is to root it in fact and extrapolate intelligently. That's obviously not what's happening here. To use Shane's own observation, if there are million-to-one odds against intelligent life developing out there, the mere vastness of space and laws of physics (yes, in the real world), preclude the possibility of recent visits. The odds would be on the order of winning multiple state lotteries while simultaneously being struck by lightning (and living to tell the tale).
I'm not against fiction that uses this as a premise, rather those who treat it as either a highly probable event, or in many cases, reality.
Rather than "suggesting that half-to-most of the United States population is suffering from mass hysteria," Shane should just read what I said: that "half-to-most" of the population is basically just stupid, not delusional. I'm saddened by this unfortunate statistic, and I frankly look to media outlets like the SCI FI Channel (and this newsletter) as a means to help correct this state of affairs (over a very long interval) by presenting the public with intelligent SF. I sincerely pray that they rise to the challenge.
Michael Lustig
mpl@blackrock.com
have to say that I approached Taken with a leery eye, as most stories of abduction bore me to tears. I missed the first night but managed to find time for the second night. Then I was hooked. While I don't believe abduction stories or UFOs for that matter (the irony in the fact that I visit Roswell four times or more a year to visit my in-laws is a bit painful), I found the story quite compelling and well written.
It's hard not to take from past stories when talking about this subject. There have been enough movies and TV shows on the subject that it's hardly original. The fact that [Steven] Speilberg made me care about the characters and kept me guessing is what drew me to it.
To compare this to the X-Files is inevitable. The X-Files dealt with abduction on a regular basis. Complaints about story line rip-offs are to be given little heed ("Taken Takes from the Classics"). You have to recognize the fact that the X-Files ripped a lot of its stuff off from other shows too. (Besides, the X-Files implants were in the base of the neck, not the brain!).
All in all, a well done show. I just hope they don't try to turn this into a weekly series, a la V. I still don't believe in little green men, abductions or UFO's, but at least I was well entertained.
Dan Ware
Ware.Dan@aaa-newmexico.com
applaud the SCI FI Channel for airing Taken! [It is the] most marvelous and fascinating miniseries I had ever seen on cable television! The characters, the different timelines were quite unique in a sense that it truly enforced the development of the whole story/series with each advancing story.
What can I
say about the characters? They were simply the best for the roles! Dakota Fanning was great as Allie Keys (beautiful, beautiful choice) and so were all the rest! This whole series let me embark farther outside my "box" to wonder more about life outside our own, even if this whole series was fictional.
Once again Steven Spielberg had done a great job directing this piece! I am expecting more of this kind of quality "made for TV" shows in the future, SCI FI Channel. Keep up the good work!
Carlo Domingo
onesecplz@hotmail.com
feel compelled to write and voice my displeasure over the current state of series programming on the SCI FI Channel. Over the past year, SCI FI has moved away from true science fiction and fantasy towards shows geared towards attracting a more mainstream audience. While I understand the desire to reach new audiences, the name of SCI FI Channel would imply trying to build audiences interested in science fiction.
For 2003, [the SCI FI Channel] will be airing at least three series that would fit in with any other networks' programming (Crossing Over, The Dream Team and Scare Tactics). I don't mean to offer negative critiques of shows I have never watched, but I believe these shows do not fit the brand of a channel devoted to science fiction. (Sci-Fi, right?). I would suspect that all three of these shows could be replaced with popular sci-fi series' reruns for a savings in new production cost. This savings could be used to fund original movies or keep fan favorite shows like Farscape in production.
I am sure [the SCI FI Channel has] had many voice complaints regarding the cancellation of Farscape. I understand that the high cost of this show required a larger audience number to justify its continuation. I would take the position that one of the major barriers to gaining viewers was the scheduling of the series. Running 8 to 13 episodes in the summer and then the remaining episodes in the following spring created a tremendous barrier of entry. As a fan of the series, I found myself forgetting about the show and not paying attention to the dates for the second half of the season. For non fans who may have attempted to follow the show, that barrier would be insurmountable.
In the place of the Farscape, we see shows like Tremors being brought to the airwaves. I would guess based on the poor box office numbers of the Tremors films that the audience for a new series based on the films is as limited as the plot possibilities of a series based on the films.
If I were to replace Bonnie Hammer [president of the SCI FI Channel] tomorrow, here is what I would do:
1. Expand new programming to cover three weekend evenings. SCI FI Channel has offered many series over the last few years without giving many time to gain an audience. Buy six new series this fall and run them for 26 contiguous weeks. People need the opportunity to find shows and in turn for shows to find a voice. Also, continue the excellent SCI FI original movies in these weekend slots.
2. For weeknight prime time, use syndicated shows to offer alternatives to network programs. Examples of shows that maintained respectable numbers in first run: Highlander, Xena, Hercules, Babylon 5, X-Files, Roswell. Most of these shows have been or will be seen on the channel.
3. Two SCI FI twists on popular concepts. 1. Biography Sci-Fi examines seminal sci-fi voices like Heinlein, Asimov, Clark, Roddenberry, etc. 2. Science Fiction Magazine is Entertainment Tonight for the sci-fi genre. This could be based on the print SCI FI magazine.
My thoughts as a fan of SCI FI and of television.
Kevin Webb
webb3201@airmail.net
Back to the top.
