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.
think the debate between science fiction and fantasy could use some definition ("SFX's Fave List Lacks Character", "Lowest Common Denominator Wins Again", "Sci-Fi Fans Shouldn't Become Snobs" and "Rings and Slayer Are Not SF"). If it involves metal deck plates and technology of some kind in a near/far future civilization, it's science fiction. If it involves some kind of supernatural, non-tool related (wands, staves, crucifixes, stakes, etc.) means of power, it's fantasy.
For example: When the starship Enterprise goes into warp drive, it uses its warp engines to do so. The engines are a pure work of fiction and could be construed as fantasy by contemporary physicists and engineers. The starship Enterprise, although fictional, has one foot in reality. The device of the warp engine gives us a real-world analog that we can understand in our contemporary world. Although warp engines do not exist, they have to work within the boundary of nature and in the nature of the Star Trek universe. Hence, they're bound by tangible rules.
Magic on the other hand, has no boundaries. Magic makes up the bulk of fantasy fiction. This is not to say that there are no checks and balances in storytelling in fantasy, it's just that a real-world analog does not need to exist. Anything can be given power, and the power can be limited only by the
imagination.
When Frodo's sword Sting glows as orcs approach, it doesn't have to explain why it does, it just does. We know that elves built it. They're magical and they make magic stuff. That's all we need to know.
Magic enemies come about as a result of curses or other forms of various wizardy. Vampires and werewolves are usually the result of curses. Sometimes a villain can possess a cursed object that turns them evil.
On the science fiction side of the fence, the villains can have skewed programming, an alien viewpoint or just some sort of internal issues that a lot of therapy or imprisonment could take care of.
All that being said, any "top ten" list ("Top SF Characters Ranked") that has a mix of both fantasy and science fiction characters in it at the same time is usually not the product of a science-fiction or fantasy fan, but that of some marketing types that probably haven't picked up more than one comic book in their life, and possibly only watched a handful of films not based in reality.
Marketers want to lump everything in one neat little package and we the fans have to sort out our preferences from their ignorance. Go into any movie/DVD store and look in the science-fiction section. You'll see more than science fiction. You'll usually see horror (and horrible) movies lumped into a small section with old stand-bys like Star Trek mixed in. Not that science fiction can't have elements of horror in it. Alien was a horror film and a science-fiction film, but the Friday the 13th series of movies are not science fiction.
To summarize, if our hero fires a weapon and it has mechanical properties, it's science fiction. If our hero fires a weapon and its blessed, cursed, supernaturally charged, only works when the hero says something or feels something, or any non-mechanical means, it's fantasy.
What needs to happen is that shrewd marketers need to find a way to acknowledge the various differences rather than lumping fans of imaginative fiction all into one category, and we fans need to be more discriminating in our choices of what we buy as science fiction/imaginative fiction.
If the SCI FI Channel wants to show Braveheart, bad horror movies and a never-ending parade of Bowflex commercials and call itself a science-fiction channel, it's free to do so. If we, as the consumers, want science fiction, we don't have to watch. We always have the Internet as a means to interact, and possibly create our own niche markets.
Dave
dgrhm@hotmail.com
FW's review of the Literature of SF DVDs and its earlier review of Eric Solstein's John Campbell DVD, coupled with the posting of SFX's poll listing the "Ten Most Popular Science Fiction Characters of All Time" ("Top SF Characters Ranked"), give us a telling look at the genre's past and its present. Those who would applaud the former and condemn the latter are missing the point; from science fiction to sci-fi, from Golden Age to God Awful, how did we get from there to here?
(Don't knock the SFX voters. Had it been a music survey, Eminem would have beaten Elvis, Snoop Dogg would placed higher than Stevie Wonder and J. Lo would have thrashed Janice Joplin. Those who extol the creations of Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke are dreaming of a Big Band comeback! Isn't
science fiction supposed to boldly go where no one has gone before?)
To conclude that TV has won the hearts and minds of sci-fi fans would seem valid, but with Buffy on her last legs and Enterprise on its final trek and original sci-fi series dying barely out of the can, one "tremors" at the thought of the TV sci-fi ahead.
Where will the new movies come from? Star Trek, the franchise, is mercifully done. Star Wars and Rings have one film to go while the Terminator and Matrix series have two chapters left. While there are new projects rumored in the making, most come from 40-year-old books and short stories.
Surely things are more hopeful on the literary front. Sadly, that is not the case as more and more same old sci-fi and fantasy series seem to go on without end. Novelizations of films and spin-offs from TV shows, past and present, clog the shelves. Harry Potter is doing fine, thank you, but when
was the last time the release of an SF novel made any news?
Michael Crichton got $20 million for Prey, perhaps as much as the rest of the sci-fi authors made put together, while Mel Gibson in Signs grossed over $200 million. Both efforts combined PC family values and PC (Pretty Clumsy) science fiction. The Lovely Bones is the surprise novel of the season, while Forever has earned positive reviews. One is told by the spirit of teenage rape/murder victim looking down from "heaven," while the other is about a man granted immortality provided he never leaves Manhattan. Like the best of SF, both are fresh voices from a unique perspective on the human condition, but neither author nor publisher wants to be associated with science fiction. Once at the cutting edge of literature, dulled down sci-fi has sunk to the bottom of the market barrel, getting less respect than comic books and graphic novels.
Angry and disappointed at the genre's prospects? Whose fault is it? Should we hold the movie studios and the TV networks or the publishers responsible for the sorry state of science fiction?
The classic Greeks gave birth to science fiction and organized wrestling. Once idealistic pursuits, both have evolved to be where the money is. Our money. We only have ourselves to blame.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
am writing in response to a review given by Steve ("Shyamalan's Signs Should Be Ignored") regarding Signs. Worst film ever? Are we talking about the same film?
I have seen a lot of crappy science-fiction flicks in my lifetime and this ain't one of them. Signs is a great film. The storyline, as farfetched to some as it may seem, was inventive. No one has really touched upon the subject of crop circles without making a fool of themselves, but [director M. Night] Shyamalan made the topic interesting enough to consume the minds of people who couldn't care less where they (crop circles) come from. Heck, I couldn't care less. At least, I didn't until I saw this film. The best part of this film was the technique. The way the camera picked up on Bo's feet as she hid in the corner. The shadows of the aliens as they ran past the windows. The camouflage skin that made me think twice about undressing in the living room! It is obvious Shyamalan has learned from a master. Maybe you heard of him, his name is Hitchcock!
Personally, I enjoyed it enough to call it a favorite. Needless to say, I think the bad review could be better suited for a movie far more deserving, like Ghost Ship, or They, or ...
Consuela R.
con_rodriguez@yahoo.com
he second [season] of Enterprise just got started in the U.K., and looks all right. But like almost everything Trek, it is so obviously constrained by formula. Paramount has a franchise which continues to make it money, and nobody sees the need to rock that boat. OK, from a business point of view, it's hard to argue a case. Why fix what ain't broke, so to speak. What Paramount is missing, though, is exactly what Gene Roddenberry pioneered with the original Star Trek. The universe already created could easily compete with Babylon 5 and Farscape. Surely, Paramount can afford to try and update its thinking. If only for a pilot show. All that's needed is for the writers to be allowed to use their
imagination.
Enterprise reimaged: Archer is as deep and political as John Sheridan. T'Pol knows what effect she has on human males, and uses it to show them how weak they are. Dr. Phlox is another species, rather like an grumpy, alcoholic Hynerian. Tripp secretly believes the only good alien is a dead one. Hoshi is a lesbian version of Chiana. Porthos keeps leaving "messages" for his master to step in. The off-the-peg English guy, whose name I can never remember, is instead an urbane Arab who detests 21st-century U.S. culture. Oh, and just for luck, the ships computer acts like the ghost of HAL, and is trying to eliminate the crew without being found out. Now, isn't that a show worth watching?
Any offers from Paramount executives for me to write this script will be gratefully received.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
resident Bush's proposal to remove the tax on dividends has an amusing SF twist. This is most emphatically not a new idea. If the SF reader will pull out his dog-eared copy of Robert Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon, he will surely find buried in it the line "this double taxation of dividends has to stop." To be sure, this was treated as a Babbitt-like complaint by a
beancounter, but still ...
And people say SF doesn't predict the future?!
Alan Kornheiser
akornhisnospam@optonline.net
hanks for the great interview with Farscape's Lani Tupu! I loved him as Crais, especially later on in the story, and Pilot is such a wonderfully engaging character that I always forget that he's made of plastic—largely due to Lani's wonderful voice acting.
Grace M. Lapsley
truemyth@san.rr.com
he season premiere of Farscape was one of the best shows in the history of science-fiction television. It was funny, irreverent, profound and moving.
[WARNING: SPOILERS]
Very, very rarely do science-fiction protagonists ever show genuine emotion or compassion. When Crichton unselfconsciously kisses a younger version of himself, it was one of the most human moments in television. In that one moment, he showed himself to be more of a man than other venerable sci-fi icons like Picard, Foster or the stale Dr. Who. It was a risk to show authentic emotion, not to his friends, but to the viewers. Heroes are too often gun-toting emblems of physical courage who are willing to make sacrifices or do what's right, but rarely do they ever take emotional risks or show emotional vulnerability. (Only Londo Molari's [of Babylon 5] reaction to the genocide of the Narn comes remotely close).
I used to hate the SCI FI Channel for canceling Farscape. But after I read [Ben] Browder's interview about being grateful for the creativity that he was allowed, and the risk that they took, I now find myself strangely appreciative. I am grateful to the SCI FI Channel for taking the risk and funding such a remarkable show. I am grateful to the writers, producers, actors and everyone involved in the show. But mostly, I am grateful for the show's willingness to take emotional risks and enter some truly uncharted territory.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
hile the paste eaters were plunked down in front of the TV with a big tub of Elmer's glue watching Bachelor or Fear Factor or Survivor, I was engrossed in a show that had the audacity of using words like "laconic" and "terse" ... in the same sentence! The premature demise of Firefly from Fox network has been a great disappointment. Firefly was witty, intelligent, intriguing and vastly entertaining. I loved the archaic and multi-lingual speech; the developing, complicated characters; and the germination of interesting plot lines.
Perhaps the SCI FI Channel (of which I am an avid viewer) could have the foresight and intelligence to at least rebroadcast all the Firefly episodes as well as the remaining unaired three or four episodes? And, if the viewer response is positive enough, dare we hope that SCI FI orders additional episodes!?
Please consider this heartfelt request from those of us who felt our need for intelligent escapism was sorely deprived by Fox's actions.
Maryl Aldrich
maldrich@fnf.com
urge all reader's of Science Fiction Weekly's Letters page to read and reread (often)
Rhonda S. Garcia's letter, "Tolkien and Jackson Aren't Twins." It's an intelligent, thoughtful reflection on the origin of Tolkien purists' difficulties with the film version of the professor's literary masterpiece.
Why people can't simply sit back and enjoy both book and movie is beyond me.
Chris Dolwick
crd@po.cwru.edu
fter reading all the comments disparaging Peter Jackson's version of Lord of the Rings ("Rings Sequel Was a Towering Bore", "Tower Structure Difficult to Accept", "Jackson Destroys Tolkien's Tale", "Tolkien Was Betrayed by Jackson"), I couldn't help thinking how thankful we should be that this production fell into the hands of a someone who cares about the material, and not a bunch of typical Hollywood hacks. How bad could this be? Here's my version of a pitch for the Hollywoodized Lord of the Rings:
We think that we've assembled a great package for the Lord of the Rings movie. The current shooting script covers all three books in one movie that should clock in at just over 85 minutes total. All we had to do was compress the plot a bit, and eliminate some minor incidental characters such as Tom Bombadil, Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, Theoden, Denethor and Gollum. Anyway, the entire cast listed below is fully committed and ready to begin production.
The Fellowship of the Ring
As Gandalf: Eddie Murphy
He's been around Hollywood long enough to have the "gravitas" for this role, plus he still has a faded aura of hipness. (Or so he thinks.) Expect a humorous take on the character, with lots of quips along the lines of "Who says a Grey Wizard can't be Black?" and "White wizard? Did you say white wizard?"
As Frodo: Justin Timberlake
As well as giving Justin his big chance to break into the movies, this opened the door for casting the rest of N'Sync as the other Hobbits in the party. Chris will put on 50 pounds to play the role of Sam. (Actually, he was planning to put on the pounds anyway.) An extra Hobbit named Flopsy will be added to the fellowship to allow Lance to participate. (Don't worry purists, he'll plummet to his death during their showstopping musical number, a synchronized dance routine set on a crumbling staircase in the
depths of Moria.) OK, so they're not quite as hip as they were when we inked the contract last year. Who knew? We may just kill off all of the Hobbits, except Frodo.
As Aragorn: Brad Pitt
This is actually a package deal too, allowing us to get Jennifer Aniston as Arwen. Brad is already in intense preparation for the role, refusing to shave or comb his hair and pouting a lot. Oh wait, I guess he hasn't started preparing yet.
As Boromir: Bruce Willis
A real casting coup, this does present some minor problems. Mr. Willis refuses to wear a wig, so the character will be renamed "Baldomir." Also, his contract stipulates that his character can't actually die until the last reel, so Baldomir's death scene will drag on throughout the entire trilogy.
As Legolas: Nathan Lane
We told our casting people to get us the top Elf in Hollywood. Elf? Fairy? There's a difference? Anyway, he's always wanted to play a role where he gets to wear a long blonde wig. He intends to "really push" the blossoming friendship between Legolas and Gimli.
As Gimli: Verne "Mini Me" Troyer
We told our casting people to find the most popular Dwarf in Hollywood. Dwarf? Midget? There's a difference? Since it turns out that he's completely out of scale and will have to be composited into every shot anyway, we're mostly going to lift his image out of discarded footage from the Austin
Powers movies, adding the beard in digitally. Expect lots of shots of him biting Orcs and Trolls, ones that bear a strong resemblance to Mike Meyers, in the crotch. In fact, the Crotch Bite will be Gimli's signature combat move. Hilarity will surely ensue! To cover for his lack of a decent speaking
voice, Verne's dialogue will be dubbed in by John Madden and his musical parts will be done by Barry White.
Matt Frey
mattgfrey@aol.com
Back to the top.
