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.
simply cannot describe how dismayed—no, make that disgusted—[I am] at the news that The WB is planning a new Tarzan series ("Fimmel's Tarzan"); worse, a reworked, updated one set in New York of all places. It seems like every time I turn around, some new version of this venerable classic (on which I cut my literary teeth) is being foisted on us by Whorywood. First, it was that odd Tarzan and the Lost City, which wasn't too bad, but had some strange, almost new-age elements which left a bad taste with me. But on the heels of that was the execrable Disney botch, for which I will never forgive the House of Louse. And now this deformed mutant from the WB.
Every idiot in Hollywood who can't offer something new thinks he can get away with taking something old, only with a twist to make it look fresh. Well, that just doesn't cut it anymore. And they scratch their empty heads and wonder why people don't watch their tripe masquerading as TV entertainment.
Dana Boden
etaonrish@cox.net
n [Scott Edelman's] editorial, "Things That Are Easy and Things That Are Hard," you
write, "Ever since the disaster, news analysts have been polling the public with such questions as 'Should the space shuttle program continue?' I am pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that we should."
Nothing convinces me more that America's space effort is in danger of collapse than this response. The Space Shuttle is not the only way into space, and it is not the best. Indeed, it is one of the worst ways into space ever designed by the mind of man. Payloads launched by Shuttle are twice as expensive to place into orbit as they are by the next most expensive launch vehicle. Nor is the Shuttle safe; we've lost 14 astronauts in the past 23 years, compared to zero for the Russians. Granted the Russians don't fly as much, but the simplicity and ruggedness of their cheaper-to-operate launch vehicles ensures they will never have to worry about a solid-core rocket O-ring or heat-tile failure because they have neither solid-core rocket O-rings nor heat tiles to fail.
Columbia was over 23 years old and based on a 30-year-old design. Until recently, its flight deck computers were as primitive as those found inside an Atari 2600 video game. That is to be expected, for it was designed in an era when personal computers did not exist and four-function pocket calculators were as expensive as personal computers are today.
In addition, the heat tiles which may have triggered the catastrophe are based on materials technology that has been obsolete by two decades. Is there some mysterious reason why the American people embrace such obsolescent technology—or is it merely nostalgic stubbornness, the same
stubbornness that led people to ride horse and buggies well into the 20th century?
Let's not fall for the logical fallacy that the heroism of seven brave astronauts somehow excuses poor engineering design. We need to develop a new space-launch system, and it will cost billions of dollars to do so. I won't argue whether the Shuttle program needs to be shut down in the interim, but as long as the program runs, it will consume billions of dollars yearly that could go toward building a new shuttle. And in the meantime the Old Shuttle is fast approaching the quarter-century mark—one
third of the way toward legitimately being called the Antique Shuttle.
We need to make a decision to develop new technology. We need a 21st-century Shuttle for the 21st century. Those who cling to primitive 20th-century space technology will surely condemn more astronauts to die as the Shuttle fleet continues to irreversibly age.
Joe Schembrie
joeschem@hotmail.com
n countless TV screens and computer monitors, the world beheld a streaking flash of light signaling the tragic end of Columbia. But I saw something else.
There will come a time for all of us, and as much as I hope that mine is neither soon nor drawn out, I hope even more that my death will be not be meaningless or in vain.
Life is much more than an accumulation exercise. Wealth should not define our worth, nor possessions our place. Life is for making the world better for us having been here. Often, a frustrating struggle to create even the tiniest change, life is a quest to leave something worthwhile behind after our short
stay.
The final fiery arc of Columbia was not a mission ending, but beckoning yet anew; the exploration of the universe, once the flickering fantasy of science fiction, will never be snuffed out.
Remember the blazing spirits of seven individuals striving to make humanity more at home in the cosmos. I can still see that light. I hope I always will. And that I might leave just a glimmer behind me after I'm gone.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
ith our community's recent discussion ("SF Umbrella Shelters Many Genres", "Sci-Fi and Fantasy Rules Rule", "Blame the Fan in the Mirror", "Lowest Common Denominator Wins Again", "Sci-Fi Fans Shouldn't Become Snobs", "Rings and Slayer Are Not SF" and "SFX's Fave List Lacks Character") of the controversy surrounding the top 10 science-fiction characters of all time, one thing is conspicuously absent: bad guys. Darth Vader made the list ("Top SF Characters Ranked"), but where are the rest of the villains?
Who are the top 10 anti-heroes of sci-fi? I'd humbly offer my top 10. (Eligible characters must have appeared on more than one episode of a show, so characters like Gul Madred, Picard's torturer in "Chain of Command," would not be eligible.) Ideally, anti-heroes would redefine the notion of what it was to be a villain.
Here goes:
10. Gul Dukat (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine): There's something to be said for the old-fashioned homicidal maniac type. Throw in dictator, conqueror, torturer, oppressor and racist and we have a top-ten player.
9. Tie
Q (Star Trek: The Next Generation): A popular favorite. Omni-everything and put it to poor use.
790 (Lexx): Pathological, obsessive robot head. Good thing he had no limbs.
8. Mandrid (Lexx): Mandrid had a true love of wanton destruction. A ghastly villain, unlikely to ever be produced on today's politically correct shows.
7. Mr. Rimmer (Red Dwarf): Irritating, annoying, self-interested. Already dead yet still a coward.
6. Davros (Dr. Who): Created the Daleks. Like Davros, not only did he not have a moral compunction about destroying the universe, but he actually found it to be an intrinsically desirable good.
5. Scorpius (Farscape) The aurora chair, leaving people separated from their skulls, and enjoying a good torture, this villain actually barked on all fours. A transformation beaten only by Londo.
4. Stanley H. Tweedle (Lexx): This coward caused the death of hundreds of billions of souls. The Lexx needs food, no problem, just eat Holland.
3. The Borg (Star Trek, particularly TNG): All those "we's" equal an "I". Gave us some great lines: "Resistance is futile," "you will be assimilated." They even broke our very best.
2. Londo Mollari (Babylon 5) Never considered himself evil, just a patriot. A lonely soulless man, the reticent architect of genocide. Don't make an enemy of clever, clever Londo.
1. Avon (Blake's 7) Morally ambiguous. Defined enlightened self-interest. Every line was a genuine classic. Never at a loss for an acerbic, caustic remark.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
he producers and program managers at the SCI FI Channel must think all sci-fi fans are mindless, oversexed teenagers, immature adults or just plain idiots they can con into watching sleazy made-up lunacy. The only appeal The Dream Team could have is to those types.
Real sci-fi fans, those who enjoy sci-fi books, movies and television, must cringe every time they see a commercial touting women dreaming they're men making love to women. I usually press "mute." This stuff belongs in the same
category as the tabloid magazines in grocery store news stands and tabloid TV shows you find lonely hearts watching at 2 p.m. weekdays. Somebody should start up the "Tabloid Channel," Then the rest of us
could watch reasonable, intelligent programming on the SCI FI Channel.
Hey, maybe a "Tabloid Channel" could just save America from from all that ails it. The oversexed teenagers, immature adults and idiots could spend 24/7 watching it and leave the rest of us in a safer, saner world.
Scott Barrow
scottmbarrow@aol.com
he Dream Team is boring, and stupid. How could [the SCI FI Channel] take away even one show of Crossing Over in favor of this crap? So many people need John Edward right now for comfort—I depend on his show so I can sleep a little more peacefully at night.
Please, get the boring DT off, and put John back in his regular time slot.
JoAnn Kish
ambereyes16@webtv.net
ust a little rant about some of the news [Science Fiction Weekly has] reported on in the last few weeks ("Robot, Max Dates Set"). First of all, and I've been saying this for a while now, I think director Alex Proyas should retitle I, Robot. Not abandon it, as I suppose some purists might wish, just rename it. The reason is that I am a huge fan of Harlan Ellison's screenplay for I, Robot which is also based on Asimov's stories. It is one of the injustices of the universe that Ellison's sublime script has never been filmed. I'm worried that with another movie with the same title coming out, the chances of it ever being made could diminish even more. True, some Hollywood producers have short memories, but I think Ellison's screenplay deserves a fair shot, and Proyas' title would do it a disservice.
I am not anti-Proyas—I greatly admire his films, and I hope to enjoy I, Robot as well ... but changing the title would make the dream of one day having Ellison's I, Robot brought to the screen seem a little closer. Of course, it may be just a dream, but I think there's room for both films.
I had a much stronger reaction to the news that Disney intends to film Piers Anthony's On a Pale Horse as a vehicle for Jamie Foxx ("Disney Rides Horse"). I think Mr. Foxx is a talented comedian and actor, and I am not totally against him portraying Death—his performance in Any Given Sunday showed that he can play serious.
But I have the sinking feeling that Anthony's witty satire and imaginative world will be buried under a miasma of juvenile jokes. I would like to give adapter Paul Guay the benefit of the doubt, but Disney's history of catering to the lowest common denominator—and its well-publicized policy of squeezing every last dollar from its film projects, like any corporation—fills me with dread. I don't deny that Anthony's novel is very cinematic, and I know one couldn't possibly cram everything in it onto the screen, but I think it would be far more challenging that the film make an effort to faithfully encapsulate Anthony's world and characters. The result, in my opinion, has the potential to be far more entertaining. But Hollywood producers usually associate "more challenging" with "bigger budgets."
And they hate that.
Alex Schor
AJSchor@aol.com
lease pardon me if I'm wrong, but I believe that recent editorial reply by Brian Murphy ("Faith Bravely Addressed in Signs") asserting that Mel Gibson couldn't have portrayed a Catholic priest [in Signs] because he was married, is not strictly correct. I believe that it is possible for a married Episcopalian priest who converts to Catholicism to enter the Catholic priesthood and stay married. I am neither Catholic or Episcopalian, but heard this during part of the recent debate over whether Catholic priests should be allowed to marry.
Greg Crider
criderjg@bellsouth.net
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
It appears that I have spoken out of turn. Having been a Catholic for my entire life, I made the assumption that if a priest was married, then he must be some other denomination; that he couldn't be a Catholic. I had never heard of any exceptions, although it appears—per your exception mentioned above—that it does happen from time to time.
I do, however, find it unlikely that this is what M. Night Shyamalan was portraying with Graham Hess in his film, Signs. While it's not impossible that Hess was Catholic, it's more probable that he was either Anglican or Episcopalian. I have been informed that priests in both these orders are called "father" and wear white collars similar to the Catholics'. However, unlike Catholics, they are allowed to marry. Unless M. Night Shyamalan chooses to comment, this is all ultimately speculation, as there isn't enough evidence in the film to definitively say one way or the other.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Best,
Brian
athan Brazil ("Enterprise Bound by Formula") makes a good point about Star Trek's ideals. Why can't they just, for once, present the Klingons or Romulans as, not only our equals, but perhaps our role models? After all, the Japanese used to behave somewhat like the Klingons, and look how far they have progressed.
There is, however, another thing about Star Trek's future that few have noticed. Certainly, I have not seen it mentioned on any letters here. It is an aspect of Trek ideal that actually undermines Nathan's idea of it being Western propaganda.
For the record, I am a fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Enterprise and many of the films. Also, I have a feeling of nostalgia when I watch the original episodes. So I am not dissing the Trek universe as such.
Before I saw Star Trek: First Contact, I thought of Star Trek as a future in a Western ideal. However I noticed a detail in the script that changed that. In Star Trek: First Contact, Capt. Picard briefly mentions to the people from the past that money is not an issue, and that everything is built for the good of the people. On demand, of course. After that, I got suspicious and decided to look closer at the ideals that Star Trek was propagating. It didn't take me long to realize that Star Trek's social system was not capitalist and western, but a liberal form of communism. Probably something that we got from the Vulcans.
I now wonder which side of the Cold War ideological battle Gene Roddenberry considered the best for our future. If you don't believe me, watch Star Trek: First Contact. It is there for all to see.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
hen the suits at Paramount finally have their brainstorm, and see the wisdom in commissioning my reimaged Enterprise, I want Tim Hunnicutt to be on the writing team. What inspiration there was to be gained from his letter "Enterprise Is Way Off Course."
"I'm not one of those continuity freaks who worries whether Andorian hair is white or silver," wrote Tim. This is the attitude we need in the new Enterprise; less hairdressing, and more hair raising. Who cares if the Andorians prefer a blue rinse and page-boy bob cut, as long as they're
written in three-dimensions.
"He might as well be flying around in a canoe with a bow and arrows strapped to his back," was one of Tim's better suggestions. Forget those shoe-box shuttle pods, and imagine the captain's (space) Kayak, boldly going after the Suliban. As the theme tune says, "It's a long way, getting from there
to here." Paddle that sucker, or it's back to Quantum Leap for you, Count Bakula.
Tim complained of the Enterprise crew: "They are becoming a 'Scooby gang' (cartoon, not Buffy)." But I think he was teasing. Why not Buffy? When Sarah Michelle Gellar quits vampire slaying, wouldn't she look great in an Enterprise uniform? A real winter-night warmer. Her character would be Mim Roger, and she would be Archer's cabin boy.
Finally, Tim suggested that "someone with shields and real weapons would just blow the Enterprise and its polarized hull-plating into plasma." This is not only accurate, but almost humanitarian. Why bother with three or four series of character-free technobabble, when a Klingon catapult could put us all out of our misery, and pave the way for some really entertaining
science fiction.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's just a pipe dream, and the trouble is, these days, in space no one can hear you dream.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
Back to the top.
