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.
would like to reply to the letter "Stargate Rewrites Language Rules".
It's always been my personal theory that the translator is in the Stargate itself. After all, the builders of the Stargate are the most advanced race ever known. They built the machine that downloaded their language into Jack O'Neill's brain. It seems to me that they would foresee the problem with the language barrier and build the translator into their gate. When you travel through, the language is downloaded into your brain. You wouldn't even know it was happening. As far as our team knows, everyone does speak English out in the wide universe. I know we've encountered a few races that seem to speak another language. I just think the technology has begun to break down. The gates, after all, are thousands of years old. Even the best technology begins to have some glitches eventually.
I know there are some holes in my theory. It's a theory after all, not a proof.
Rnee' O'Bannon
rnee@excite.com
reat news from Christopher Buchanan of Mutant Enemy, concerning the proposed Faith spinoff series ("Buffy Faith Spinoff Mulled"). Eliza Dushku as the renegade Slayer Faith, is the only serious way to continue [Buffy the Vampire Slayer] without Buffy. Dushku has the looks, charisma, ability and most important of the lot, is the face of a popular, established character, with serious Sunnydale history.
My big hope with this is that Mutant Enemy continue to work as intelligently as they've done with Buffy, and realize that Faith only works within the existing world. Taken out of it, with a whole new cast around her, would severely diminish the chances of the show succeeding. But, inside the show as we know it, directly taking over from Buffy, would be television dynamite.
Imagine the possibilities: Faith and Spike, united in their savage methodology, bringing Hell to whatever came out of the Hellmouth. Willow, wanting the Slayer to be more humane, and having the power to stop her, but knowing that each use of that power made her darker. Perhaps she would even find herself attracted to Faith, horrified by the fact, and with a rival. Xander, denied romance with Buffy might become obsessed with Faith. Anya in the middle, would not trust either of them. Plenty of opportunities for dark comedy lines in that mix. Then there's Giles, how would the Watchers deal with a wayward Slayer? Possibly by secretly training Dawn as a new Slayer, whose first real mission would be to depose Faith?
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
n answer to Keith Kitchen's letter, "Trek Has Never Advocated Communism" have you even seen the the original series' episode, "The City on the Edge of Forever" (the one with Joan Collins, playing the socialist)?
Besides that outstanding Emmy-nominated episode, there have been many other references, both in the original series and Star Trek: The Next Generation, to the lack of use of money, at least
within the human society. Other less-enlightened societies, such as the Ferengi, however. ...
Jonah Wong
wongjo@smccd.net
found it interesting that the last two episodes of Enterprise, "Stigma" and "Cease Fire," tried to regain one of the themes that made the original Trek appealing: tackling contemporary moral and political issues. The original Star Trek was better at social studies than science, and Enterprise is getting back on track by modeling what made the original Trek a significant part of American social and intellectual life. What is interesting is the not the differences between the two series, however, but the differences both between their audiences and between the writers' goals. While the writers of Enterprise seem resolute in their goal of gearing the show to a jejune audience (and they have succeeded quite well), the original Trek was conceptually oriented towards the type of person who asked more substantive and enduring questions. Contemporary audiences, who have been exposed to more TV, instant access to world events, and changes in the way media is transmitted, have a specific type of sophistication that viewers 35 years ago did not have. The writers need to grok these differences and reflect them in both individual episodes and the show as a whole.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
"Stigma" was a not too subtle attempt to comment on the AIDS crisis, discrimination and ways to handle the social aspect of this disease; "Cease Fire" was a veiled reference to the Israeli/Palestinian and India/Pakistan/Kashmir imbroglio. Each episode offered an extraordinarily simplistic spin on tremendously complicated problems. The choice to wrap up the territorial conflict in "Cease Fire" so simply, quickly and cleanly was befuddling. (I'm also mystified by the final scene in "Cease Fire" where the Andorians offer an alcoholic toast, and the Vulcans say that they don't drink, but they will for this occasion. If the parallel is Islamic fundamentalism, then the very idea that one side would offer alcohol to those they know would not drink, and those who do not drink would for this occasion, then this both egregiously belies the complexity of the problem and is profoundly insulting to both sides).
Contemporary political issues in the Middle East are exceedingly complicated. An attempt to slap a happy face on them by showing that "everything will work out (in an hour) if all sides just cooperate and trust each other" is just one of the reasons that this series is in its final trek. The writers are on the right track by bringing these issues into a science-fiction context so that they have some play and can be viewed in a new light. They are also correct in continuing to offer a vision of hope. But the way to do this is not to whitewash complexities, but to engage them. Why not paint a picture of hope by showing that peace won't just be achieved by meting out chunks of territory, or even learning hard lessons from carnage caused by centuries of irrationality and hatred, but by the slow and painful process of tolerating and seeking to understand those who hold incommensurable moral and philosophical beliefs. And yes, the writers must ultimately show that toleration, territory and even cohabitation are small prices to pay for peace. It would be a difficult script to write, but I think that the writers would find a very receptive audience.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
think there has been a fairly thoughtful discussion of Star Trek's vision of things to come for humanity, specifically whether or not it advocates for or envisions a "communist" future ("Star Trek Offers Communist Ideals", "Trek Has Never Advocated Communism" and "Trek Teleports to Pragmatic Future"). One letter writer even suggested that Gene Roddenberry wasn't a communist, but rather it is Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, or maybe even Patrick Stewart who were responsible for the dialogue in Star Trek: First Contact about humans no longer being concerned with money or personal possessions.
True, Roddenberry had long since passed on to the stars by the time that line appeared in the movie. However, is it really hard to see how the Ferengi were portrayed in The Next Generation were examples of exactly the sort of thing that Capt. Picard was referring to. I think back to "The Last
Outpost" and Com. Riker talking to the Portal about the Ferengi, saying how humans used to be like them, only concerned about profit and gain, but that we had evolved beyond that, and that if Portal destroyed the Ferengi vessel they would never learn the error of their ways. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
Bottom line, if Gene Roddenberry didn't envision a "communist" future, he certainly envisioned a "collectivist" one. It can be surmised that he envisioned a one-world government, even a one-federation government. People working for the betterment of humankind, rather than for self-gain. Sounds like a nice future to me.
Patrick Brennan
generalkangx@yahoo.com
ick Berman's quote in TV Guide ("Trek Far From Over") that he "can't imagine numerous other [Star Trek] movies won't occur" scores a direct hit on what's ailing the franchise: lack of imagination. The concept of a new film incorporating characters from the five TV series further reinforces how arrogant and out of the touch Trek's producers have become.
If Star Trek's mission is to seek out new box office and new ratings is to continue, then the franchise must boldly go where no Star Trek has gone before. How will the fans react should their favorite character or alien civilization not appear? Will the Trekkers storm the studio gates if a new take on the old franchise takes them by surprise? Will there be outrage and scorn at the film's title or its theme?
None of the above matters. Tell a new story well and worry about all else later. Star Trek is not about pleasing the fans for the fan's sake. No more "your parents'" or "your older sibling's" Federation which has become more and more a stuffy bureaucracy no one wants to identify with. Star Trek can expand its worlds-weary universe to reach new audiences because Roddenberry's concept, at its core, is the apogee of sci-fi entertainment. Imagination, confidence and above all, guts, must be the stuff of Trek to come.
Either energize or evaporate.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
hat a fantastic episode of Farscape aired last night. "A Constellation of Doubt" is why I watch this magnificent television show. I like shows that make me think. This one was filled with social commentary unusual in any television show. I loved the reflection on how humans might view these aliens, and how the reflection was balanced between the xenophobes and the xenophiles.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
As I sat there watching last night, I was floored by Ben Browder's ability to make me love, trust and believe in John Crichton. At the end, when John says "God have mercy on my soul" as he makes a pact with the devil (Scorpius), I was awestruck by what Mr. Browder can do with his eyes, his face and his body. I know that John is just beginning to know what "beyond hope" means.
I am also astounded by the writing abilities of David Kemper. I always look forward to episodes written by Mr. Kemper. This episode surpassed
previous favorites (including "Unrealized Reality"). Again, his writing, his show, make me think—about life and the human condition. I know this episode was shot probably close to a year ago—and yet its themes are incredibly timely. I'm glad this show exists!
Thank you [SCI FI Channel] for supporting this show for four seasons. Please support it for at least one more—there is nothing like it anywhere else on television, nor is there anything any where near as good.
Karen Copp
kcopp@pressenter.com
just finished watching "Constellation of Doubt," the newest offering from the critically acclaimed series Farscape. I was amazed at the spot-on portrayals of the media machine during this episode. An unflinching look at one of the biggest problems with television and media today: misrepresenting news as entertainment, sensationalizing and distorting events into ratings instead of thoughtful balanced reporting.
An incredible storyline for science fiction and Farscape to tackle? Not in the least. Science Fiction has always been a place to comment on the world today by showing it through a different lens, in this case, the point of view of the crew of Moya. We were presented with all of the crew's reactions to Earth and its cultures. Personally I was disgusted by the way the media treated the information it was given, by the experts it called in, the views it expressed without reasonable counterpoint and balance. This is no different than the reaction I often have from the "real" TV news.
But "Alien Visitation" only represented the backdrop onto which the complex Farscape story was painted. David Kemper took his time showing us character reaction and plot complications. Andrew Prowse gave the actors room to perform and we were rewarded by some of their best work so far—which, for this cast, is saying a lot.
Some of the plot and character development were so subtle a second viewing was required to see them (and even reviewing of previous episodes). Some so subtle we may only understand in later, as they are only seed planted here expecting to germinate by the end of season four and perhaps wither and die before being given the chance to flower in the canceled season five. But you're not required to get the nuance of character and plot to understand the story, for it was also painted in broad strokes before being repeated in rich and subtle detail.
Some will not like this episode, some will be angered by its frank treatment of "touchy" subjects like religion and sex or the revelation of dark sides of heroic characters. I am overjoyed to be able to have this kind of strong reaction to a show on television. It's not homogenized and bland, its characters painted in stark black in white, but shows the shading and complexity of life as it is. Gives people something to think about, talk about. Mission accomplished. Bravo!
So where do we go from here? I'm still incredulous when I think there are only five episodes left in season four and then what? Nothing? I can't reconcile myself to that and will keep working to let the story continue, let the characters evolve. I keep coming back to one question: How the heck can they cancel something this good? This, like the mystery of Farscape, may never be fully answered. And that would be a shame.
Kim Robinson
KimR1013@aol.com
was dismayed to see so many negative comments regarding Peter Jackson's rendition of The Two Towers ("Tower Structure Difficult to Accept", "Jackson Destroys Tolkien's Tale", "Towers Book and Film Can Get Along", "Two Towers Is Bashed Without Cause" and "Tolkien and Jackson Aren't Twins").
This movie was made for those people that (God forbid) have not read the book! And for those of us who have read the book, there is no director in the world who can live up to our imagination. With all the wonderful book-to-horrible-movie adaptations out there, perhaps we need to be thankful for Peter Jackson's willingness to take loving care with our series instead of picking apart all the artistic licenses.
D.M.R.S.
dionisia5@hotmail.com
do not normally write about a show in reruns, but I just wanted to write and thank the SCI FI Channel for picking up Roswell, shown daily at 6:00 p.m. in my area. My wife and I rarely like the same shows, but Roswell was an exception. The show struggled through three seasons, in different times and stations, but we followed it, sent Tabasco bottles, wrote letters and even donated
money to charities.
Being in our mid-50s, we are the television generation and were raised on B sci-fi movies and The Lucy Show, so we've pretty well seen the full spectrum of good and bad TV. In all that time, there have been only a few series that caught my imagination, loyalty and desire to see the series to the end. These included all of the Star Trek series, Babylon 5 and Roswell. (Harsh Realm would have been included,
but some corporate ass canceled it before it had a chance to really explore its possibilities.) Unfortunately, Roswell was cut short.
I am writing to thank [the SCI FI Channel] for giving the show airtime. My wife and I watch it as often as we can. Raising grandchildren and THE dinner hour make it difficult, but that is what recorders are for. (Again, Roswell gets the bad timeslot.)
Roswell, as a story, wasn't over, and there will be an empty spot in my consciousness until it is completed. The last episode was a beginning, not an end. I would like to see a Roswell movie! If possible I would like to thank Jonathan Frakes for bringing Roswell to the small screen at a time of mindless Lucy Show rehash and "reality TV." I miss Roswell and would like to see more.
Michael A. Pacer
mpacer@juno.com
Back to the top.
