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.
ith the third Harry Potter film yet to appear, I'd like to make a serious point about a particular tradition of Harry Potter: book burning that many Christians take part in after the release of a Harry Potter film or book. It is one of those things that angers me a lot. Not so much because they hate Harry Potter—they have the right to express their feelings about those stories, and I respect that. What gets to me is the blatant inconsistency of the whole thing. I myself do not share their view. I think Harry Potter is a perfectly innocent saga.
They claim that Harry Potter undermines the Christian faith and encourages children to practice Occultism. If that is how they feel, then why do they only pick on Harry Potter? What about The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars or indeed, classic fairytales? You never hear of many complain that The Lord of
the Rings has demonic creatures in it or that Star Wars promotes an atheistic belief system. Then there are the fairytales that are filled with murderers, witches, evil spirits and various pagan things. Isn't it Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that has an evil witch who tries to kill Snow
White for no other reason than being better looking? Or what about Philip Pullman, who deliberately discredits Christianity in his books? In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Harry Potter is probably the least threatening of these stories.
It seems to me that Harry Potter is only picked on because it has become a fashionable thing for hardline Christians to do.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
would like to know why they (Hollywood) have only made one movie (that I know of, anyway) from Isaac Asimov's many, many excellent stories.
I've been waiting anxiously to see the Robot/Empire/Foundation series on the big screen, or even on TV, since I first read Caves of Steel. There's 14 books (not counting the ones done after Asimov's death) to choose from, so they should be able to find something people will like. Also, there's several hundred other titles besides Bicentennial Man that are worth looking at.
I did like Bicentennial Man very much, and think Robin Williams did some of his best acting ever in it, but it's not Asimov's best. How about a retro-style (think Flash Gordon with help from ILM) Lucky Starr movie? Kids would love it! Me too!
Steve Spence
myrlyn1@hotmail.com
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
Actually, some Asimov titles are, in fact, being made into films. Check in with SCI FI Wire daily for updates, or go to Science Fiction Weekly's news section for weekly updates. In either of these places you'll find the news items such as "Foundation Script Is Done" and "Tudyk to Play I, Robot".
Best,
Brian
he Science Fiction Book Club's "Most Significant SF & Fantasy Books of the Last 50 Years, 1953-2002" is as much fiction as it is fantasy.
To pick out certain selections as unworthy or of less "significance" than others would be unfair and petty. It's the works that didn't make the list that I find unbelievable.
The most "significant" first contact novel in the last 50 years struck a telling blow at the McCarthyism of the 1950s and inspired a classic film and two remakes, but Jack Finney's (Invasion of the) Body Snatchers did not make the list.
Another novel sparked five movies, a TV series and a cartoon series plus a run of comic books and millions of toys. Most significant, Pierre Boulle's Monkey Planet was nowhere on the list. Who's aping whom?
Contact, by renown astronomer Carl Sagan, was the only sci-fi first novel ever written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. It sold millions by appealing to women with an intelligent and gutsy heroine. Not "significant?"
Another first novel, written by a substitute teacher living in a Maine trailer park, seemed of little significance to the SF Book Club, but Carrie launched the most successful fiction career in history. If you've never read a Stephen King book or seen a Stephen King property movie, you must be on the SF Book Club Committee.
The biggest thing to hit the dinosaurs since the killer asteroid was Jurassic Park, but the dinosaurs who made up this list didn't think any of Michael Crichton's SF books "significant."
Lord of the Flies didn't rate either. Were the listmakers on a remote island when they composed it?
Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood got no respect while Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was shrugged off.
The Incredible Shrinking Man? Incredibly, the significance of Matheson's novel has shrunk even more than its protagonist.
What's so wrong with this list is what's so wrong with the SF & F community. You have to be recognized as one of its members or your work will not be considered. It's like holding a sports' world championship and inviting only those of the same race and politics to compete. By the criteria set by the SF Book Club, Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Christmas Carol and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are not SF or F because their authors were not exclusively SF & F writers.
Can we all wake up together here? It's the tale, not the teller, that determines significance. Whether or not the writer belongs to the SFWA or the SPCA or the KKK is completely irrelevant. Classics or crap, stories about time travel and magic potions and ghosts and space aliens and all the other wondrous visions of imaginary worlds are science fiction or fantasy no matter who writes them or how well or how badly they are written.
What is the "most significant" SF or F book of the last 50 years? Surely Lord of the Rings, the Foundation Trilogy and the Dune saga (the SF Book Club's top three) have entertained and enthralled many over the last half century, but their combined "significance" can barely hold a magic wand to J.K. Rowlings' Harry Potter. Love him or loathe him, the young wizard has changed publishing and the way books are marketed forever. Even the esteemed NY Times was forced to change the format of its Best Sellers' lists in the wake of the Potter phenomenon, which shows no signs of slowing down.
According to the SF Book Club, there were 25 SF & F books published in the last 50 years more significant than Harry Potter.
If this "significant" list is the assessment of science fiction and fantasy over the last half century by the Science Fiction Book Club, I question the significance of the Science Fiction Book Club in the first place.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
lerted by Kevin Ahearn to a list of the "SF Book Club's most
Significant SF & Fantasy Books of the Last 50 Years, 1953-2002", I could imagine his arms windmilling like the original Lost In Space robot.
Asimov's Foundation Trilogy is at number 2, but there's no mention of E.E. Doc Smith's Lensmen series. Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea is at number 5, but Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J.K. Rowling is way down at 26. The list is supposed to be about significant books, and nothing within the time frame given has been as significant as Potter. Up at number 8 was Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick, but Heinlein's Starship Troopers was at 46. Both, in their own ways, have been hugely significant to the world of SF, but for some reason, the SF Book Club voters don't see them as equal. Are these guys Republicans?
More surprising are some of the omissions. Did nobody in the club ever read A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs, or Nine Princes In Amber by Roger Zelazny? The former being the first significant use of Mars in SF literature, and the later breaking new ground with its convincing bleed of fantasy into every day reality. Then there's the slightly less well known, but very significant works, such as the Wild Cards series by George R.R. Martin. Currently up to book 16, it has single-handedly redefined to scope and nature of mosaic novels. Going a little further out, we find such gems as Midnight At The Well Of Souls by Jack L. Chalker, which has an influence that stretches way beyond its sales.
Finally, for my list, is a book which few people seem aware of these days, Genesis by W.A. Harbinson. This was an international bestseller from the early '80s, which introduced the highly realistic blurring of fiction with established history, specifically with reference to Nazi flying saucers. How many times has that motif cropped up since. I'd say that makes Genesis a very significant book, but then, I'm not a member of the club.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
have been a newsletter subscriber for several years, and a science-fiction reader for over 40. I have to comment that there is very little that appeals to me on your site, though I persist in checking it out.
I realize it is sponsored by a TV channel, and I could find more literary sites easily, but every issue I recall fondly Isaac Asimov's feeling that there is science fiction and then there is "sci-fi" and they are almost completely different.
Flights of imagination and possibility are so rewarding for me when reading; video or gaming [is] so completely lifeless and—sorry—boring to me that they could be two completely separate genres!
I won't go on and on, just had to say it fails to fascinate me who's doing what on TV, and yet I spend an hour or many hours reading each day. "Sci-fi" just isn't science fiction or fantasy at all. ...
Lou Judson
inaudio@pacbell.net
o reply to Darren Simpson ("Anime Illustrates the Answers."): I agree with this person 100 percent. I think they, as in Hollywood, should look to anime of more inspiration for movies. I do not mean as the only inspiration, but as a part of the whole. I, myself, would like to see more sci-fi TV shows and movies that reflect anime shows like Cowboy Bebop, or Outlaw Star, just to name a few. These anime shows could bring new fresh concepts to live-action shows. At least, I feel it would be a improvement.
Timothy Morgan
zanlong@cox.net
n recent years, I have watched as Star Trek lost its way, becoming more and more about sex appeal and less and less about the qualities that the original series tried to make accessible to the general public. While Star Trek may never be "great science fiction," it had a niche of its own—bringing to light ideas of equality, loyalty and a hopeful vision of the future that has made it beloved to every Trek fan young and old. Even while doing this, it took risks—explored subjects often left untouched during its run. Star Trek boasted the first interracial kiss and later in Deep Space Nine, with the episode "Rejoined," did what I think is a wonder today, having a homosexual couple where their sexuality is not the issue of the story.
The original series did have scantily clad women in tight or nonexistent clothing. This is a given. However they never did so at the expense of the story. The women were there as eye candy, but the story still existed. Recently, in the final years of Star Trek: Voyager and Enterprise, Trek has fallen into the rut that believing the "eye candy" can make up for recycled plots, lack of character development and a weak storyline. They also seem to think that battles, blood lust and special effects—which aren't even that astounding in this day and age—can shore up a weak plot. This just simply isn't so.
The franchise is failing. Crumbling like a corrupt empire. Things must evolve to survive and it seems that instead of evolving Star Trek has in fact de-evolved. The signs are all around us. The failing ratings for Enterprise. The low box-office returns on Nemesis (which promises to be the last Star Trek movie it seems). The folding of Star Trek: The Magazine.
However, I put to you that Star Trek, though in great danger, is not unsaveable. It is not Star Trek itself that has lost its way, but rather the current executive staff. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, who have been charged with leading the franchise for many years, seem to have lost the creative spark that made Star Trek stand out. If they continue in their place, then Star Trek will fall, but Paramount must be made to realize this. The only way this will happen is if the fans of the series who still believe speak out.
To this end, a group of fans have organized TrekNoConfidence. An association of fans dedicated to informing other Trek fans on the problems with the franchise today and encouraging them to participate in a mail-in "No Confidence Vote against Braga and Berman" to Paramount. The Web site, www.treknoconfidence.com, is filled with articles and information that we have painstakingly gathered from all over the Web and gained the rights to republish. There are also new articles written by members of the group.
If every fan of the franchise speaks out, whether for or against the current administration—then at least our voices will have been heard and at the very least, it will show Paramount that there are enough issues with Trek currently to provoke a outstanding reaction.
Thank you for hearing me out.
Tammy Morrison
tammy@treknoconfidence.com
ust a quick note on Michael Cassutt's thoughts on Firefly ("What's Space Opera, Doc?").
If I went in to Professor Fox's marketing class with a project and said the way I wanted to make it a hit was to run it on an evening my target audience was out of the house and not watching television, that I wanted to pre-empt my program every other week, to not run it in program order and to not run any advertising for it, I think I should receive an A for the class. It followed Professor Fox's formula to the T.
And that is why Firefly was canceled, not because it "failed."
J.B.Stiglitz
j.b.stiglitz@attbi.com
egarding Mr. Boghossian's remarks ("John Doe's Writing Is Forgettable"), I say kudos to Mr. Murphy, but you didn't go quite far enough. Not only did the girl lead them to the ravine, but she was dealing with the subliminal cues occurring because of suppressing the conscious knowledge of her own assault by calling her flashes visions. The connection to the key was, indeed, explained because we learned she had been a hospital worker and had gone to the freezer for some ice cream when she was attacked and taken. She knew where the bodies would be because they showed her leaving there after she gained consciousness after being left and buried for dead. John Doe did explain her visions. Not only to the cops, but to the girl as well. I must apologize for not remembering her name. It is in John's nature to explain what he can. Haven't you noticed that? He almost never stops talking.
Other than this little item, I kinda do agree that a little more imagination, latitude and longitude need to be included here. He is fast approaching his limits if he hasn't already passed them.
Frances Hoffman
fhoffman@cableaz.com
fter watching the Dune miniseries, I am puzzled by a few apparent inconsistencies. It is my understanding that the desert people known as the Fremen had a prophecy foretelling the arrival of a messiah. Now, any good messiah worth his miracles would lead his people out of suffering, right? The Fremen were suffering for lack of water. When Paul Atreides filled the role of messiah, becoming Muad'Dib, he started a transformation of Arrakis into a water-abundant world, essentially giving the Fremen what they wanted. Now in Children of Dune everyone was decrying the "death" of the desert?! So much so, in fact, that they were going to have civil war! What the hell is up with that? What was the Fremen messiah supposed to do for them besides give them water and an easier life? And even if they don't want the water, no one is making them drink it ... or take a bath!
Maybe he was just supposed to lead them out of the desert to reclaim their planet from the strangle hold of the Emperor. But since Arrakis is the only place in the galaxy with spice, the other worlds weren't just going to go away and sulk. The Fremen would have to harvest the spice themselves just to keep the other worlds from eventually killing them off. Then they could sell them the spice, giving them enough money to buy more knives and robes so they can live in the desert in peace. Was that their prophecy? Leading them out of the desert so they can go live in the desert? Huh?
Then Wensicia of House Corrino comes up with the bright idea of taking a worm off Arrakis to try and produce spice on another world. Apparently this economy has been running on Spice for at least hundreds of years and no one else came up with that idea in all that time? Right.
Then there is the supposed "seeing into the future" thing with Muad'Dib. If Muad'Dib could tell that changing Dune to a water world would be bad for the fickle Fremen, then why did he start to do it and why couldn't he have just halted and reversed the process? Makes more sense than sacrificing himself so that his son can change into a worm.
OK, the Fremen didn't want to change their old ways, preferring the dessert to the novelty of flush toilets, so they had to rebel against Alia. Yes, Alia was going bananas, everyone knew it, but the Fremen couldn't wait until Muad'Dib's son took over the throne, mere months away, before going ape sh*t? The desert was going to disappear that fast?
Alia was a potential threat to the childrens' lives, perhaps killing them to keep the throne herself. OK, why not kill her instead? Isn't that the Fremen Way instead of running and hiding? Can't do it out in the open, huh? Then an assassination pinned on one of their many enemies—there had already been many attempts. Oh, it's too hard to kill a relative, huh? She ended up dead anyway. All these people with the gift of seeing the future never saw that coming?
Duncan Idaho, under Stilgar's protection, kills the priest who was banging his wife Alia, violating the neutrality rule. So Stilgar kills him to even out his honor, even though he himself wanted to violate the neutrality and rise up against Alia. If he was just going to screw being neutral anyway, why did he kill Duncan to balance out the situation? Duncan made an affront to his honor by killing that guy, but isn't Stilgar messing with his honor by breaking the neutrality anyway?
Muad'Dib said that Idaho had a role in destiny. He was destined to die to help Stilgar make up his mind about going against Alia even though Leto II was going to stop her himself, before his army even made it to the capital, and thus make pointless any attempt of Stilgar's to overthrow her. And to make matters even more pathetic, Stilgar was going to war because he didn't like butterflies. If I were Duncan, I would have gotten a different job for my second life.
Wouldn't it have been more beautiful, more poignant, if Alia's love for Duncan helped her overcome her "abomination" than for him to die so pathetically. Too cliche? Then have Alia's madness make her kill Duncan herself, bringing her out of her stupor long enough to realize what she's become, and then she kills herself. Now that's Shakespeare!
After Leto II convinces Alia to kill herself, thus averting civil war, he runs over to Stilgar and tells him that the desert is dying anyway, so going to war would have been pointless and Alia didn't have to die because the Fremen just didn't know what the hell they wanted in the first place. *sigh* Go figure.
Anyway, I would like someone to please tell me that there is more logic to this story than I was able to grasp. I know there is probably some deep social/political/religious context of the series but I can't resolve that with the plot inconsistencies I mentioned earlier.
Even after all the gripes, I will admit I liked the production values of both miniseries. Good acting, sets, special effects, music, costumes, etc. Speaking of costumes ... what's with all the robes? And why, in the far-distant future with spaceships, etc., are people still peddling clay pots?
Especially on the most oil-rich, er, spice-rich planet in the galaxy? Talk about a division between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie!
Michael Kroll
aradyn@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
