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.
hree weeks ago I wrote to Science Fiction Weekly and asked why Hollywood doesn't tap into the talents of SFW contributors ("Hollywood Must Harvest SFW Writers"). I received 28 responses to my letter.
Some responders claimed to be Hollywood producers (of course I have no way to verify this), others claimed to be tangentially associated with the movie business, and only two people stated that they had no affiliation with Hollywood, but wanted to offer their opinions. In this letter I will share the responses I received.
Responses fell into three basic categories:
1) That Hollywood-produced sci-fi suffers from a lack of creative writing is not a problem, but the result of a market that will not support more creative shows (e.g., Farscape). Therefore it would be pointless to tap into the talents of creative SFW writers.
2) There are too many scripts, too much talent and far too many people who wish to write sci-fi. In order to even have the possibility of writing for a show one needs an agent. No agent equals no one reading your work and no one caring about what you can contribute.
3) Nobody in Hollywood cares. Not that they don't care about tapping into the talents of SFW contributors, but that they just don't care period. They only care that they maintain their lucrative positions, that ratings are high and that senior management realizes that ratings are high because of their direct influence. Criticisms, suggestions, feedback, etc., have no effect on them because they do not equate these things to an improvement in ratings, and thus to themselves.
Of course, I have no idea which, if any of these, accord with the reality of the situation (i.e., that SFW writers are not asked to contribute to shows), and this is why I asked the question. It struck me as interesting that nobody said that of the total number of people who watch sci-fi TV, the number of people who are actively involved in this sci-fi community is but a fraction of those, and it's not clear that the interests of this small group accurately represent the interests of the whole. Similarly, nobody wrote that the type of person who reads and writes about sci-fi is different from the type of person who views sci-fi. Thus, SFW contributors may actually be out of touch with the mainstream sci-fi TV viewer, and hence the lack of need and desire to solicit SFW contributors.
This being said, I'd like to restate my initial suggestion and invite producers and writers of sci-fi shows to tap into the incredible and diverse talent of select SFW contributors. There is some remarkable talent here, available at minimal cost, and if you can harness the creativity and focus here then it's very likely that would translate into an increase of the bottom line. Best of all, I'm sure that you could take credit for it.
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
mostly agree with Michael Cassutt about Firefly ("What's Space Opera, Doc?") and that mixing of Western with SF generally doesn't work. It's a bit strange, as medievalism works in SF, but it seems like Westerns are more unambiguously romanticizing of their period then people usually are of the Middle Ages. Anyway, I mostly agree with the reasons he thinks the fusion fails. However one thing, which he has said before, I find a bit wrong.
SF has often been about young men finding they have magical powers, but this is certainly not what SF is "about" nor should it be seen to be as being about that. I'm not exactly sure why he takes this tack, let's consider. ...
First: The tendency was never that strong. In a poll of the Top 5 Hugo winners, you had A Canticle For Leibowitz and The Left Hand of Darkness. Neither of these are really about young men finding awesome powers. Some miraculous things happen in Canticle, but they are generally by old people, women or just witnessed by a young men. The top in the poll, I believe, was Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which I haven't read, but I don't think it'd
qualify either. Neither would Foundation or even Childhood's End if you think about it. Indeed, I find it easier to think of classic science-fiction stories and books that don't qualify than ones that do. Even Flowers for Algernon has his "power" given to him, not discovered, and though delayed, he was a grown man. Further, it has little effect on the world and the character ends as powerless as he began, if not more so, as he likely will die.
Second: The theme of young men finding they have super powers is not inherent to science fiction so much as its about the fact the pulps geared to young males. When Wells, Shelley, Verne, Gilman, Stapledon, Poe, et. al. were writing SF, that theme was not especially common. It was not unheard of, as it can and does produce good stories at times, but it certainly didn't dominate. Its overly strong presence later on was more a product of demographics and marketing. As the SF readership aged in the 1970s, it consequently declined to a more reasonable level. Hence, by that time Star Wars was rightly viewed as space opera as Luke's powers didn't even have a quasi-rational explanation and the series was intentionally harkening back to the super-science space opera of the 1930s. In this instance, "space opera" just meaning melodramatic fantasy-tinged SF, not a fusion with Westerns.
As for such a fusion, I think there might oddly enough be ways to make it work, even though usually it doesn't. Ian McDonald wrote several stories of a Western tinge on Mars. They worked, in part, by concentrating on the more technological and mythical element of Westerns instead of trying to be Westerns with spaceships. Also oddly enough, the "young man with superpowers" deal, though I wouldn't have thought of it on my own, could work in a Western. You could have an Apache Muad'Dib, or a young genius doctor or whatever. Indeed, Card already has some kind of series where young men find magical powers in the Old West, so I guess it's even been done.
Thomas Randolph
TRandoplh@harvard.edu
'd like to add to the Harry Potter letter ("Potter Unfairly Picked for Burning"). My view is that HP is being targeted because of the witches in it. As I'm sure everyone knows, witches were burned in early U.S. history and around the world because they were considered heretics. Thus, I think that people are seeing the witches and wizards in HP as not fantasy creations, but as heretics.
Another note: the Vatican OK'd Harry Potter, saying that it upheld Christian values. Can't go too wrong there.
Andrew
Corran_Horn@fanforce.net
am writing in response to Kevin Ahearn's letter ("Many SF Classics MIA From Top 50 List") decrying the Science Fiction Book Club's recent "most
significant SF&F" list. Actually, these types of lists aren't worth responding to in the first place,
and I'm surprised your site found such an obvious and unoriginal rant worth publishing. These lists are just for fun (and marketing), and somebody always takes exception with them. If the list had put Harry Potter at the top, somebody (perhaps Mr. Ahearn himself; he does express an opinion on something almost every week) would have written a letter demanding to know how Harry Potter could possibly be considered more significant than Dune or The Foundation Trilogy or blah blah blah.
I agree with Mr. Ahearn, by the way, that Harry Potter has significantly changed book publishing and marketing. However, the logistics of publishing and marketing are not necessarily the only, or even the most important, criteria by which to judge a book's "significance." It's my understanding that Dune has never gone out of print since its original 1965 publication date, for instance. Harry Potter may also remain in print well past its 35th anniversary, but we won't know for a few years yet. In any case, the SFBC's list is hardly something to get worked up
about.
Amy Sisson
Address withheld by request
hile I can understand Kevin Ahearn's ire ("Many SF Classics MIA From Top 50 List") that Harry Potter was left off the list of the 50 Most influential books of the last 50 years, I can understand the reasoning behind it: It was only published six years ago and its lasting significance has yet to be determined. While it is annoying to see that some of my own favorites are not there, many other books that I admire greatly have made it. I love Zelazny's Nine Princes In Amber, but I think that Lord of Light (no. 32) is a much better book. What was also interesting is that most of the books he cited as being absent were mostly media-related: Mr. Ahearn may have popularity and significance confused here.
Also some of the books he mentioned as being absent may also have been published more than 50 years ago. I think the list is fine: It is highly subjective, but I think that the members of the SF/F Book Club have made an excellent choice in listing books that are out of the public eye but not of the public conscience. Finally, the absence of Stephen King's work is surprising, but perhaps the voters spread their votes over too many of his numerous books to let him in.
Ian Banks
sibanks@bigpond.com
ooking at Nathan Brazil's letter ("Significant" List Is Lacking") critiquing the SF book club list covering the last 50 years, a couple of things jumped right out.
As far as the Lensman books, according to an obscure source—www.scifi.com/sfw/issue62/classic.html—the books were published from 1948 to 1954, making part of the series eligible, just barely, but since the original stories dated from the '30s, I think that the decision to leave them off is legitimate.
A Princess of Mars was published in 1917. Since the book club is probably talking about 50 Earth years (yeah, I know, terribly human-centric thinking), that leaves out Burroughs.
And for Kevin Ahearn's critiques ("Many SF Classics MIA From Top 50 List"):
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.
These works listed are over a hundred years old (I mean, the Lensman series was at least close). How far back do you want to go? Verne? Shakespeare? Beowulf?
As for Lord of the Flies and Atlas Shrugged, these are good, imaginative works, but you won't find them in the sci-fi aisle at Barnes and Noble.
The list is a good list of relatively recent work. I would perhaps leave off the Silmarillion in favor of something by David Brin or Greg Bear or Lucius Shepard, but otherwise, I would have no hesitation using it as a primer for
getting someone started on good science fiction.
Alex Sapojnikoff
al_x@mac.com
agree completely with J.B. Stiglitz in his letter, "Firefly Didn't Fail". I am finding myself in quite the adversarial position with the main networks and their penchant for dooming shows. How can a show possibly produce a large fan base when the networks move it, hide it and pre-empt it more often than they consistently air it?
Alas, though executive producer David Greenwalt ("Greenwalt Hopes For Miracles") seems to feel otherwise, I fear the same fate may befall Miracles. For the last two weeks, ABC has seen fit to pre-empt only Veritas and Miracles for outdated, far-from-compelling specials on our war with Iraq. And even though the March 25th special did not run into Miracles' timeslot, ABC still felt the need to run two episodes (one a repeat) of The Practice instead of the regularly scheduled Miracles. That sure doesn't sound like "they (ABC Network) are rabid fans of the show" to me.
I truly hope I am wrong and the program director for ABC will not let Miracles die through no fault of its own. Besides, I wouldn't want to be the one to cancel a show named Miracles, would you? Way too much bad Karma.
Like Firefly, I am an ardent fan of Miracles, which is a well written and produced series. But I'm learning the hard way not to enjoy any non-reality based network program too much, for any horror/sci-fi/fantasy genre show that smacks of intellect seems doomed to go down, "not with a bang but a whimper."
Maryl Aldrich
maldrich@fnf.com
recently caught the Riverworld movie special. I was intrigued and pleased by it, even nostalgically, especially having read my first Philip José Farmer novel by the age of 11 (36 years ago).
It was Behind the Walls of Terra, from the World of Tiers Series. I still have the original printing in a plastic ziplock.
There were many years that went by when I couldn't wait for the next publishing by Mr. Farmer. I believe I finished off all of the Riverworld books by circa 1982. I do hope to see more sci-fi "made for" shows that I recognize from my past.
If I may, the main character in the Riverworld series was Sir Richard Francis Burton, 18th Century, I believe, explorer. Being so, I don't recognize the name Jeff Hale. Also, Riverworld was completely devoid of all animal life—including horses. Everyone knows that movie producers do tend to overlook the fact that people in the know, the majority of whom that will watch, do get a little disappointed when a movie storyline strays to far from the original book.
The difference in the SCI FI Channel's latest production Dune, in the lack of Muad'Dib creating rainfall, in comparison to the '80s Dune, and other tidbits, do not go overlooked either. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of commenting on [SCI FI] shows. All things considered I did enjoy them immensely and look forward to others by [their] very talented personnel.
Gerald DeCol
decal@net-bizz.com
egarding the "slippery plot slopes" of Dune, as pointed out by Michael
Kroll ("Dune Has Slippery Plot Slopes"). ...
Just three words, Michael: Read the books. Many of the inconsistencies you pointed out are explained in the books. The limitations of the miniseries format simply prevents such exposition.
Even so, I too enjoyed the series. I thought it was extremely well done and remained relatively true to the books. Also, I thought Susan Sarandon was deliciously evil as Princess Wencensia, although I wasn't terribly impressed with Alice Krige as Jessica.
Ah, well. One can't have everything!
Rachel Maley
rmaley@cox.net
was wondering if anyone could help me: There is this book my uncle told me about that I'm dying to read, but he forgot the name to it. He thinks it was written when he was a child, probably in the '60s or '70s.
It's about Texas, where they institute a law that everyone caries a gun and the state trains everyone, from the time they are children, on gun control and stuff, but the point is that whenever someone does something wrong, people are allowed to shoot them. And drugs are legalized in one place and all the drugs are really cheap. All the drug addicts will eventually overdose and wipe themselves out. So people are basically taking crime into their own hands so as to teach everyone to be good and act right and eventually, after about two years, all the criminals have died out and the druggies have overdosed so they are pretty much crime free. But during that time, the laws are spread all over America and within five years all of America and part of Mexico are pretty much crime free.
It was supposedly written by a psychologist who also studies sociology and stuff like that—but I have no idea what it is called. My uncle thinks it was an Ace paperback. If anyone has any clue what I'm talking about, please e-mail me.
Amy
Anyeis@aol.com
he trouble with the Star Trek movie franchise is simply that it focused on a show that's been off the air for so long. Sure, I like Picard and the rest of the crew, but why forget the great characters from Deep Space Nine all the time? I'd like to see what happened to Kira, Dr. Bashir and the rest of that crew. Having Janeway come on screen for a few seconds for a throw-away
scene was more insult than anything else. Almost as bad an insult the final episode of Voyager was.
To be honest, I like Enterprise, it's had a couple well-written shows and the actors are doing fine. The big complaint about sex entering into it ("Star Trek Seduces With Sex"), well, I'm old enough to remember the short hems of the original Star Trek series drew a number of comments back in the '60s.
I'd love to see a movie that had only one or two actors from each series involved. Doing that would require a good writer and a good plot. Also, I like Picard but enough; let's see Riker, Chief O'Brian, Col. Kira, Quark, Seven of Nine in slightly normal clothing, Belana and Tom get together and rescue Odo or something like that. I'd like to see how the characters would mix, it would be more entertaining than Nemesis which, to me, was just more of the same; the "next generation doing their movie thing."
Gary Roelli
gjwr@excite.com
Back to the top.
