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.
ell, I can't say much about the other shows on the list as I'm not a regular viewer of any of them, but if Mr. Boghossian ("Sci-Fi Shows Are Easily Ruined") was as far from the mark on those as he was on Stargate SG-1, I'd feel sorry for any show that ever took his advice on anything.
In regards to his comments:
"1. Have an absolutely enormous secret government project that virtually nobody in the civilian world knows about."
And this is wrong ... how? As stated, it's supposed to be a "secret government project," now correct me if I'm wrong, but if every Tom, Dick and Harry knows about it, I don't think it's going to be a secret for long. Last I knew, the main point was supposed to be exploring space and fighting evil
aliens—y'know, a little thing called "sci-fi?"
"2. If one of your main characters leaves the show, and comes back because he can't find other work, make sure you unrealistically change the universe to accommodate him."
Well, I don't see that the character had much trouble finding work. He ascended and was off on his new path learning ... oh wait, could this possibly be a reference to an actor? An actor who had a credited role in a critically acclaimed TV movie, Door to Door starring William H. Macy? An
actor with several other roles in TV and cinema under his belt since leaving the show.
Oh yes, and an actor who was asked to come back.
The way you ruin a good sci-fi show is by dishing out two years of pointless drivel in the way of episodes, eventually driving away one of your lead actors, thereby losing one of the most important characters in the show, then replacing him with an actor with no talent playing a cardboard character that is nothing more than a second-rate carbon copy.
If you're smart, you find a way to bring the actor back, recover the character, and try to regain the aspects of the show you so carelessly threw away, thereby, hopefully fixing what you broke in the first place.
M.J. Lynn
Amara525@aol.com
eading Peter Boghossian's letter about how not to ruin an SF TV show ("Sci-Fi Shows Are Easily Ruined"), I took note of his disparaging remarks Star Trek: Voyager's promotion of the concepts of multiculturalism and acceptance of diversity. I assume that he was indulging in a little right-wing "political correctness." (Don't impose any modern values that I don't agree with on the future.)
Multiculturalism promotes cultural relativism, the idea that the values and beliefs of all cultures should be held in equal regard and not be assumed to be inferior just because they are different from our own. I can understand how this notion might rankle some people.
But consider this: Star Trek is set in a future where humans have learned to accept their differences and get along, uniting as a single society to expand out into the universe. Aside from multiculturalism, under what current social model would this be possible?
It seems to me that there are three ultimate alternatives to multiculturalism. First, endless cultural conflict leading inevitably to repeated wars. (Just turn on the TV!)
Second, development of a monoculture in which all ethnic and religious differences are forcibly eliminated, and citizens are enculturated according to an ever more restrictive orthodoxy aimed at eliminating all possible sources of conflict. (Imagine a Star Trek universe in which Spock has his ears docked, and Worf has his forehead sanded down in order to fit in.) Some might argue that multiculturalism would lead to it's own form of monoculture, in which people are forced to accept rather than revile their differences, but I think that's a little contradictory.
The third alternative would be total cultural isolationism. Actually, that might work quite nicely if we start colonizing the galaxy. You could have a Muslim planet, a People Who Like Musicals planet etc. Of course, given human nature, we'd soon need separate Sunni and Shiite Muslim planets, Andrew
Lloyd Weber and Stephen Sondheim planets, and on and on. On second thought, I don't think that the universe is big enough for that idea!
To summarize, it looks like we have four choices for the future development of our intercultural relations:
a) Multiculturalism
b) Endless War
c) Monoculture
d) Isolationism
If there is an e) that could be added to that list, I'd sure like to hear about it. But given the limited choices, I don't see what other path a science-fiction writer can follow if they want to depict a diverse but unified future human society.
Just some ideas, thrown out to see what people think.
Matt Frey
mattgfrey@aol.com
have some short corrections to Peter Boghossian's "Sci-Fi Shows Are Easily Ruined":
1. Sorry, but not everyone is whining about Enterprise's theme song. In fact many folks like it. So maybe instead of assuming everyone hates it he should be a little more careful about his statements.
2. Denise Crosby, herself, left Star Trek: The Next Generation, so in fact it is her own fault for the demise of her character not the makers of the show; they didn't have to kill her, but I think that was at her request as well.
3. Farscape may have ended badly, but again, that isn't the creators of the show's fault, but [rather] the station that dropped [it] without enough notice so the makers could make a true ending to the show. I don't think [Boghossian's] comment makes that clear, even if most of us here know who's fault it is. (And which station is that I wonder?)
Other that that, his letter was great. Cheers!
Cybele Baker
cybelebaker@dwt.com
K, I've written before, and I'm writing again. But this time, it's for a totally different reason.
I'm am coming out of the closet: I love the theme song for Enterprise!
I love it! Every Wednesday at 8 p.m. I crank up the TV and sing along. I love the opening sequence.
I love the show. Yes, it's redundant and rehashes old stories. So has every Trek since the original series—hello? "The Naked Now?" I think the ship is sexy as all hell and I love Engineering. Though I do agree that Trip and the ABOTW is irritating and Reed gets embarrassed or humiliated far more than any armory chief should, I think there is so much potential here that I can't
justify missing a single episode. Heck, I tape it!
Because, lets face it gang: No matter how much you complain about the current Trek, it's better than The Bachelor!
Kasey Myers
kaseymyers@hotmail.com
'd love a Star Trek movie using the Deep Space Nine cast, but you have the problem of Sisko contemplating his navel in all-time in the center of the Bajoran wormhole. He was such a vital do-er that it seemed a crime to have ended the series consigning him to such a role. A movie would be a chance to correct that horrible series' ending, and the events of his return could be the catalyst to bring the cast and others back to the station.
This couldn't be the whole movie, just the start, or it'd end up a glorified TV episode. But it would open the door to the kinds of Trek movies that several others have suggested—using members from more than one series. Just like when Data met Spock in Star Trek: The Next Generation or when Dr. Crusher used Voyager's holo Doc in First Contact, there could be some fun combinations that could be explored: like the sparks
that could fly between Com. Kira and engineer and ex-Maquis B'Elana Torres, or comedy relief of
Quark trying to hit on Seven of Nine. But for any Trek movie to succeed, they need to come up with stories—like First Contact—that are bigger than a TV series episode.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll@attbi.com
r. Jackson: Remake King Kong? ("Kong Will Be All Kiwi") The 1933 production is more than a classic monster movie or a great film: It heralds the coming of America, the superpower.
Faint with hunger, Ann Darrow is tempted by a storekeeper's apple and rescued from humiliation by Carl Denham, the embodiment of the entrepreneurial spirit, himself on the verge of ruin. Radiant and innocent, Ann is a veritable Statue of Liberty.
"But when a girl gets too shabby," she says of herself and America in the depths of the Depression.
Denham is not "bothering" with her "out of kindness," but "strictly business."
"I do want the job so," says Ann anxiously. "What is it?"
"It's money, adventure and fame!" promises Denham. "It's the thrill of a lifetime!"
"What do I have to do?"
"Just trust me," says Denham as they shake hands. "And keep your chin up."
She did. And so did we. Ahead lay monsters and mayhem, danger and derring-do, arrogance and exploitation, true love and unleashed terror, but that handshake is what King Kong is all about. What America is all about.
Within a decade, the United States would be at war with more terrible monsters "a long way off." Later "adventures" would find the nation fighting Communists in Korea and Vietnam and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
That handshake is the reason why after 70 years, King Kong remains peerless Americana while countless other giant monster movies became instant dinosaurs.
So why is the film far more famous for its climax than its opening? Merian C. Cooper's vision began with "A gigantic ape, forty or fifty feet tall, perched atop the tallest building, fighting a fleet of warplanes." The grand finale also featured the debut performance of the most awesome, most destructive force the world would ever know: American air power.
CGI technology could create an incredible scene of airplanes and skyscrapers in downtown 1930s Manhattan, but on September 11, 2001, America and the world beheld an infinitely more horrific reality.
Return of the King will complete your masterful vision of Tolkien's trilogy. Kong is a king who must never return. The original has never left us.
If you are confident that an unlimited budget, digital technology and an international cast can capture and conquer the greatest American fantasy ever created. ...
"Don't be alarmed, ladies and gentlemen. Those chains are made of chrome steel."
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
or all of the negative letters that have suddenly sprung up about Christians holding Harry Potter book burnings ("Potter Unfairly Picked for Burning"; Harry Potter Is Not Anti-Religion), I have yet to see one
actual, documented example of it. I thought the original author was responding to something he saw in the news, but the links attached to his message did not take me to any such story. Of all the Christian churches I've attended or know about, none of them has ever held a book-burning for any reason, though these letters would have you think that one goes on every week.
Even if there was a book-burning going on, one should keep in mind that no one is barging into people's houses and taking their books from them. In this case, people are making a display/protest with books that they own themselves, which puts them on a level with those who would burn an American
flag to let their feelings be known about our nation's current war. Many people who are against the book-burner/protestors would hypocritically support flag-burners' right to protest. (For the record, I'm against both book-burning and flag-burning, because the high emotions and theatrics get in the way of the message trying to be communicated.)
J.K. Rowling is an extremely talented author with a sharp grasp of telling stories with suspense, humor, and imagination. Her books deserve the attention they get. But one should not think that because it's "just a story" that it can have no affect on the reader. The entire advertising industry is based on the understanding that words and images have a profound effect on those who receive them. If the effect can be good (as when SF helped break down racial barriers through allegorical stories), then the
effect can also be bad, whether intended or not. And if you're one of the millions of people around the world who believe in the absolute truth of The Bible, which teaches against the practice of "divination" or witchcraft (Ezekiel 12:24, for instance), then there is cause for concern when a seminal cultural work portrays witchcraft as a good thing.
To answer the claim that Christians have simply not realized that "magic" and the Holy Spirit are the same thing: The Bible teaches that those who said Jesus performed His miracles by demonic power were guilty of the worst blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:22-30). So there is need for a
distinction between the two.
Again, I'm not suggesting that because of this, people should start grabbing books off their shelves while getting out the lighter fluid. But there is a stance to take in between absolute, unreflective acceptance of Rowling's work and the over-emotional display of a minority of Christians.
As for Jesus not being a Christian: well, Christians are, by definition, followers of Christ. One could say that "Buddha wasn't a Buddhist." Christians are not inherently misguided by following Jesus' teachings; He wanted us to listen to Him. I'm sorry that we sometimes show our feelings about certain issues hysterically. But just as Rowling should not be rejected out of hand without careful consideration, neither should we.
Tom Holste
tomh1138@hotmail.com
n the letter about how to ruin a sci-fi show by Peter Boghossian ("Farscape Finale Was Frelling Awful"), he said [of Farscape]: "End the main characters' lives in a completely senseless way in the last 5 minutes of the last episode."
I seem to be one of the few people who found that hilarious. It was a perfect anti-climax. After pushing our sap buttons for minutes at a time with an overly sweet, overly dramatic score and cinematography, this "finale" definitely ended with a bang.
However, I don't think that the ending was entirely senseless. It was probably planned well ahead of time, just as almost any moment in any show is. The only thing I saw that seemed to have been added after the cancellation was the "Previously on Farscape" montage, that was a good tribute to the show, but also fit the episode.
This hasn't been the first time that they've killed off main characters for the cliffhanger. The problem is just that this cliffhanger has been unseasonably been extended due to network management.
Hopefully the rumors are true and this "To be continued ... " actually will be, even if it is in a whole new form.
I'd like to spend some additional words on the stupidity of the network. Scare Tactics, John Edwards Tells Morons What They Want to Hear and The Dream Team are some of the worst programming on television. Not to mention they have absolutely nothing to do with sci-fi and shouldn't be on SCI FI. (I'd also prefer not to see Unsolved Mysteries and its clones and knockoffs, but at least they are more connected to sci-fi than the others.) What the SCI FI channel has shown us is that they are cheap, unscrupulous jerks who care more about the bottom line than about their target audience.
Lest we forget, Hollywood is a business, not a charity. Its goals are not the entertainment of the masses, but the procurement of money.
Max Battcher
me@worldmaker.net
am an avid Farscape fan and unlike Peter Boghossian ("Farscape Finale Was Frelling Awful") I thought the last five minutes of the show were frelling hilarious.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Yes, they could have ended the show with a hug, but that is so anti-Farscape. No way would our crew live happily ever after. I think the writers of the show gave us some credit; they could have cut out the last scene; they could have ended with an enemy fly over but, hell, we Farscape fans are savvy. I truly believe it was meant to be funny; it is one of the funniest moments in my TV/movie-viewing history. Maybe Farscape will never return and the last image we, the fans, will see is John and Aeryn atomized. Of course, we know this is not the true ending. The appeal of Farscape was seeing how the crew reacted to and overcame the most bizarre and outrageous scenarios; the actors did a great job of making it real for us. I strongly encourage all the Peter Boghossians out there to indeed watch the series again and remember that the story did not end in the last episode; that episode was one glimpse into the adventures of John Crichton (and crew). There is no doubt John Crichton and crew are alive. I know the frustration some feel, but for me it's not whether they live but how they overcome (for me Chiana's
unresolved storyline is a big mindblow).
Yes, I want to know how John/Aeryn/Baby are restored but trust me, they are somehow. When watching that last episode, let Farscape do what it did best: Let it leave you in awe and in wonder. Ask yourself how the frell is this going to work out and then image all the possibilities; read the fanfic (some is really good).
Yetta Wilbur
yodayellow@yahoo.com
or those of you who think they're Farscape fans and to those of us who are:
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
What series finale were you watching were John and Aeryn died? If you were listening to the alien who demolecularized John and Aeryn, he mentioned that they were trespassing on his planet and that his orders were to collect the specimens for further study. We are left to believe that the alien will collect all of the "globules" and bring them back in their natural state.
Instead of nit-picking the ending, we should look at inconsistencies during the episode. Like, how did the Scarrans find out about the location of the wormhole that led to Earth? John and Scorpius never mentioned anything
about the location.
Michael in Phoenix
ariesphx@msn.com
Back to the top.
