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.
egarding the letter, "SG-1 Is On the Road to Renewal": Perhaps the author of this letter should look at his/her self before passing judgment on the opinions of others.
What you consider drivel, many others enjoyed as evidenced by Stargate's high ratings. Despite the noise that some of his more fanatical supporters made, the show did just fine without Michael Shanks. In fact, season six was
an unmitigated success.
Not everyone cared that Michael Shanks left and not everyone wants him back. He is one of five stars of the show, and to many of us, not one of the most important. If he was driven out, his ego was at the helm. He felt he was more important than the others and should be given increased screen time at
the expense of the others in the cast. In addition, my understanding from interviews and chats with some of the production and writing staff is that, yes, Michael Shanks was asked to come back, but only after he initially approached them about returning.
Also, Jonas having a similar ability with linguistics doesn't make him a carbon copy. Personality wise, he is very different. He's a much lighter character and easier to watch. Jonas also brings out the lighter side of his teammates allowing them to shine as well. Corin Nemec did an excellent job with the character and didn't have to wag his eyebrows to indicate emotion. I will miss Jonas and hope to see him in as many future episodes as he is willing to do.
C.L.
cland722@yahoo.com
icely pointed out, Matt Frey ("Tomorrow Has Limited Alternatives"). These, I think, are the only possibilities that space colonialism can offer, within human reason. However these are base-alternatives. Within these base-alternatives are an almost infinite number of sub-alternatives. As you pointed out, the isolationist model would be the most diverse. But even the other alternatives would have their differences. As cultures expand outwards from their starting points, they change anyway. The further they travel, the more they change. Look at the English-speaking world; U.K., America, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc. All of their cultures came from England. Yet as time has progressed, they have clearly formed their own cultures and even their own forms of English. This demonstrates how easily and quickly imperial outposts can take advantage of their distance from the
motherland. Matt Frey wrote:
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!"
Given my case study, this alternative is by far the most likely. If peoples separated by oceans can make their own separate way of life. Think how much advantage peoples separated by empty space would have. Just think about it. If Buddhist monks wanted to find a place to make a monastery that is far
away from the rest of the world, they would jump to the opportunity. As would Muslims who want to set up an Islamic State. Or greedy crime lords, like Jabba the Hutt in Star Wars, could take a planet and call it their own.
Make no mistake. Our space empire will not be the same all over. We will have crime lords and we will have separatists. And we won't be able to handle them all. Although Star Wars is set in another galaxy, its political landscape shows a far more likely future for humanity in space than anything that has come out of Star Trek.
Let's just hope that no one invents a Death Star by then.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
ell, this is going to be different. I'm not one who usually jumps to the aid of another letter writer, but this time I guess I have to. To all of you who are freaking out ("SG-1 Is On the Road to Renewal", "Tomorrow Has Limited Alternatives", "Not All Shows Are Easily Ruined") over Mr. Boghossian's letter ("Sci-Fi Shows Are Easily Ruined"): Go back and read it! I made this mistake myself once before when I attacked a letter by Nathan Brazil—i.e., I didn't really read it all that closely and I went off onto a rant about something the man hadn't said.
When I first read his letter about "ruining" sci-fi shows, I was livid, but then I went back and read it again and realized that letter had to be tongue-in-cheek. Is he upset? Yes. Can he possibly mean everything he said? I doubt it.
His letter, to me, is in the same vein as John Lennon's return of his MBE to the Queen of England in 1969, citing "Britain's involvement in Biafra and 'Cold Turkey' (a record of his that had been recently released) slipping down the charts." This brought about hundreds of admonishments and Lennon thought the whole thing hysterical as he had meant it as a joke.
I believe Mr. Boghossian's letter was a sarcastic joke, overall. He did have some bitingly correct points and many of us saw them, but I also can recognize humor when I see it.
Oh, and for those of you who cut down Riverworld, I have to say that it was excellent for one specific point: Over the years, while reading hundreds of science-fiction novels and series, I somehow missed Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series. The movie, to one who has never read the book, served its purpose. I was so enchanted by the movie that I'm now trying to find copies of the series (which is currently out of print) so I can read it!
Oh, and just remember that great sci-fi is not only great drama, but also can contain great humor. ...
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu1@aol.com
want to know why, with all these superhero movies being made, why doesn't Hollywood make the John Carter of Mars series movie? If done right—and I say again, done right—it could be as big as the Star Wars movies! Why don't the studios wake up and smell the money? That's what most use to determine if a movie gets made or not. The book has been around since 1913, before Tarzan
came about. Somebody slap the producers and writers and so forth and wake them up!
Michael Chatterton
chat51@comcast.net
om Holste's letter ("Book Burning Is an Overblown Subject") about book-burning missed the point. While burning a flag or wearing a T-shirt is a form of protest, burning or bulldozing books is not. People who are offended by Harry Potter would do better to print anti-Harry T-shirts and lawn signs, instead of getting all the negative press by burning the books.
Science-fiction has covered this before—in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Burning a book is not a protest, it is censorship. The point is to destroy the offensive book so that people aren't able to read it. Another example is The Beatles, whose albums were smashed and burned for a while in the mid-1960's. Simply not buying the music would have been easier, if people wanted to protest. But when you destroy the records, or burn piles of books, you are censoring the artist, and keeping his or her work from reaching the people.
Robbie Sundquist
pooneil3@hotmail.com
om Holste's views ("Book Burning Is an Overblown Subject") on the subject of Fundamentalist Christians burning Harry Potter books verged on the perverse. Especially his attempt to make a case for it being acceptable that such people destroy their own
property as a protest. How would he feel about it if Harry Potter readers threw Bibles into a pile and torched the lot. The symbology of some actions, regardless of who own the physical material, is always going to be wrong.
He also seems to miss the point entirely, when it comes to J.K. Rowling's influence. Nobody is imagining that the Harry Potter phenomena is having anything other than a huge effect. But the point is, the effect is a force for good. In terms of the story, Potter is shown to be an extremely moral boy, conscientious with regard to his education, loyal to his friends and above all very aware of the need to combat evil. In the real world, Potter's effect has been only beneficial. Nobody has ever killed another person because they read a rival fantasy to the Potter pantheon. Nobody has ever preached that only Potter readers will go to Heaven. J.K. Rowling's influence is helping to bring people of divergent races, cultures and faiths together, sans the mind control of religion.
Tom chooses to twist what I said ("Harry Potter Is Not Anti-Religion") concerning Potter's magic possibly being the same force as the Holy Spirit. Potter does not perform his magic using demonic power, the force he uses simply is, and the use to which he puts it is never evil. Is this not exactly equivalent to what Jesus is reported to have done? If, as the Bible says, we are all children of the creator, then it's clearly feasible for Potter's magic to be a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Unless what Tom is really claiming, is that God only ever works through Christians? I do hope not, as Jesus was a devout follower of Judaism, and nowhere in the Bible does he tell those who would follow him to go forth and found an entirely new religion! Or, for that matter, to burn any books.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
ust to throw wood on the fire ("Farscape Finale Was Fun", "Farscape Finale Was Frelling Funny", "Farscape's End Is Not So Bleak"), [warning: spoilers ahead] I wanted to mention something about the "death" of our heroes in the series finale of Farscape. A common theory of teleportation is that you must, in fact, destroy the original in order to recreate it at its destination. The disintegration we witnessed in the final moments may just have been the after affect of teleportation. Granted, Farscape never really relied on science fact to support its fiction, but there is reason to believe it could easily be continued.
Oh yeah, and it should be, in my humble opinion.
Tom Loveman
tloveman@mac.com
udos to David Brauner for suggesting other media besides TV where Farscape could live again ("Farscape Can Still Cheat Death"). However, Mr. Brauner forgot about another medium whose audience would appreciate the former SCI FI Channel space opera: comic books.
Last year, DC Comics/Wildstorm published an excellent Farscape mini-series called "War Torn." The comic was written by Marv Wolfman, who is perhaps best known for co-creating the title character of the hit comic flick, Blade. As a longtime Farscape fan, Wolfman perfectly captured every nuance of Moya's crew. Also, like the TV show, he used metaphor to address a complex issue, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, without descending into the usual rhetoric. In addition, "War Torn" artist Robert Teranashi demonstrated the advantages of comics compared to TV by dreaming up richly textured alien worlds unencumbered by budget. Hence, even sci-fi fans who normally shun comics would admit "War Torn" is a top-notch Farscape adventure.
Still, some will question a Farscape comic being economically viable in the American comics market. Unlike Europe or Asia, this comic industry is so superhero-oriented that other genres like science-fiction titles usually have difficulty surviving. The exceptions are tie-ins to already popular sci-fi franchises like Star Wars.
However, a new wave of publishers like CrossGen Comics are challenging this tradition. Sure, CrossGen publishes its share of licensed material like a tie-in to Cartoon Network's Masters of the Universe and the upcoming Snake Plissken Chronicles inspired by the cult film, Escape from New York. Others are spinoffs of popular novels like May's Demon Wars: Trial By Fire, a graphic novel prequel to the fantasy series created by novelist R.A. Salvatore (Star Wars: New Jedi Order—Vector Prime).
Yet, CrossGen has devoted an equal amount of effort promoting original series. For example, Chimera shocked retailers by quickly selling out despite frequent reorders. The success of the sci-fi mini-series was due partly for it not being another "all flash, no substance" space adventure, which have lately dominated TV and film. Instead, Chimera deftly blends Dune's royal intrigue and epic battles with Firefly's blue-collar human drama.
The other factor for Chimera becoming a sleeper-hit was CrossGen fiercely plugging the series with ads in its various titles and creator interviews at comic fanzine Web sites. The most brilliant marketing stroke was previewing Chimera #1 in Wizard, the industry's top-selling fanzine. This exposed readers to the stunning CGI artwork of Brandon Peterson (Demon Wars: Trial By Fire cover artist) and made them far more inclined to purchase the comic.
Taking this preview promotion a step further is CrossGen's Comics on the Web site (www.comicsontheweb.com). This online archive allows net surfers to read a free sample of CrossGen title with the option of purchasing Web or printed versions of subsequent issues. COW has been a boon to titles that would otherwise be overlooked like the "fugitives in another universe" saga, Negation. (Think "Farscape on crack.") Despite a slow start, Negation soon emerged as COW's most read title by online subscribers, and this success is becoming evident in sales and especially critical acclaim.
Clearly, it would be quite beneficial to Farscape's creators to treat future comic tie-ins to the show as seriously as other media tie-ins. Because the cutting-edge visual effects are drawn, Farscape comics will enable Moya's crew to embark on the most extraordinary journeys at greatly reduced production cost. Also, there are an increasingly number of comic publishers who "get" sci-fi and thus will give Farscape all the promotional support and creative freedom it needs to thrive.
Frederick D. Weaver
duane106@olg.com
arscape's series finale was titled "Bad Timing." And it was bad timing indeed, to leave us all hanging this way when it could easily have been avoided.
**** SPOILERS FOLLOW ****
Considering that everyone knew Farscape was not being renewed, it would have been easy to change the ending to leave the cliffhanger aspect open without making everyone think John and Aeryn were killed. They could have ended it just as the attacking ship made its strafing run, without pulling the rug out from under everyone who followed this pair through four years of running—both from enemies and from each other. This ending would have been consistent with what the audience had come to expect from Farscape, and yet given us hope that our heroes would survive as they always do—with wit, courage and sometimes just plain luck.
That being said, it is pretty obvious that John and Aeryn didn't die. After all, there was a fifth season planned when this script was written. And the attacking pilot was ordered to "neutralize them for study," not kill them. So whatever the residue was—the spherical "whatever" that fell into the boat and the water after the attack—it wasn't John or Aeryn. I bet within the first half hour of the first episode of season five, D'Argo and company would have figured out the truth and starting searching for our dynamic duo.
I figured this out about 15 seconds after the words "to be continued" showed up on the screen—once the shock had worn off. So I wasn't as angry with the producers as I could have been. Still, it should have been handled differently. And frankly, given the demonstrated depth of the emotional involvement of the fans with the characters, I expected a better reward for my loyalty and love than a kick in the stomach and a knife in my heart.
Randa Wright
randagirl@mac.com
find it incredibly interesting in your review of Red Thunder that you refer to another author's work, when it is obvious that Red Thunder borrows extensively from the 1985 Joe Dante movie, Explorers. In that movie the kids discover a free, quick form of travelling between the stars. And name the ship: "Thunder Road" after the Bruce Springsteen song.
While I understand that the fantasy of building a spaceship and flying to the stars has been around since the dawn of time, what I object to is the liberal reworking of someone else's work and claiming it as new and inventive. The way
to be new and inventive is to take a genre idea and completely turn it on its head, not to slightly change someone else's ideas from nearly 20 years ago or earlier.
Simmie
simmie76@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
