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.
cott: Your angry editorial ("Mammoth, Thrilling and Wrong") frustrated me. Chabon's burst of "ego-boo" was indeed hard to take, but your defense of today's science fiction
bordered on sheer fantasy. Science fiction, as we used to know it, no longer exists.
Such is the irony of the New Millennium. Science fiction had always told us that science would change things and change us. Times have changed and so have we, but science fiction has not.
Short stories have had a long history, but regardless of quality or genre, as an art form they are as dated as the half-hour TV Western.
We just don't think or absorb entertainment that way any more. Tremors would have been a dandy short story, but of course, an eight-page idea must be turned into a movie trilogy and then a TV series. More people log on to Science Fiction Weekly than ever subscribed to Asimov's SF and The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction put together and the vast majority of SFW readers wouldn't know "Sentinel of Eternity" or "Nightfall" if they fell on them.
Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein and other immortals created a genre geared to prepare us for the future; to show us how and why we fit into the universe and of who we could be and where we might go. We are indebted to them as every pilot owes the Wright Brothers. But that doesn't mean biplanes and propellers forever. The very nature of science fiction is to push onward and upward and outward to new concepts and new worlds and new themes for new times. Scientific progress didn't end with Newton and Einstein, but with the passing of its old masters, science fiction has come to a grinding halt. Being a reader today is like being a baseball fan stuck watching black-and-white replays of games played decades ago.
Where is the new science fiction? In the SF Book Club's list of the most important books in the last 50 years, only one novel written in the last 20 years, Neuromancer, made the top ten.
In the last two decades, country music and professional wrestling have grown exponentially because they found a way to better connect to national and international audiences. Science fiction has not and has retreated into its own collapsing universe, a mutual admiration society living in an unreal past.
Am I saying that a novel or series aimed at a limited audience is therefore weak or inferior? Not at all. But its impact will be severely limited. That's what separates science fiction from sci-fi entertainment: The former changes us while the latter cannot.
There was a time, before we were born, when an author with pen in hand and science fiction in heart, could write a novel and stun the world. Shelley and Stevenson did. So did Verne and Wells and Orwell and Huxley. No more. The overwhelming majority of science-fiction novels published today are never-ending series or movie novelizations or TV spinoffs aimed at an ever-shrinking market base.
Where's the new science fiction?
More than a century ago, H.G. Wells was told "There's nothing new under the sun. It's all been done." In the New Millennium, one wonders if Clarke's mantra has come true in a way he never expected—has our technology become so sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic?
Not long ago, a single mum on the dole created a series of books that has made her richer than the Queen of England, but Harry Potter was fantasy, not science fiction. Could it be that the CGI/DVD/PC digital miracles of our age have made fantasy the literature of our future and science fiction obsolete or even worse, irrelevant?
In a pig's eye! Though tens of millions are awed and entertained by boy wizards and tree elves, all the dwarfs and giants and sorcerers and princesses and magical warriors ever created will never have the enduring impact of Frankenstein's monster or the robots of R.U.R. or Metropolis' Maria and a hundred other masterpieces. All are now history. Science fiction has become a never-ending regurgitation of that history, hurling itself into nowhere.
Last year, Warner Books held a competition which drew more than 1,000 science-fiction manuscripts by first novelists. The winner was a tale of a young slave girl freed and mentored by alien mercenaries who then sets out to kick butt across the Galaxy. That's the new science fiction? The quality of the writing is not the point. It's been done a dozen times before under a variety of suns.
A decade ago, comic books had hit the bottom of the genre barrel. A starship commander leaving the Enterprise to lead a group of teenage mutants to more BO in an opening weekend than the last three Star Trek movies combined is indicative of the decline of science fiction.
Mystery and romance and horror and fantasy all sell better than science fiction because they offer more of what people want to read. For the last decade or so, science fiction has been offering less and less—the same old stuff over and over again.
Chabon called his intro a rant. Many will insist this letter is and I wish it were. Sad to say, I feel like Jor-El, addressing the smug and pompous Kryptonian Council of impending doom. Unless publishers and editors of this once original, incredible genre finally find the guts and the wisdom to challenge those who would be science-fiction writers and those who like to believe they are, science fiction will be forever history.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
s we all know, Buffy is on its last episodes, to which I say, good riddance. Why would I say that about such a popular show? Well, let me enlighten you about my thoughts.
When it started out, it was good. I expected a little violence. After all, she was a vampire slayer. The stories were well-written, well thought out and very entertaining, even to someone as old as me. How old? Let's just say 30+. But, as I watched it through the years, I noticed the only things that increased were the sex and the gory violence. The sex got more explicit, the fights got more violent and bloody, and the stories got less enjoyable. To be honest, if I were a parent of a teen, I would not let them watch it. It's not as bad as MTV by a longshot, but I, personally, believe that open, irresponsible, explicit sex on any teen show is just not right. Bad example to the kids, bad influence for the teens. Call me a prude if you like, but that's the way I feel. I've complained about it in past articles and my feelings have not changed.
Of course, I'm not really surprised. When you look at all The WB programs (yeah, I know Buffy moved), they almost all have major teen sex themes in so many of the stories. (Charmed is a wonderful example. Everything they wear on that show is so tight and skimpy, it's pathetic. I'd like to see something loose and comfortable just once)
Before you say, "Well, that's just your opinion," yes, that is just my opinion, and I sure don't expect everyone to see it my way. I just wanted to say what was on my mind.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thinking. ...
Eric Anchor
DragonRider64@aol.com
oe Schembrie's letter regarding multiculturalism ("All Ideas Are Not Created Equal") really left me scratching my head. Before decrying the horrors of multiculturalism, he describes "Real America" as such:
"America has a language from England, an alphabet from Rome and a number system from India by way of Arabia. The dominant religions come from the Middle East, much of our philosophy comes from Greece."
Isn't this—taking and accepting various ideas from various often unrelated cultures—the essence of multiculturalism? In fact, the "marketplace of ideas" means nothing, if there are no new ideas running around. And, usually, the only way for new ideas to pop up in a society is for there to be some sort of multicultural aspect to it. English was born from the mixing of Saxon and Norman French. The Roman alphabet had its origins in the trade amongst the various cultures of the Mediterranean Sea, starting with the Phoenicians. As for our major religions, where to begin. ... If there hadn't been some acceptance of other cultures and viewpoints, none of these things would have developed.
Moral relativism is not necessary for an acceptance of various viewpoints and cultures. Even in the midst of "rarified and artificed world of academic political science," I have encountered few people who don't morally object to female genital mutilation (an African tradition), foot binding (a Chinese tradition), lynching (an American tradition) or sacrificial infanticide (a long-gone European tradition).
I think it wouldn't do to suppose that the world of Star Trek: The Next Generation is strictly meant to be a blueprint for the future. Sure, Roddenberry was adamantly in favor of extreme tolerance. But I always thought that the non-judgemental tone of the show was there so that various alien cultures could be explored in depth without the constant threat of Picard pulling a Kirk and completely rearranging the alien culture to conform more closely to accepted Western values.
Brendan Foreman
brendan_44106@yahoo.com
f I were SCI FI's program director, I would push for low-budget sci-fi shows with a strong emphasis on reality TV. They're inexpensive, and if done right, they have the potential to be quite interesting. Given their popularity outside of the genre, I think they'd be a hit. Here's what I'd do:
Scripts. Scripts would be the name of a new one-hour weekly show. The ultimate in low-budget TV, Scripts takes place in a room with a camera and two people—the aspiring screenwriter and a SCI FI Channel bigwig. People who have written sci-fi scripts would have five minutes to pitch their idea to, for example, Scott Edelman. Inclusive in the five minutes would be open two-way questions and answers. Viewers could then vote for their favorite scripts on SCI FI's Web site. I'd schedule Scripts for late Thursday nights.
Conferences and Conventions. There seems to always be a conference or a convention in the world of sci-fi. The SCI FI Channel would be there, live, filming the event for sci-fi fans who wouldn't or couldn't attend. (It should be noted that SCI FI mag is loaded with advertisements for computer games, yet the SCI FI Channel does not cover E3.) The show would include interviews and merchandise reviews. Conferences and Conventions would be slated for late weekday evenings or weekend days.
Terry Nation Tuesdays. The SCI FI Channel suffers from not enough Terry Nation. Doctor Who would probably be too expensive to air, but my guess is that Blake's 7 and Survivors would be fairly inexpensive. I'd have a hosted Terry Nation Tuesdays, where the host would introduce each episode and discuss it. There would also be guests and interviews with people who worked on that particular episode and/or with people who knew Terry Nation. Terry Nation Tuesday would be primetime Tuesday evening viewing.
Sci-Fi Interviews. The SCI FI Channel does a great job with their online interviews, but these don't really give a sense of authors and actors the way that TV does. Sci-Fi Interviews would be a Charlie Rosesque show (www.charlierose.com/index.shtm) where authors, actors, directors and producers are interviewed for 30 minutes. The show would last for an hour, with two 30 minute segments and, if feasible, five minutes at the end of each interview for emailed questions and/or phone calls. (I'd try to balance each episode with an actor and a writer.) For the first episode, I'd try to have an actor from SG-1 and a well known sci-fi author who is not involved in TV, like Joe Haldeman. Sci Fi Interviews would air on Sundays. (Did I mention that I'm available for the position?)
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
just read Adam-Troy Castro's review of Laurell K. Hamilton's latest book in the Anita Blake series, Cerulean Sins, and am rather annoyed.
To jump into a series this complex with regard to the characters, their relationships and the growth they have each realized over the course of ten previous books by reading only the latest installment is irresponsibly uninformed. A real journalist knows to research their stories and subjects before immersing both feet in saliva.
And while Mr. Castro's comments to the effect that a first-time reader of this series would be lost if they started with this volume may be true, he should have read the entire series himself before presuming to critique Cerulean Sins. I can get through them all in less than two weeks, but then, I'm a notoriously voracious reader.
If Mr. Castro prefers the mediocre and painfully obvious, perhaps he should stick with the ouvre of, say, Mercedes Lackey, the queen of banality. Hopefully you will not assign him the responsibility for reviewing the new Harry Potter book when it comes out without first requiring that he read the previous four volumes or he is likely to pan that work as well.
Finally, I would recommend that Mr. Castro stay away from the collected works of J.R.R. Tolkien for his own safety—such depth, history and detailed construction of varied cultures would likely unhinge him entirely. Especially if he remains true to form and attempts to begin with The Silmarillion.
June Weiss
bijoux2@pacbell.net
Reviewer Adam-Troy Castro responds:
If reviewers are required to read every previous book in a long-running series before reviewing the most recent installment, then I would very much like to hire Ms. Weiss to review (for instance) the latest Ed McBain 87th Precinct novel: There have, after all, been more than 50 full-length books in the series, and I would require her to know every character and every storyline and every street in McBain's fictional city in the most exhaustive detail before I'd consider her qualified to write her three-paragraph commentary, due one week from today.
Of course, the very exercise might be considered a waste of time, since folks who've read the first 50 novels already seem to have made up their minds regarding the writer's work, and could be reasonably trusted to feel the same way about the 51st. Those readers don't need a reviewer to tell them what the book's going to be like. They need a fanzine, written by like-minded individuals whose immersion in the milieu is as obsessive as theirs. The readers who merely know McBain by reputation, who have heard that he's kinda good, but aren't sure they'll be be able to follow the
latest installment in a series that began more than 40 years ago, are the ones that need a reviewer, and the first thing they're going to want to know is whether the newest book is going to be accessible to first-timers.
My review covered several aspects of the work in question, including whether Anita Blake is an interesting character (she is) and whether Laurell K. Hamilton writes interesting prose (she does). I do suggest, however, that before Ms. Weiss uses my opinion of one book to make unwarranted and insulting wide sweeping declarations about my irresponsibility, my alleged preferences for mediocrity, my disdain for fantasy worlds with depth and history and, of all things, my supposed ignorance of Tolkien and Harry Potter, she follow her own advice and read everything I've ever written. By her own argument, no further opinions from her will be acceptable until she finishes every last word.
Best,
Adam-Troy
immie's letter ("Thunder Makes Reader See Red") lambasting Varley's Red Thunder is an example of a weird habit amongst genre fans that I have been noticing a lot of late. The habit has two parts. The first is to accuse a new work of being a rip-off of some previous work with which it shares only slight thematic similarities. The second is to select as the previous "ripped-off" work the first example that the protester happened to have read or seen.
Simmie, complaining that Varley's Red Thunder is too similar to Dante's Explorers because they both have kids going into space, is like complaining that U-571 is too similar to Das Boot because they are both depict German submarines during WWII. Red Thunder is not a "slightly" changed version of Explorers. Honestly, having seen Explorers and read Red Thunder, I was astonished you could even make the charge that the book is merely a "liberal reworking" of the film. I'm going to hazard a guess that you have not read Varley's book. I'm also guessing Explorers was the first "kids into space" story you ever encountered.
In Red Thunder, some adults construct a spacecraft thanks to their innate and sometimes brilliant cleverness and inventiveness. Aside from a single MacGuffin, the story is presented realistically and mostly logically in how it would develop and what ramifications it would have for the world. The characters and story are complex and satisfying. It's straightforward but fun SF.
In Explorers, the little kids don't "discover" anything. They are magically sent plans for a spaceship in their dreams, and then construct an advanced form of propulsion from everyday junk. They travel into space, meet some of the most inane rubber aliens ever depicted on film, and then go home to an utterly unaware and unchanged planet Earth. The movie was sugary fluff sci-fantasy and a disappointing follow-up for Dante to the dark humored Gremlins.
If you must have a rip-off, I suggest you view Explorers as a rip-off of James Blish's 1967 young adult novel Welcome To Mars. In Blish's book, a boy discovers anti-gravity and uses it to fly a packing crate to Mars. It was a favorite book of mine growing up. Even Blish's novel attempts to be realistic, including the effect on the world when government authorities discover our young hero's notes and prototypes after he has left on his mission.
M. Holmes
pan_magnetic@yahoo.com
f Simmie ("Thunder Makes Reader See Red") truly objected to "the liberal reworking of someone else's work and claiming it as new and inventive" he/she would pretty much have to give up watching movies altogether. As Mr. Di Filippo pointed out in his review, the grandaddy of all the "Let's build a spaceship out of Lego and explore the Universe" works is Heinlein's Rocketship Galileo, published in 1947. The subject has been subsequently explored by others, including Joe Dante and now John Varley, but that does not necessarily point to a lack of imagination, but rather to differing visions on where such an adventure would lead. Margaret Atwood's science-fiction stories are hardly groundbreaking in their view of the future, but they are great reads nonetheless.
John Varley is a wildly inventive writer whose last two novels have expanded on his personal "Eight Worlds" universe while incorporating elements from Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and the classic movies The Front Page and Harvey. The synopsis I've seen here of Red Thunder shows little correlation to the movie Explorers and judging by Mr. Varley's past performance, will undoubtedly be of much higher quality.
Dave Campanas
d.campanas@shaw.ca
ichal Chatterton makes a good point regarding the John Carter of Mars ("John Carter Should Visit Hollywood") series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The first fiction book I ever read was The Gods of Mars and I grew up virtually living part-time in Barsoom. But has anyone read them lately? A few months ago, I dusted off A Princess of Mars and spent an afternoon enjoying a good tale. ERB was a natural for facile science (Eighth Ray, anyone?), jingoism (in the form of the natural superiority of humans), racism (in the natural superiority of white over green, red, black. etc.), sexism (OK, with chivalry—dated, but still a heartfelt condition), etc. His plots move along, his scenery is evocative and the overall writing is very sincere, but the characterization, dialogue and conception is, well, I can't break the heart of my inner child to say just how bad it is. ...
But if I was completely honest, I would take all that (and suffer the embarrassment) just to see Greater Helium, Tars Tarkas and Woola in CGI. Oh, and a red-makeup-slathered Angelina Jolie as Dejah Thoris a la the Michael Whelan Ballantine paperback covers would take me back to my then-awakening prepubescence in ways not fit to be described in this family journal!
ERB broke into the writing biz (finally) with John Carter, but Tarzan captured most people's imagination. Looking back, I can see that Hollywood couldn't get a grasp on the positive aspects of the story because of the SFX limitations, and just possibly because of the writing. Now, we've moved ahead, haven't we, in terms of story. We're beyond sci-fi flimsiness on the screens. Oh, wait, there's Star Wars and the painful writing and direction of George Lucas. Ho ho, maybe it's time to stand on that Arizona ledge, face the Red Planet across the aether and lift our arms in supplication one more time. (Maybe facing southern California will help, you never know. ...)
Chris Pitchford
chris@cybersoulsmusic.com
ere's a thought for all of you [warning: spoilers ahead] ruminating on the demise of the characters at the end of Farscape. I've always felt Farscape owed some kind of debt to the classic BBC low budget sci-fi series Blake's 7 (in which escaped prisoners take over a ship beyond their own technical understanding and race around trying to avoid the authorities). In the final episode of Blake's 7, all the main characters are killed. Could the Farscape ending be one more bit of influence showing? For those in the know, didn't the nasty villainess from this last season of Farscape remind you of Servelan?
Just throwing more fuel on the fire. ...
Mike Luoma
glowindark@adelphia.net
ast weekend, X2 opened to crowded movie houses worldwide. It ended up with a total three-day gross of close to $155 million, $85 million of it coming from movie-goers in this country.
This sci-fi/adventure film was written by the talented team of producer Tom DeSanto and producer/director Bryan Singer. It is based on the Marvel Comics' X-Men characters. Both Singer and DeSanto are huge fans of this comic series, and both have been hailed by both fans of the series and film critics for remaining faithful to the comic series ideas to draw their inspiration.
Two years ago, both men were planning the same treatment for the 1978-80 TV series Battlestar Galactica, which has a huge cult following to this day, similar to Star Trek. Both Singer and DeSanto were planning a continuation of the original ideas of the series, featuring some of the characters (notably Lt. Starbuck, the series' most popular) from the original show, and feature state-of-the-art special effects and sets for a television series production that were worthy of a theatrical feature.
But alas, it was not to be: when Bryan Singer left the production to focus his attention on the production of X2, the television network Fox (which had agreed to air a two-hour pilot produced by Singer/DeSanto) withdrew their support, leaving DeSanto with no network and no funding for the project. At this point, the president of the SCI FI Channel, Bonnie Hammer, stole the production rights out from underneath DeSanto and commissioned a Battlestar project of her own. DeSanto had sets built, actors hired and was just a few days from production. Hammer hired television writer Ronald D. Moore to write a "re-imagined" concept of the series, complete with foul language, sexual assaults, soap-opera elements and humanoid Cylons (the robotic bad guys of the original). This has outraged fans around the world, who had been hoping for a continuation of the original series, which is what Singer and DeSanto intended to do.
My point is this: There is a difference between what Universal Pictures could have had and now what they're going to get from this now-lost potential franchise. They could've had a lavishly produced, top-quality science-fiction series produced by two of the top filmmakers in the world, which honored the original series for which it was based, therefore bringing an established fanbase to it. Instead, they now have a cheap, violent, hokey, cheaply-produced soap opera written by a former disgruntled Star Trek writer (Moore), which was commissioned by a woman (Hammer) who knows absolutely nothing about science fiction or what makes it so special. She cancels the critically acclaimed Farscape to show rubbish like Tremors and Scare Tactics? A reality show on the Science Fiction network? Please ... how insulting.
If you get a chance to see X2 in the theatre, just watch the movie, the reactions of the fans in the movie theatre and keep track of how much money the movie grosses. Read the reviews as to why the movie is doing so well. Then say to yourself, "Wow, those guys (Singer/DeSanto) are really talented ... Universal could've had the same thing with Battlestar Galactica".
I, as a longtime Battlestar Galactica fan, will not watch the re-imagined Galactica when it airs in December on the SCI FI Channel because it is not Battlestar Galactica. It is another writer's work with the name Galactica slapped on it. I support any effort by Bryan Singer, Tom DeSanto, original series creator Glen Larson or even original series star Richard Hatch ("Apollo") to bring Galactica back with the original cast and original concepts of the show, updated for today's audiences with the same values that made it so special those many years ago.
Steven Dozier
sdoziernc@mchsi.com
Back to the top.
