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.
or the last six and half years, the most original, interesting and best-written show on TV has been Buffy the Vampire Slayer. No show in my memory (and I go back to the original Star Trek) has had so many interesting things to say and done that saying so cleverly. In a time when many lament the poor scripts and lack of originality on TV, Buffy stood out. The show said more about growing up and life than most of the shows set in the "real" world.
Finely acted with a great ensemble cast, Buffy was a treat to watch almost every Tuesday night. The real shame in its leaving is that the show has never received any of the awards it so richly deserved. "The Body" was the best hour of TV I ever saw. Its examination of people, and how they react to someone they love dies, was honest and kept me awake most of the night. Why? Because its honesty and raw emotion brought back memories of every person in my life I had lost. Like any 22-episode series, it had its klunkers, but the gems always outweighed them.
I remember watching the show during its first season and reasoning that something this interesting but doing it inside a fantasy background would never be successful. It was a show I was going to really miss. Well, to my surprise, the show came back and thrived. Now as it's ending its run, I can still say that it's one of the few shows that I will really miss.
Bill Rawls
wsrawls@erols.com
ike Steven Dozier ("Singer's Galactica Promised to Sing"), I too was disappointed by the whiplash turn in Battlestar Galactica's future, as it was transformed from a Bryan Singer continuation into a Ronald Moore remake that drastically altered story elements.
The script was leaked several months ago and has met almost universal unacceptance by Galactica's fanbase. The mechanical Cylon centurions are almost entirely gone but for two or three scenes, where they stand silently in the background. So who's in the foreground? Humanoid "perfect-bodied" female Cylons who sexually tease and even sexually attack human males.
Huh?
Updating a 25-year-old show is expected, but changing basics like this is more than remaking the original—it's destroying it and putting something entirely new in its place. If you're going to do that, at least give it a different name rather than using a familiar title to lure back old fans who'll be expecting something semi-familiar.
It reminds me of jokes about network executives and how they can pervert ideas until they are nothing close to what they were originally.
Executive #1: I like the old Cylons, but they need something. Something fresh. ...
Executive #2: What if we make them beautiful? Beautiful people bring in ratings.
Executive #1: A beautiful machine?
Executive #2: Hmm. Well, androids are a kind of machine. Beautiful "perfect-bodied" androids.
Executive #1 (brightening): Sexy Cylons!
Executive #2: Think of the possibilities!
And just like that, a mechanical hulk is converted into a slinky sexkitten. It's all perfectly reasonable.
Ray Grant
RGame3@yahoo.com
teven Dozier's letter ("Singer's Galactica Promised to Sing") surprised me. The way he spoke about the old Battlestar Galactica made it seem like it was actually good science fiction. He goes on to describe the upcoming "re-imagined" version as a "cheap, violent, hokey, cheaply produced soap opera". That's funny, because last time I saw Battlestar Galactica, it easily fit all those categories. Badly developed and poorly acted characters flew through the galaxy with no regard for the laws of physics, wore dopey costumes and haircuts and shot at just about everything that moved. Fans have complained about changing Starbuck to a woman—but in the original show, all the women were weak damsels in distress.
My advice for the people at the SCI FI Channel? Give up on remakes or adaptations. Pool all your talent into creating dramatic shows with strong actors, scripts and scientific plausibility. Farscape was close, Stargate SG-1 isn't bad (even though it's based on a movie), but the rest of the original programming is entirely forgettable.
Robbie Sundquist
pooneil3@hotmail.com
would like to add support to the letter written by Steven Dozier ("Singer's Galactica Promised to Sing") in regards to boycotting derivative works that only have their name in common with the original. I believe that this is a serious, bordering on criminal, misuse of the copyright system and it only seems to be getting worse.
Battlestar Galactica is just the latest. Starship Troopers would be another. I could see not having power suits, but couldn't they have at least updated the tactics and weapons? Starships taken out by giant beetles. Troops running around in mobs taken out by giant ants. In the book, the first time the main character goes into battle, he destroys an alien spaceship with a hand-launched nuke. In the movie, during the first battle everyone stands shoulder to shoulder in a narrow ravine and they get overrun. That tactic went out with the War To End All Wars.
The Postman is another good example or maybe that should be a bad example. Kevin Costner completely changed the morality of the main character. In the book, the main character was mistaken for a postman because of the ignorance of an isolated community and when first asked when he became a postman, replied that he had just found the clothes. Some understand and others continued to believe. Afterwards, the lie is allowed to continue because of its positive effects on the community. This is followed by more success in subsequent towns which enforces the lie. In the movie, the character intentionally misleads people for his own gain and in the process gets a bunch of them killed. Afterwhich the character flees and only comes back when he discovers that his scam is still working. They also cut about 2/3rds of the book, including three major plot lines.
I'm sure that everyone has their own personal hit list. The latest Planet of the Apes, which was pretty bad and which I managed to boycott, comes to mind. Even the latest Star Trek and Star Wars films would fit comfortably on a list to boycott. On a side note, although Battlefield Earth was terrible, it should not make this list as it stayed true to the source material, which is terrible. It should still be boycotted (and is when it turns up on cable) just for a different reason.
The problem is knowing when a derivative work is going to hack the original to pieces. Coming up we can look forward to movie adaptations of science-fiction classics such as The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and I, Robot. I'm hoping they manage to stay true to the source material. If they don't,
then I hope some SF fan like Steven gets the word out so that I can join the boycott.
Tim Huck
duceusmeus@yahoo.com
n his review of The Matrix Reloaded, Patrick Lee states that "without
question [it is] the most highly anticipated movie of the year...." Gimme a break. Did someone forget The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King?
In box-office and critical plaudits, The Lord of the Rings has simply blown all of its competitors away.
Robert Burg
robwbur@netscape.net
evin Ahearn has brought up an interesting argument concerning science fiction's future ("Science Fiction Has No Future"). Especially for science-fiction novels. It is certainly true that modern science-fiction writers are not making the kind of strong and meaningful novels that Wells and Orwell made. Indeed, the only modern writers that seem to make it into mainstream are the ones who's novels have been turned into films like Jurassic Park.
But where do we look for new ideas that will appeal to todays audience? I have one particular idea which might just work.
Kevin Ahearn writes: "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?"
Yes, Harry Potter is fantasy, and not science fiction. But what makes Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and other such stories fantasy is concept, not content. Harry's powers are presented simply as magic. Nothing more, nothing less. The same goes for Lord of the Rings. Star Wars is a bit different. The Jedi do explain that their powers come from the living force, rather than simple magic.
It is in this field that modern science fiction can make a great comeback. It can be done by a convergence of four literary concepts: the supernatural, philosophy, human evolution and neuroscience. I believe that bringing these four concepts together in one novel would turn science fiction around, and make it more exciting than it's ever been. Many writers have already conceived of a future where humans and machines converge to become one. But I think that a much more exciting concept of evolutionary progress could come literally from the mind, without the aid of crude machines or genetics. I think it's plausible to suggest that our neurons are capable of much more than we know.
I am aware that the concept of telepathy and telekinesis are already in the public domain. But what I am proposing is much bolder. Imagine if you could train your brain to let you not just hover above the ground, but actually fly. Or to not only talk to people, but to transfer a message straight onto their brain. Or, even bolder, would be the notion that you could travel to different universes, contact supernatural beings and even travel through time without getting out of bed. Your neurons would effectively become separable from your body.
To get a good story out of this idea would be more difficult. An adventure story would be the best bet. You would essentially be blending science and spirituality into one. For me, this should be sci-fi's new challenge. The possibility for novels are endless. All of those concepts from fairies to mythical gods, from levitation to parallel universes, could all come under one umbrella and actually look scientifically plausible.
Forget outerspace, try innerspace.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
'd like to respond to the notion print science fiction has no future or hasn't changed ("Science Fiction Has No Future").
First, the notion it has no future is clearly absurd. Mr. Ahearn seems to only base that on movies being watched more than books and an SFBC poll. On the first hand, in the 1950s, many more people watched movies than read Galaxy, or Astounding. Read what the authors back then said and you'll find they were as obscure to most of the world as anyone publishing in the current 'zines. Therefore, it seems it clearly had no future in the 1950s. It had no future in the previous decade when WWII made paper too expensive and SF novels were a rare thing. It certainly had no future when Gernsback started as his group went bankrupt in 1929. Indeed science-fiction pulps were less profitable than most then. Finally, go back to WWI and you'll find the Scientific Romance, Science Fiction Now, was certainly doomed by the changing times. Who would want to read about super-technology when you have a "Lost Generation" poisoned or bombed by said technology? Except of course, it did continue well past WWI, didn't get called "Science Fiction" even until the 1920s.
As for the SFBC poll, that's even flimsier justification. By that logic, movies have no future as a recent Film Critics Poll did not include any film after the early 1980s. Newer stuff isn't on such lists because you need time to know if something is a classic. It'd actually be more suspicious if the, great and innovative, work of the 1990s was on such a list. It'd imply the older stuff has been forgotten which certainly would not be a good sign.
As for the "Science Fiction hasn't changed," this could only be said by someone who has read little to nothing recent. Mr. Ahearn mentions only "series" and one contest winner for new writer. As if a debut novelist must be the most innovative thing in the world or series are some new plague, rather than an ancient art form. In reality, the stuff being written now is so different I almost have the opposite problem. I'd prefer something more familiar to be honest.
However I'm not entirely unsympathetic. Sales are down and the good stuff is hard to find. My advice to Mr. Ahearn is to read the book reviews segment at SF Weekly then maybe order some of the books there that interest you. Maybe from a library if you are short on cash. Then maybe you can prove me wrong.
Thomas Redding
TRedding@sciam.com
y first reaction was to wonder if Pete had lost it ("Better Programming Is Within Reach"). If there's anything that the SCI FI Channel doesn't need, it's "low-budget sci-fi shows with a strong emphasis on reality TV," or at least what he SCI FI Channel considers to be low-budget and/or reality TV. However, the lead paragraph is misleading, and could be easily taken out of context and used by SCI FI to justify their current leanings toward the cheap and/or reality shows (Crossing Over, Scare Tactics, Tremors: The Series, etc.).
Regarding Pete's ideas:
"Scripts." Sounds incredibly boring.
"Conferences and Conventions." Now, this could be a great idea. For instance, I'd love to have gone to the recent convention in San Francisco that J.M. Straczynski attended, but I'm not going to fly across the entire country for just one guest. It seems that JMS never travels to the East Coast anymore. There are lots of cons all over the world that most fans have little or no chance of attending.
"Terry Nation Tuesdays." Never seen these shows. Doesn't sound very interesting.
"Sci-Fi Interviews." This could work. At least it has the potential to be something of substance, not just another piece of fluff.
Mac Breck
macbreck@access995.com
welcome the criticisms of my comments by M. Holmes' letter "Varley Didn't Steal Explorers Thunder" and Dave Campanas' letter "Varley More Inventive Than Explorers". I believe that they have raised the same question that a lot of science-fiction fans and Kevin Ahearn in his letter "Science Fiction Has No Future" are asking: "Are we witnessing the end of science fiction as we once knew it?"
While I now realize that my comments on Varley's novel ("Thunder Makes Reader See Red") were based on ignorance, as I was not aware of the novels and Mr. Varley's work apart from the TV-movie Millennium with Kris Kristofferson that was based on his novel of the same name. But I believe the same point remains: "Has everything in science fiction been done before? Is there nothing that hasn't?"
While both Holmes and Mr. Campanas point out the works that Explorers has borrowed from, they both forgot that the main character in Explorers was himself a sci-fi fan and the homages to classic movies War of the Worlds, It Came from Outer Space and The Day the Earth Stood Still as well as a damn funny movie-in-a-movie B-grade science-fiction movie Starkiller starring no other than the EMH from Voyager. I am sure that Varley's novel is better than most other things on the shelves at the moment, but as Paul Di Filippo points out himself, that there are other books with the same theme. This is what frustrates me, that we are seeing more remaking, rehashing, remixing and re-releasing than ever before. Is this the future, because it looks like more of the past than ever before.
Simmie
simmie76@hotmail.com
refuse to watch tonight's second Enterprise episode. Enough is enough! If Paramount requires soft porn to keep up the ratings for Enterprise, it's time to retire the franchise.
What happened to moral standards? I'm not talking about religous standards, I talking about the standards set by the Star Trek the original series and The Next Generation.
They probably died with Gene Roddenberry and so should have the franchise.
Joe Castleberry
biowolf@netzero.com
t seems so much of today's science fiction has gotten stuck in a rut, using the same old themes: you know—Good versus Evil, The Evils of Technology, The Price of Immortality, yadda yadda yadda.
In fact, the only show I can think of that tried to get out of this rut was Star Trek, which dealt with the issues of the day—war, the peace movement, racism (I still love "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield") and so on—the kinds of topics no SF show before—or since—would touch.
But now, even Enterprise has gotten stuck in a rut. Many of the episodes seem to deal with the theme of Don't Mess With An Alien Culture. While this is still a viable subject (just ask the people of the Middle East), it's not the ONLY one. If most of SF is supposed to be about the future, why is so much of it stuck in the past with these outdated themes? Also, don't you think it's time to get away from Humanoid (or at least, Bipedal) Aliens Who Just Happen To Breathe The Same Atmosphere And Live At The Same Gravity As Us Humans? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard all the theories about Parallel Evolution, but on that scale? And yes, I know it's cheaper to simply put an actor in latex and say: "Ta da! Alien!" We've got CGI now—let's put it to use to create really alien aliens.
Bruce Morton
brucemor@adelphia.net
Back to the top.
