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.
hanks for the review of the R2-D2 figure. Two questions: 1) How can it get
a person a soda? I can't imagine the little droid being able to open a refrigerator door. If the soda's sitting out on an extremely low shelf, maybe? Perhaps I don't have a good enough idea of the scale of this thing. 2) How well does the droid work on carpets? Most toy robots don't impress me because they can only follow me around in my tiny kitchen. (I suppose in theory it would work in my bathroom too ... but why on Earth would I have it in there?)
Tom Holste
tomh1138@hotmail.com
Reviewer Sean Huxter responds:
Hi, Tom. Thanks for the question.
I put the little guy through his paces and found him to be quite amusing and amazing.
How can he get you a soda? Well, he can bring you a soda. But he can't grab one out of the fridge for you. Someone has to put a soda in his specially designed soda holder, and then he can be programmed to bring it to you in a couple of ways:
1) He can be given a course from the kitchen using Command Mode, and that preprogrammed course should work consistently if he's angled the right way when given the soda.
2) You can simply tell him to "go forward five units, turn right one unit," etc. to guide him there on a non-programmed course.
3) You can simply tell him, "Go on patrol," and he will wander around until he finds you.
4) He can be told to "Follow me," and you can lead him to the intended receiver.
I'm sure there are also other ways this can be done using Game Mode.
As to your second question, the first time I saw R2 in motion, he was on office carpet. He had absolutely no trouble getting around. His drive motors seem very strong, powered by big D-cell batteries, and he can really get good traction on floor or carpet.
His wheels are nubbed for gripping, and he rarely slips.
I also brought him home for a good workout. My living room has a parquet floor as well as two small area rugs, and he had no problem negotiating his way onto and off of those rugs to complete his tasks, dance, whatever.
In fact, at times when he hits a carpet edge, he'll "pop a wheelie" and drive himself forward only on his drive legs, with his central leg up in the air, and even then he remains stable and strong.
I can't guarantee his performance on thicker, softer carpets, however.
Best,
Sean
hat is science fiction ("Snobs Don't Know What They Want", "Science Fiction Swings Like Golf", "Sci-Fi Is an Odd Genre")? In short, it is the multi-genre genre. It
borrows, begs and steals from every other genre on the market. Want proof? Just look at the history of SF publishing.
Say you want to read a mystery tale. You could read a number of Isaac Asimov's works, as he incorporated mystery into his novels often.
Or maybe you are looking for a love story. Isn't that what is at the heart of William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson's Logan's Run? While action plays at the forefront, in the background is a strong and compelling story of the growing love between Logan and Jessice. This is much more prominent in the novel than the movie.
Or, just maybe, you are into the hard-boiled detective genre? Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (a.k.a., Blade Runner) is a fine example. Want a technothriller? Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. A western? Any number of space operas written since the beginning of modern SF. Political intrigue? Keith Laumer's Retief series. A history of Palestinian/Israeli relations? Frank Herbert's Dune.
What I am getting at here is that SF is a broad genre that stands not alone, but borrows support from any number of sources freely and frequently and does so unabashedly. Whether you are reading Jack London's Call of the Wild or Ben Bova's The Winds of Altair, the differences are time, place and contrivances, but the stories are much the same and come down to three types of conflict: Man vs. Man/Alien/Robot, Man vs. Nature, and Man vs. Himself. But are there any truly pure SF stories? Perhaps, but if one breaks down most stories into its simplist form, I'm sure one can find another genre that deals totally with the concept.
Jeffrey S. Timmons
pywrit@pywrit.com
drian Hunter's very long recent letter ("Snobs Don't Know What They Want") got me to thinking. What do I really want in SF movies? Here is a list of thoughts that I came up with:
(1) Original, non-sequel plots are my first choice. Signs was a good example, because it told a complete and engaging story without trying to capitalize on the enemy aliens or the special effects. Sequelized films (planned to eventually have sequels), like Back to the Future, E.T., X-Men, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, etc., do very well by themselves, but it would be extremely wasteful (of the studios' money and the patron's money) to rehash everything. For instance, does anyone remember the atrocious Bullwinkle movie? So, the first answer is, design a movie that doesn't necessarily require a sequel, even though one might work.
(2) If there must be an adaptation of a previous book, film or TV show, make sure that it can stand on its own. The Star Trek movies, especially Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (my favorite film of all time) work because they don't need to have sequels. Standing on one's own, even after leaning on a "parent" for a while, is the mark of a successful sequel.
(3) Truly successful stand-alone films don't have to make a lot of money, even if that's what the studios want. I really enjoy films like A Clockwork Orange, Unbreakable, Signs, A.I. and 2001 (which did spawn a pretty decent sequel, but could have stood alone) because they capture the essence of the original story without screwing it up too badly.
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@cox.net
n his letter last week ("Snobs Don't Know What They Want"), Adrian Hunter, who reads this column "religiously," complained how "silly" it had become thanks to its "stuck up" contributors.
He then gave his personal definition of science fiction and his preferences citing A.I. and Signs, but dissed the "'human drama' thing" as "not sci-fi." Go figure.
His most potent venom was reserved for the "book snobs" and maybe I'm one of them with contradictions of my own. I split sci-fi fans into two groups: those who have read Frankenstein and those who haven't. Yet, try as I might, I've found [Lord of the] Rings, Dune and Foundation to be virtually impenetrable.
Yes, the sci-fi community can be silly and snobbish, but one "serious" author takes the cake. Margaret Atwood, who wrote The Handmaid's Tale in 1986 denied it was science fiction which she termed "pulpish stuff about spaceships and Martians." Her story "of a future of reduced fertility and female slavery belonged to a different tradition." More recently in the New York Review of Books, Atwood declared that science fiction had acquired "a dubious if not downright sluttish reputation."
She may have made a major contribution herself. Oryx and Crake, her latest novel, "A gothic tale of biotechnological disaster" set in an a post-apocalyptic future, has received mostly negative reviews topped by the New York Times which called it, "a lame excuse for sci-fi humbug."
Humbug indeed. The Times has been a longtime Scrooge when it comes to science fiction. Last week's Sunday Book Review spotlighted five first novels. Four of them got front-page billing, including The Bug by Ellen Ullman, "a thrilling and intellectually fearless first novel which might have been subtitled 'The Postmodern Prometheus,'" because it "reinvents the story of Frankenstein and his sentient beast as an allegory for the birth of the computer" set "in the subculture of programming engineers in Silicon Valley in 1984." "If more contemporary novels delivered news this relevant and wise they'd have to stop declaring the death of the novel," gushed the reviewer who proclaimed that "The novel of ideas is alive and well and here to defend humanity from the machines as they encroach from every side."
But "science fiction" was never mentioned in connection with The Bug. Not by the Times or any other major reviewer; publishers are afraid that the mere mention of the genre will hurt sales.
A fifth first novel was also reviewed by the Times on Sunday, but pushed to the back pages in Gerald Jonas' Science Fiction column which appears only quarterly. "If you've ever wondered what kind of science fiction Raymond Chandler might have written for a futuristic Philip Marlowe," raved his review of Altered Carbon, three full months after "this rousing first novel" of "25th-century noir" was published. (Science Fiction Weekly reviewed Altered Carbon the same week it hit the shelves.)
The silly, snobbish state of science fiction is hardly limited to the letters column of SFW. Unfortunately, until the genre re-earns the respect it once had, the snobs are going to make it even sillier.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
he soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new. For him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea." —Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
It is very easy to defend the majority view. It is not hard at all to follow the crowd and to accept the beliefs of the majority. It is simple to refuse to see things with a critical eye. It is much more difficult to express your belief when they are not popular.
Most believe that success equals quality. They believe that if a movie produces a large profit it is a good movie. They believe that if a book is on the bestseller lists it is a good book. Then there are a few that believe that books or movies can contain no real value unless they provoke thought and maybe introduce people to new ideas.
A person that spends his life in a constant state of learning and is eager to add to his knowledge is not a snob. This person is a student of the world that rejects the same old notions and hungers for new philosophies to explore. Anybody can open up their minds and join him/her if they want to make the effort. It is not the person's fault if the masses are unwilling
or unable to join him/her in a celebration of new thoughts and ideas.
Why do some people get so upset when their Hollywood heroes are criticized? I think part of the reason involves the fact that people want to feel good about their lives and their beliefs. They reject any form of entertainment that challenges their beloved ideas and asked them to consider new ideas. Directors like Steven Spielberg share the popular beliefs of the majority and incorporates them into his movies. Most of Spielberg's movies are a tribute to American middle-class values. The majority feels very comfortable watching these movies and is thankful. They make the Spielbergs of the worlds into Gods that can no longer be judged by mortal standards. I don't think that Spielberg is a God. He is not even an artist. He is a talented businessman that knows how to produce products that will be popular with the majority.
SF should not be comfort food for the soul. It should not make one be happy with the status quo like so many of Spielberg's movies do. It should not be religious propaganda that has no room for an opposing view like Signs. SF should challenge the mind. It should make one questions their beliefs and their relationship to their surroundings.
I don't know why some people ("Snobs Don't Know What They Want", "Science Fiction Swings Like Golf", "Sci-Fi Is an Odd Genre") get upset when we few dissatisfied people shake our fists at the Hollywood Gods and demand more. Is it that we are performing some kind of blasphemy in their eyes? No matter what we say, the Gods in their Hollywood heaven will create more mindless special-effects filled entertainment to bestow upon the worshiping masses. They will give them the entertainment that they crave. This entertainment will leave them pacified and satisfied. The worshiping masses are getting the products they want and deserve. The Hollywood Gods have proclaimed that this realm called Sci-Fi is for them. They should enjoy their victory.
Ronald Hood
sunjata7@yahoo.com
r. Wynne's opinion ("Buffy Symbolism Is Unmistakable") of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer finale is forgetting two main keys [warning: spoilers follow]—both Spike and Angel did what they did out of their love for Buffy.
Spike got his soul back so he could love Buffy. Yes, there is also a desire for redemption for both of them as well, but it was their love for Buffy that made that redemption possible.
So please tell us again how it is all because of the male characters that they won?
And one more thing: Anya sacrifices herself to save the world. How is that not a great example of strength of character? I won't even mention his silly Faith/Principle Wood analogy ... except to say Faith refused him in the end. ...
Mr. Wynne needs to look at whole picture and not just pick and chose and forget the rest of what has gone on for seven seasons.
Cybele A. Baker
cybelebaker@dwt.com
he edge was taken off the Buffy the Vampire Slayer finale [warning: spoilers follow], which aired this week in the UK, due to duff plot devices and lack of emotional intensity. Weigh the episode against the one where Buffy's mother dies, and
the finale was not up to the usual, expected, high standard of writing. Not that it was a bad episode, far from it. There were some lovely FX, and great individual lines, mostly from Spike. But no feeling of real sacrifice. Introducing the Slayer Scythe, Amulet and activation of all
potential slayers in a three episode arc, came across as the kind of short-cut cobblers used in lesser shows. We all know that Joss Whedon, Marti Noxon and company can write scripts that tug at our heart strings and engage our brains—so why did they go for the big bang and happy ever
after?
Tama Leaver ("Buffy Finale Was Indeed Empowering") wrote about "... a future full of empowered (but not all-powerful) women who are (at least) equal to men in every sense." Perhaps I have this wrong, but it seems to me that women suddenly given Slayer
superpowers are inevitably superior to most men. Tama goes on to say that this "seems like 'girl power' to me," perhaps without considering that the men who created the first Slayer, and the Watchers who trained Slayers, knew their business. With every potential now fully powered, the law of averages says that there will be many more like Faith, back when she was evil. All because one Slayer decided she knew better. As things turned out, Buffy was wrong, again. Even with a small army of full Slayers, they were losing the last battle, until Spike in Deus Ex Vampir mode, used the Amulet Of Feeble Plot.
On the plus side, the writers have left things wide open for a genuinely different take. If Eliza Dushku can be persuaded to do her own Slayer series, there exists the possibility of a sexier, harder edged show. Add in guest appearances of old cast members; Lesbian Goddess Willow and her Slayer lover Kennedy, Citizen Xander, Spike the burning vampire, wayward former trainee Slayers with their own agendas, and maybe even Giles in Ripper mode, and we'll have something worth watching. Sort of like Buffy meets Dark Angel, with a twist of Prey. That's a future so bright, I've got to wear shades.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
'd like to respond to some of the ideas put forward recently in letters from some fans. I know there's a lot of passion and dedication out there, but I think that sometimes SF fans do go overboard.
Buffy Finale—This "girl power" issue ("Buffy Symbolism Is Unmistakable", "Joss Whedon Is a Shining Star", "Buffy Finale Was Indeed Empowering", "Buffy Finale Has Little Girl Power") is off the mark! The real power and spirit of the show lay in how well the "Scoobies" worked together and related to each other. Their most successful ventures always featured plans that involved everyone; each person had a job to do. Look at how Buffy, Xander, Willow and Giles defeated Adam. Or how they all united to defeat Glory—and how emotional Buffy's apparent sacrifice was. For that matter, look at the beautifully orchestrated plan that was used at graduation, to fight the Mayor.
The series finale was a triumphant affirmation of how important it always was to stick together. It really had nothing to do with whether men or women were more instrumental. The gender role-reversals existed to shake up people's preconceived ideas, not to make a statement about who was ultimately the most powerful. The First couldn't have been defeated if everyone hadn't done his or her part—every part was important, just as it is with every Buffy victory. The show was, and has always been, a celebration of diversity within unity!
SF "Bridge" Characters—I think perhaps one of the most compelling aspects of serious science fiction is (are?) the concepts, even more than the characters ("Harry Potter Builds a Vital Bridge"). There is also the comparison of print vs. film/TV. Science fiction and fantasy are very visually oriented, and I think because of this, many of our most popular SF/fantasy characters are from film and TV—because we can see them. Harry Potter, as a literary hero (before the movies) is more the exception than the rule. And even in this case, a lot of the popularity of the stories can be attributed to the settings and situations—again, concepts. It was the details of Harry Potter's world that really won me over.
I must confess that I don't read nearly as much SF now as I did growing up. But I clearly remember certain ideas that I got from the books I read back then. I recently searched a story that I think holds up extremely well today, and all I could remember was that the title had to do with vultures. Turns out the story was by Isaac Asimov (my favorite), and was called "The Gentle Vultures." A fascinating story that does speak to today's world—and it was purely the concept that I remembered.
SF "Snobs" vs. Sci-Fi Fants—This is kind of a stupid controversy, in my opinion ("Snobs Don't Know What They Want", "Science Fiction Swings Like Golf", "Sci-Fi Is an Odd Genre"). I think that the fact that SF is so hard to define, and can encompass so many styles and possibilities simply serves to empower the genre. Why can't we be proud of its flexibility of subject matter, and style of presentation? I think there's a huge difference between the Star Trek mythology (which I love) and the Star Wars mythology (which I don't like), but some people hardly see a difference at all. Who's right? Is Lord of the Rings—basically fantasy—less valuable than the works of Ursula K. Le Guin, Robert Heinlein or Philip K. Dick? And should we be looking down our noses on escapist fare such as Starship Troopers? No! I think, again, we should be glad there's something for everyone. (And I love the Pern books, and don't care what genre they fit into!)
Cancellations of Series—Here, I think I agree more with some of the complaints I've read ("History Repeats With Canceled Series"). The thing is, you really can't please everybody all at once; also, it is a business, and silly producers and execs are looking to make money, first of all.
Some of the shows that you all have been mourning I didn't even like—Firefly, Miracles—and some I thought were only mediocre—Brimstone, Babylon 5. But there were two that really impressed me—Harsh Realm and Haunted—which I don't think have been mentioned, whose cancellations seemed very precipitous, and dismaying to me. Alien Nation was a brilliant, forward-thinking show, but it only lasted one season (true, there were those TV movies). So what's the answer? Keep trying, is all I can think of. And enjoy all of the SF you can!
Elizabeth Rodie Jones
Thespienne@att.net
irstly with regards to Brimstone, I have to say that I'm happy that so many wrote to defend the show after comments made ("Brimstone Lacked Crusade's Wow"). I felt quite annoyed that it was put down, to the extent of which I have now taken an instant disliking to Crusade, a show which I have never seen (living in the UK and with highly limited cable access), and probably never will see. This is a shame, I don't want to dislike the show, but comments made on a personal level will often result in backlash. I guess that's the nature of humanity. Probably something where sci-fi would be a good medium for exploration.
Secondly, in response to "Buffy Symbolism Is Unmistakable." You know how Freud sort of ... ended up sounding a bit silly ... horses and beards should be
warning to us all.
Stella Wood
tinderbox49@hotmail.com
rarely do this, but I must come to the defense of one of one of my favorite shows, Brimstone. Yes, it may have been a bit on the grim side, but
it was a fascinating concept! (And besides, wouldn't you be a bit grim too if you were actually dead and couldn't even hope to contact your beloved wife?)
"Lacking wow?" ("Brimstone Lacked Crusade's Wow") Let's see ... a dead cop is running around working for a very sarcastic Devil in a world that likes to deny the possibility of Hell. And I'm sorry, but when Elijah first figured out who Ash was, and that whole
dialogue about whether she actually deserved to be in Hell because her personal beliefs didn't include the Christian concepts of Heaven or Hell, that comes as a major WOW!
Not many shows have the guts to so bluntly take on established religion like that. OK, so you get shows like Charmed and Buffy the Vampire Slayer showing Wicca in a good light, people are rarely that blunt. Now before I have established Christian sci-fi fans jumping down my throat, I am a Christian, but you know what? I like those kinds of questions. The WOW of Brimstone came from its ability to make you think about life, good vs. evil, God, etc.
Emily Blackstone
missmaita@hotmail.com
his is just a statement I would like to make in regards to the Daniel Jackson letter and the accusation that he is morally ambiguous ("Stargate Needs More Than Cuteness").
This person who posted that letter goes on a personal attack because of supposedly losing a character in the show (when that's really not completely clear yet), so therefore posts a letter that states the only reason that people like Daniel Jackson is because of Michael Shanks' cuteness. Granted, there are those who do think he's cute, but I get the very strong feeling that this poster thinks Corin Nemec is cute, so therefore slashes out at a character who was a very integral part of the show.
In regards to the comments about "Broca Divide"—Daniel makes the observation, yes, about the rape but that doesn't mean he condones what is happening, because later, when he finds the character that was in question laying on a path, he stops what he's doing to help her and risks his life. So, that's extremely selfish? And he even debates with Teal'c about leprosy and confinement? He's appalled by the idea of exile due to an illness. Morally ambiguous?
The character of Daniel has constantly endangered himself so that others could live, and anyone who watches the show and understands it can see that. It's made very clear in any of the episodes.
I feel insulted that I was grouped into this "I only watch because they're
cute" [category]. That is not what has kept SG-1 on the air for seven seasons, because
there have been times when none of them were all that cute.
Lisa Hibbs
hibblette@airmail.net
Back to the top.
