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.
,
too, read with dread the possible casting of Ashton Kutcher as the next Batman ("Kutcher First for Batman?"). However, my dread was tempered by the fact that nothing in Hollywood seem to be set in stone, even after the film starts rolling.
Take heart, Batman fans, I'll bet you Ashton never dons the cape and cowl, unless he's cast as a young Bruce Wayne just getting into the Bat-business.
Leaving casting calls to a fan poll is probably not the best bet, either. Science-fiction and fantasy fans tend to be rather rabid about their favorites, so I'd expect to see massive flame wars between Bruce Campbell and Kevin Sorbo fanboys who would love nothing better to see their men in the role. Come to think about it, however, Kevin Sorbo wouldn't be a bad choice.
The problem with the Batman franchise wasn't the casting, or even the storylines. Batman & Robin had a great cast and a pretty good story. [George] Clooney and [Chris] O'Donell were perfect in their roles. I think Clooney should be a serious contender for the next movie. The sad fact is that they were doomed by a bad script—too many characters and vastly overblown production values.
The charm of the first two movies was their understated special effects and set decor. Yes, the sets were big and very "noir," but they didn't have Day-Glo paint and neon lights splashed all over them. The last two movies had too much color and too many Bat-suits. We like our Batman movies to be dark and foreboding, period.
The problem with Batman is that you can only do it two ways—campy or dark. Many of us love the TV series, but don't really see it as true Batman canon. We also love the first couple movies (and parts of the third), because they showed us the Batman we really identify with. There just isn't a way to combine the two without producing a duck like the fourth movie.
Dan Ware
Ware.Dan@aaa-newmexico.com
hat about Mel Gibson [for the role of Batman]? ("Kutcher First for Batman?") I agree that Clint [Eastwood] has the pedigree ("Dirty Harry Should Be the Dark Knight"), but let's face it; he's way too skinny (and I don't mean that in the Heinleinesque way). Gibson has also played a "bronze" type character bent on vengeance (and let us face it, he paid the penalty for being a vigilante) and he has the years under his belt.
Clint would be cool (how Dark Knight do ya want it?), but Mel would probably do it for a price.
Paul Resico
spookedhorse@webtv.net
read the Science Fiction Weekly review of 28 Days Later and the letter in the letters column ("Zombies Are All the Rage"). 28 Days Later is an amazing film, inventive, original and yet familiar, well acted and extremely suspenseful. I don't like most horror films and I loved this film.
There is just one major issue I have ... it is not a zombie film! So please, stop calling it that. The ad campaign was obviously made by folks who haven't seen the film. It is much closer to The Omega Man than any zombie film out there.
The "infected" as they are called in the film are very much alive ... but not all that human anymore. Thanks.
Cybele Baker
cybelebaker@dwt.com
'd like to respond to John Enfield's letter about his desire to see more representations of Christianity in science fiction ("The Good Book Offers Good SF Stories"). Although I am not a Christian, I am all for it. All that needs to happen is for devout Christian writers to choose to write science fiction—and enough interested readers to buy it. Isn't the Left Behind series quite popular? There is also an entire branch of romance fiction that is Christian-themed. Since there are different branches of Christianity with their different interpretations of Christ and the Bible, there could even be different branches of such fiction. No one is artificially restricting this or preventing these kinds of books from being published. I am all for a broad diversity of religious belief and theory being represented in science fiction and am open to reading books representing views of religions different than my own.
I do take exception with the notion that political correctness/incorrectness has made a mess of our culture. While I do agree that some people take it too far and then it can stifle open discussion, political correctness has been responsible for a sharp decline in racist jokes and epithets as well as those aimed at other types of minorities. I, for one, deeply appreciate an increase in civility and a decline in mean-spirited and bigoted remarks and jokes.
I also want to remind Mr. Enfield that there are other religions that have a view of their truth as being an "absolute" truth. Since none of us can offer an absolute proof of what we believe the absolute truth to be, it seems to me that cultivating a respectful attitude toward those who adhere to a different faith is the best course of action. We can appreciate the sincere effort to worship the Divine even while we disagree on the nature or desires of that Divine entity.
Tapati Sarasvati
sarasvati@labyris.com
'm sure this is but a drop in the flood of responses to "The Good Book Offers Good SF Stories," but here goes. Perhaps the main reason we don't see Christian beliefs in the majority of science fiction is that SF asks "What if?" where Christianity states "This is." Science fiction has been called the "literature of ideas," since a novel idea is the germ of stories. "What if children were genetically modified not to need sleep?" begets Nancy Kress' Beggars in Spain. "What would we do if we received a message from outer space?" becomes Carl Sagan's Contact. "What if New York became so dystopic that it was turned into a city-size prison?" gives us Escape from New York. (Hey, I didn't say ideas were the germs of only good SF!) This fertility of ideas is part of what gives science fiction its appeal.
A second part of that appeal is the ability to take us to strange, exotic locations. The planet-sized city of Trantor envisioned by Asimov, the melancholy ruins of Bradbury's Mars and the exquisitely dangerous jungles of Jurassic Park will never be part of any itinerary AAA could concoct. I think this is part of why "there have been a great many sci-fi stories that take seriously the concepts and teachings of Buddhism, Zen, Islam, Hindu, Zuni, Greek Mythology, New Age, Wicca, Evolution ... and the beliefs of various aboriginal tribes." To most Westerners, these are strange and mysterious beliefs, whereas we are all familiar with Christianity (even if it's in a format that has had all belief bleached out of it).
Religion, on the other hand, is more concerned with answers. I personally define religion as a philosophy that answer two questions: 1) Why does life stink? 2) What can I do about it? Other questions don't generally seem to be taken well. "If God loves us, why is there a Hell?" and "If killing is evil, why does God kill all the first-born sons in Egypt to punish the Pharaoh?" are quick ways to get kicked out of Sunday school. This dogmatic thinking is hardly conducive to the wild fancies of science fiction, especially when it declares some topics forbidden. If you decide to use the scalpel of opinion to remove "evolution, witchcraft, magic, pagan gods and goddesses (both those in our larger cultures and those made up by the authors) and any stories that treat Christianity in a negative way" from the body of works you'll read, don't be surprised to find the patient dead.
I believe this opposition of views is what makes combining the two difficult. Notice, that's "difficult," not "impossible." The Chronicles of Narnia are an allegory to the Bible (Aslan=Jesus). Tales of the Kingdom and Tales of the Resistance are illustrated fantasy books with a decidedly Christian viewpoint (any guesses as to which Kingdom they refer?) An interesting short story (whose title I have unfortunately forgotten) has a missionary wondering how the Crucifixion applies to a newly discovered alien race. Few examples, to be sure, but they show that it is possible. And if you are frustrated with the course science fiction is taking, take up your pen and start adding your own stories. Dismayed by the perceived occult influences of collectible card games such as Magic: The Gathering and Pokemon, others have created Unity and Redemption card games. Can a few people really make a difference in the genre? Perhaps. After all, look what "13 long-haired weirdos in the Middle East" accomplished.
P.S. Evolution is a general principle based on observations and provides an explanation for previously unknown phenomena (such as the changes in the HIV) and is therefore science. If you wish to say that science is religion and the scientific method its dogma, I'll meet you half-way there.
David Hardison
raccoon456@earthlink.net
ood point, John Enfield ("The Good Book Offers Good SF Stories"). Sci-fi does tend to have an allergy to Christianity. It isn't as if the Bible doesn't have potential for thought-provoking sci-fi. There have been plenty of paranormal-style documentaries exploring possible links between the Bible and aliens or actual spiritual beings. But not much has been made of it on sci-fi TV shows or films.
However, I think there is a more prominent reason why they don't include Christianity. Sci-fi is essentially a product of the Enlightenment. The age of science, humanism, rationalism and secular ideology had created science fiction as a rationalist alternative to superstitious myth. Science fiction is scientific mythology.
Much of the supernatural things we see in sci-fi today owes more to Tolkienist fantasy, that has been incorporated into sci-fi, than traditional sci-fi. Mainly to please the New Age sentiment that's around at the moment. So, the main reason for the lack of Christianity in sci-fi is just "habit," pure and simple. So many of the most influential sci-fi visionaries, from Isaac Asimov to Gene Roddenberry, have been atheists that it has been ingrained into sci-fi history. It is going to take a brave writer to break with this tradition. But given the current interest in spirituality, I don't think it will be long. Let's hope.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10@hotmail.com
enjoyed your recent interviews with the T3 team much more than the movie itself. I saw the movie over the July 4th weekend and must say that it was loudly erratic, and the difference in directors was striking—and not in a good way.
I'm disappointed to read that Jonathan Mostow will be directing future Terminator films. I hope not, but it seems to me that T3 has "jumped the shark" for this series. "I'll be back" (in various forms) was beaten into the ground and the attempt to make "talk to the hand" the next pop phrase was ham-handed and predictable.
Yes, lots of special effects and bells and whistles—but so what when there are problems with continuity and character development? ... all the things that made the first two movies so excellent and memorable.
Hope that things change down the road and Ang Lee or another good action director gets to do the next installment; then the shark jumping would not be a factor ... just a fluke.
Renee Holesovsky
reytheslayer@xenafan.com
lthough I find Tuesdays Declassified uneven in the quality of the documentaries, the two hours on June 24th that included the new offering on UFOs by the SCI FI Channel was exemplary viewing. It and the companion piece hosted by Bryant Gumbel were two of the most serious investigations into the topic of UFOs I've ever seen. They were so much more than the usual parade of home videos and corroborating accounts—and some of those have been well done. They were investigations worthy of 60 Minutes with enough declassified documents to cause discomfort to the most ardent skeptic.
I've been following documentaries of this sort for a long time, and learned more new, verified information than I had in a long time. It seems the discussion of UFOs has evolved to a whole new level where proof that there are UFOs is just a starting point. Now, more than ever, the information is being tied into history at large: the international politics and social fabric of the times. In doing so, the existence of UFOs becomes more of an assumption, a reality to be integrated with the rest of what we know.
Made me begin to wonder if this greater revelation is part of a gradual stress inoculation for society to accept a hidden reality. Let's face it: on a planet where people can't accept people of other religions and races, the governments of the world have good reason to hide the existence of life on other planets. Think of the new prejudices that would be spawned; think Alien Nation, not Star Trek. And yet, ready or not, our technology—from Brownie camera shots and 8mm film to what we have today—is bringing proof headlong into our faces.
Statistics show the number of people who believe we've been visited by other planets keeps increasing, so I guess it's working. The documentaries of June 24th may have advanced this process another rung. Wonder if I'll live long enough for outright government acknowledgement?
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll@comcast.net
o what's wrong with Corin Nemec? ("Shanks' Return Embraced by All") He was a lot better as Jonas in Stargate SG-1 than he was as Harold Lauder in The Stand, although The Stand is probably the best plague-of-the-week movie of all time. I for one had no trouble accepting him in the Stargate cast even though I also am a fan of Michael Shanks—I'm happy he's back. At least the producers didn't kill Jonas, the fate of many a character in and out of sci-fi. He can come back for a visit once in a while. Stargate isn't the first show to have cast replacements (look at M*A*S*H) and it won't be the last. Nemec wasn't as bad a replacement as was what's-her-name was for Gates McFadden on Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Norma Engelberg
engel818@yahoo.com
emember when R.I.P. used to stand for Rest In Peace? Now it means Reap In Profits.
She's "back from the dead and on her comeback tour" and targeted by a "nasty crew of mutant Euro-trash dead set on sending her back where she came from."
"Look! Up in the comic book racks! Is it fair? Is it right? No, it's Princess Diana" whose "strange power she exerts from beyond the grave certainly makes her a valid subject to explore." And, according to those recreating the former Royal Highness ..."She looks great in Spandex!"
Leave it to Marvel "to moldly go where no one has gone before," and exploit Lady Di as a "mutant superhero." ("Princess Di Reborn in Comic") This corporation sees money in dead people. Just wait till the other glass slipper drops.
"...Wielding his Nobel Peace Prize Medallion in the name of Civil Rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. takes on the KKK and the Fascist Right in a quest for brotherhood and equality to make 'his dream' come true!"
"Here comes the red, white and blue family superhero team fighting for truth, justice and the American Way against all enemies foreign and domestic in a scintillating saga of triumphs and tragedies, battles and bimbos ... it's the dead Kennedys!"
Pity poor Stan Lee. He's stuck with Stripperella.
'Nuff said.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
Back to the top.
