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.
o Paul Di Filippo: I appreciated the thoughtful and positive review of Janis Ian's anthology. But when you said that the anthology lacked humor, you cut me to the quick. I thought my story was funny, and it had a happy ending, and ... but then, humor is in the eye of the beholder, and perhaps, like Queen Victoria, you were not amused.
(Of course, only an author could complain about something that trivial in a rave review!)
Orson Scott Card
OrsonCard@aol.com
Reviewer Paul Di Filippo responds:
Dear SFW and Orson Scott Card:
Indeed, the story "Inventing Lovers on the Phone" had its fair share of mordant asides and wry turns, but any story that features in large part brutal teenage bullies, shiftless parents and social ostracism is not ever going to be exactly a Douglas Adams-style romp. But then again, I should talk, since my own allegedly humorous story, "Mama Told Me Not to Come" opens with the narrator's attempted suicide!
Best,
Paul
just read the article in your Classics section on the Stephen King novel, The Stand. At the end of the article, Adam-Troy says that Flagg makes an appearance in the novel Eyes of the Dragon but has not made another appearance yet.
I would like to say that in the Dark Tower books Flagg is there using another alias, but his presence is felt in those books.
So, you should read some more Stephen King before you make assumptions.
Thanks.
Sheri Odom
bcsnm@yahoo.com
Reviewer Adam-Troy Castro responds:
Regarding Flagg: Mea culpa. I was not aware Flagg appears (or will appear) in the Dark Tower books. I have to date read every single King novel and short story collection except for those and Black House, starting with Carrie, usually at the point of publication, and can only report that prior knowledge of several dozen previous works, extending back 25 years of dedicated reading, is usually considered adequate homework for the
composition of a 1,000-word review. However, I will confess to missing the reference as it appears in the less than half-dozen King novels not yet sitting dog-eared and crack-spined on my shelf. I sincerely look forward to finding out what the slimy bastard's been up to all this time.
Best,
Adam-Troy
s much as I respect Harlan Ellison as a writer and speaker, I think his AOL lawsuit is way off base ("Internet Providers Shouldn't Police").
Making an innocent third-party liable for the actions of a criminal is not only just stupid, its also not going to stop the problem. I don't even think it would slow it down.
The rationale is this: "If we can't get the tool users to comply with the law, we'll make the tool makers responsible for damages ... even if they did nothing wrong."
I guess that Ellison will next sue Xerox because supposedly they're responsible for copy machine users who pirate his stories by photocopying.
Gimme a break.
Roman Gheesling
tienlung@hotmail.com
aving just seen Terminator 3, I can say that it's both good and bad. What's good is that it's a slam-bang, non-stop, action-packed, high-tech thriller. What's bad is that it's a slam-bang, non-stop, action-packed, high tech thriller.
The problem is that the two antagonists are both machines so you're not really concerned about them. Their battles become exercises in clever effects. The two leading humans are both excellent, but we don't see enough of them and you never feel they are in any real jeopardy. Contrast this to the original, which is a favorite of mine. There you have two humans who are hopelessly outclassed. She has no particular skills and he's a good solid fighter but they're up against Arnold The Terminator. Obviously, they are doomed. What makes T1 such a good movie is watching the humans win when it doesn't seem possible.
By contrast, T3 is simply an OK action movie with likeable leads and spectacular dueling terminators, but nothing else.
Marian Powell
mepowell@cybermesa.com
was excited to upgrade my digital cable service to include Showtime's Odyssey 5 and Michael Straczynski's Jeremiah. To my dismay, however, neither Odyssey 5 nor Jeremiah repeats are currently on-air.
Showtime's Web site does say that Jeremiah will be premiering Sept. 19 and that the pilot will be shown immediately beforehand. However, there's no information about Odyssey 5 (or the first season of Jeremiah), so I emailed Showtime and asked them when Odyssey 5 will be rerun. I received an automated email telling me that they received my question, and then, a day later, I received another automated email with commonly asked questions about Odyssey 5. This did not answer my question so I emailed them again, and the unfulfilling process was repeated. I would have called, but no phone number is listed on their Web site. (So for all those concerned about UPN's lack of response ["Enterprise Should Listen to Viewers"], take comfort in the fact that UPN isn't the only network that doesn't listen to its viewers.)
It's unfortunate that I have to use this public venue, especially since I strongly believe in supporting organizations that promote original sci-fi, but I see little recourse. My questions to the folks at Showtime are as follows: When, if ever, will repeats of Odyssey 5 and Jeremiah air?
Sincerely,
Peter Boghossian
pete@boghossian.com
ots of thought-provoking comments on last week's SFW letters page, starting with the new Batman. My choice, out of left field, would be a man who can do personable (Midnight Caller), or creepy, (American Gothic), or commanding (Crusade). Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next caped crusader ... Gary Cole.
James Costa ("Nothing Original About Bad SF") wrote, "There must be better writers out there looking for work." Sure. But what he's missing is that studios don't want talent, they want conformity and reliability. If you can churn out competent trash to
order, you'll be preferred over someone who can create the fantastic. Just ask J. Michael Straczynski, who has done both. James also contended that "there must be someone in the SCI FI Channel management who can produce something better than the really poor product that has been the mainstay of the network." He may be right. But if such a person exists, they sure as hell aren't being given the opportunity.
Peter Boghossian ("Sci-Fi's Death May Be Our Own Fault") wrote about SF dying "because more profound and engaging sci-fi was not able to sustain itself in the marketplace of ideas." How, I wonder, does this marvellous product sustain itself when the network
messes about with its scheduling, and cancels the show after its first season? Star Trek is allowed the luxury of two or three entire seasons full of mostly drivel, before it has to sink or swim. Everything else has to be in the right place at the right time, with the right product and
a huge dollop of luck.
David M. Brown ("Enterprise Needs to Deliver Adventure") reminded us of Capt. Archer forcing Tripp to return an escaped slave to slavery (and actual suicide) rather than interfere in an alien culture. Which misses the whole point of the episode. The alien culture should never have been judged by or subject to human ideals. If Tripp had not behaved inappropriately in the first place, the alien concerned would never have come to harm. But David was spot on when he said, "It's not that hard to get it right from day one. What you do is concentrate on character and story, tight plotting and ratcheting suspense." We all know this, and someone in TV executive land must have noticed the success of Babylon 5, The X-Files and Farscape. So the question is, why do they not follow the bouncing ball and give us more originality. Could it be because the majority of the suits would not know a great idea if it was inserted sideways? For sure, two of the three shows named above succeeded mainly because of the sheer drive and determination of their creators. The other, was the right show in the right place, etc.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazilREMOVETHIS@freeuk.com
have a theory: The most prolific decades for science fiction in many forms were the '50s, '60s and '90s, the three most economically prosperous decades in my lifetime. There may be a relationship. When times are good, people are secure and seek novel stimulation; when times are bad, they're already stimulated enough and don't seek more.
I know I cut back on science fiction after 9/11 for many months—just wasn't as solidly there—and all the numbers on the Sci-Fi Wire Ratings took a permanent dive. Yes, I attribute part of the drop in ratings for Buffy, Farscape, Enterprise and even Smallville to the worsening economy and 9/11. Like many things after 9/11, science fiction wasn't resonating the way it had before. Enough alien things were happening in reality that had to be digested.
I'll never forget the feeling of being estranged from myself, looking at my sci-fi movie collection and not feeling like playing any of it. If a die-hard like me could waver, then, for sure, whole segments of people didn't revive interest. Over months, I gradually reverted to my
normal quota of SF—but I know people who didn't.
Little in life is determined by one thing, but I think good and bad times correlates with upswings and downturns in interest in science fiction.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll@comcast.net
s often occurs, the issue of sci-fi dying rears its ugly head ("Sci-Fi's Death May Be Our Own Fault"). Although absurd, I have to agree there are things that could point to problems. In print, the science-fiction magazines and original anthologies are in a decade-long slump. The last two books to win the Hugo were fantasy. The Nebula has also gone increasingly to fantasy.
To be sure, in the print, world not all is bleak. Many intriguing or interesting writers have appeared over the years. Check the Campbell nominees for New Writer on that, as well as the awards site. There are also the host of established writers still producing great work. Furthermore, this decade has seen the explosion of online fiction. Although much of it is horrid, impressive work by professional writers can be found at places like Sci-Fiction or Strange Horizons. Then there are niche markets, including those that cater to Christians like Gateway SF. As well as quirky places like Bewildering Stories or the aforementioned Sidereality. Perhaps all this is not enough, but in any event "dying" would seem hyperbole considering the amount of good to great science-fiction written every month. Let alone every year.
Yet "sci-fi" often means "media SF," and in this case the complaint is more real. The situation on TV is especially bad. Futurama has died. This intriguing show tried to be both a genuine science-fiction series and a sitcom. Yet sadly, it seems to die with little fanfare amongst the sci-fi crowd. In death, it has been joined by enough shows that TV seems to have become a barren wasteland for sci-fi viewers. Other than Enterprise, I'm not sure what's left. Small consolation there if you ask me.
So if by sci-fi we mean television science fiction, can we say sci-fi is dying? Perhaps we can. However as with any genre there is always a chance for revival. Look at the live-action musical, who would've imagined that would return?
Thomas Redding
TRedding@sciam.com
ersonally I don't see sci-fi coming to a death or end anytime soon ("Sci-Fi's Death May Be Our Own Fault"). In fact, all of the big-budget movies and moneymakers are sci-fi/fantasy/horror hybrids. Franchises, I believe, [are] suffering. I mean, honestly: How many times can you re-cast or re-tell the same story or try to add new light to something (aka, the prequel)?
Even Charlie's Angel's and Tomb Raider straddle the line a lot. I see sci-fi movies moving more towards "standalones" or "one-shot epics" like Gladiator, Fahrenheit 451 or Soylent Green, becoming less likely to spawn a profitable part two and three. People are tired of sequels. Honestly, no one really did it before Star Wars, Star Trek and Indiana Jones. My answer to all the hype of "It's not original" or more plainly "I didn't like it": Why don't some of you out there write and publish your own ideas? In this day and age it's not all that hard. Plantinum Studios is always looking for original ideas for graphic novels/comics or movies.
The time you take to complain about how bad it is [you could've done] something about it and see if you can't maybe do better. It's great to speak, but someone needs to write, otherwise our voice goes hoarse and sci-fi dies.
Tony Wallace
scribals_75@yahoo.com
have been recently visiting a lot of super-hero movie Web sites to find out info about X-Men 3. The most prominent sites (one of which is www.superherohype.com) all have reports that Bryan Singer wants have the next X-Men movie about Wolverine and Phoenix, mostly.
This is terrible. It should focus on Xavier and Magneto. If anyone has read the first story arc in Ultimate X-Men, "The Tomorrow People," then they know how great the story is. That's what the next movie should be based on.
I even created a petition with more details as what character and plot changes need to take place so that it fits within the movie chronology. If you want to see Gambit, Beast, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in the next movie then sign my X-Men 3 petition at www.petitiononline.com/XMEN3/petition.html
Rod Hezarkhani
rod_hezarkhani@hotmail.com
Back to the top.
