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.
lthough I disagreed strongly with last season's finale that Clark would ever voluntarily put on the red kryptonite ring again (particularly at a time when his mother just lost a baby), I was willing to give the writers of Smallville a chance to prove their case to me. However, this two-part season opener has been very disappointing.
The season debut demonstrated that Clark was not merely an emotional hothead while wearing the ring. Instead, he willingly becomes a serial bank robber and available for hire by a Metropolis crime boss. This is completely contrary to the character both in the comics and television—with or without the ring. Oddly, he draws the line at having any sexual encounters with any Metropolis girls during the long summer's absence from Lana. This is undoubtedly because the writers feared alienating the female viewers of the show.
In the most unbelievable segment, Jonathan goes to the cave and beseeches the air for aid in bringing Clark back home. The spirit of Jor-El (not previously known to be an inhabitant of the cave) grants Jonathan the power of a Kryptonian so he becomes an equal for Clark. This is preposterous for multiple reasons. First, the spirit of Jor-El resided in Clark's spacecraft which was destroyed in last season's finale. Second, the spirit of Jor-El has been represented to be an arrogant being who looks down on Earthlings only as a servant class—why would he grant Jonathan the power of a Kryptonian? Third, how could Jonathan's human physiology possibly be altered to be the equivalent of a Kryptonian with no outward change? Fourth, it took Clark years to store enough solar energy for his powers to develop while Jonathan was at full-strength immediately. Finally, Clark returned to normal as soon as the ring was destroyed, although last episode we had seen him consciously decide to continue his "bad Clark" ways even without the ring's influence. Oh yes, and the infinity scar disappeared in that moment, too, although the ring had never caused its creation in the first place! This segment was so staggeringly improbable and such a desperate stretch by the writers just to get Clark back to the Smallville storyline that I believe it will later be seen as the moment when Smallville "jumped the shark" and decided not to worry about continuity or character credibility.
This is further evidenced by the fact that neither Lana nor Chloe (a reporter!) seemed puzzled by Clark's return to Smallville and his normal personality, although each of them had seen him in full "bad Clark" mode in Metropolis. This would been the perfect time for Clark to explain his Kryptonian heritage to Lana and/or Chloe but instead they merely accept his return to "good Clark" mode without question. At a minimum, the writers could have blamed his severe personality change on drugs as a sop to the viewing audience. However, the characters will instead apparently act as if Clark never went to Metropolis and treated them like dirt for the entire summer!
Finally, the conclusion to the Lex storyline was merely an unimaginative repeat of the plane sequence from last season's finale. Boring.
Bo Driscoll
uffda(at)mtco.com
s you might notice, I'm from Germany, but even over here, Tremors has started to gather fans. And not just the movies. The show hasn't been dubbed into German yet and I don't know if it ever will, but my friends and I prefer the English original anyway. Friends in the U.S. tape each episode for us.
All of us are avid fans and we were sad to hear that it was canceled, especially since the fourth movie is just about to come out. We're eagerly waiting for that one, too.
Rumors have it that [SCI FI] might be thinking about a second season of Tremors and we here in Germany would love to see more of the series! It's an excellent show [that] continues the movies perfectly and we all were happy to see the return of Burt Gummer in the episodes. There's no Tremors without a Gummer.
All of us keep our fingers crossed that a second season might be possible. It's a hugely successful movie series (four movies... not everyone can say that about a series!) and the show was wonderful.
Thank you kindly for your time.
On behalf of some very interested Tremors fans,
Birgit Stäbler
macx(at)nexgo.de
have to take issue with the letter writer who says that "Science Fiction Needs New Tomorrows." Is he reading the same science fiction I am reading? Or is he just railing against the older science-fiction writer who still delivers what he or she is familiar with? Yes, there is a place out there for what a Ben Bova writes (even if that is not what this letter writer wants to see published). And yes, there is a place out there for the endless Star Wars and Star Trek novels (heck, I even own a number of them myself). But if the truth is told, there are those out there who are trying, really trying (read such recent reviews as Nine Layers of Sky—it's on my to-read list) and many recent reviews in Asimov's and Analog SF.
No, the problem is not the written SF genre, but rather the one on film. What is available out there has distorted people's views of what science fiction is, and it has led to the reduction of available new published titles and the rehashing of old titles. And actually, the British boy studying magic could be very good for the genre, as discerning librarians and booksellers will point children who ask to similar titles that might open up an interest in science fiction and fantasy (thus bringing in new readers)—plus it makes younger people read, and not play endless videogames or watch a lot of TV.
And finally, yes, Jurassic Park was a very good science-fiction novel (as is that author's current Prey), despite its rather lackluster film treatment by Steven Spielberg. Both, Jurassic Park and Prey, are good cautionary tales, because we can only view the future from the misguided lenses we wear today. There are also readers out there (maybe not millions) who are relating to things being written by Vernor Vinge, Neal Stephenson, William Gibson, Michael Swanwick and others. And there is much in their books that discusses what is happening around us (as you aptly state, anthrax, terrorism, unending wars, large corporations, etc.) In fact, it can be easily demonstrated that all these things we're seeing today have been predicted in science fiction over the past 15 years (let alone the last 50). So, in conclusion, I take an interest in science fiction, and I read, as I am able, the best cross-section that is put out there, and yes, I also post here especially when we're asked to accept such garbage as Star Trek: The Next Naked Alien and Stupid Tactics: Make Your Friends Look Like Fools on National TV and Scare Them to Death to Boot.
p.s. After last week's Star Trek episode, I decided to no longer watch this stupid series, a decision that also affects the series following Star Trek, Jake 2.0, which I had taken a liking to. I hope Stargate SG-1 stays on the air, as it is the only thing I now watch.
Michael Papagermanos
makedonia(at)earthlink.net
n addition to the long-running issue of the state of science fiction, brought up today by Kevin Ahearn's critique of Ben Bova's Saturn ("Science Fiction Needs New Tomorrows"), I have something to add.
Many have asked, what visions of tomorrow can be thought up for today's sci-fi audience? It seems as if all the best ideas for the future have already been spun out. But I strongly doubt it. There must be some more virgin land still out there somewhere. But there is something that seems to be being overlooked. Something that could provide a whole host new opportunities for science fiction. What kind of future am I talking about? I'm not. I'm talking about the past.
Science fiction doesn't have to be set in the future to still be classed as "science fiction." The past can be just as thought-provoking if the right period in history is picked for examination, and then given a sci-fi twist. Perhaps starting with the more obvious examples such as ancient Egypt, Atlantis (if it existed at all), Stonehenge or the Mayans. Then, going on to other eras such as Shogun Japan, the Roman Empire, medieval China or Aboriginal Australia. Or even a pre-human era, but still relating to us.
I am aware that such stories already exist, but nowhere near enough. This is an area of science fiction that can bring up some very interesting questions and possible answers: where we came from, the meaning of life, life after death, and what came before the universe? Isn't this what science-fiction writers set out to do in the first place, until they got side-tracked and settled for starship dogfights and killer robots?
All we need to do is study our history more (the more detailed research the better) and make theories for the many mysteries that history holds. Then create a cohesive story around that theory.
Instead of speculating about where we're going, try speculating about where we've been.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10(at)hotmail.com
have a couple of comments on [last] week's letters to the editor. It constantly astounds me how much this site is devoted to science-fiction television shows and movies, to the point of total ignorance of the print media.
Alan David Laska's letter ("George Pal's Future Was Cut Short") about producer George Pal lauds his "classic films"—two of which were actually books, written by H.G. Wells. The third, Destination Moon, was based on a novel by Robert Heinlein. Had Pal signed any large movie contracts after the success of Star Wars, they would simply have been adaptations.
My second target is Kevin Ahearn's letter ("Science Fiction Needs New Tomorrows"), which asks, "Who has published science fiction produced in the last half century that millions of readers have related to?" to which he replies, "No one!" I think that is the case merely because no one reads science fiction, not because it contains no memorable characters. Go to any bookstore, and you'll see hundreds of books in the science-fiction section—with such an incredible selection, no wonder we don't have "millions of readers" identifying with the same characters! Is this because SF books aren't worthy of best-seller status? I don't think so. SF today is as fertile and fascinating as it ever was. If you have doubts, read Greg Bear, John Shirley, or Iain M. Banks.
However, I do heartily agree with Mr. Ahearn's criticism of the Science Fiction Weekly letters page: "Critiques on the Enterprise's fashions and its theme song, ... who will play the newest Batman and which old movie or TV show should or should not be remade." If science fiction is dead, as many people seem to be implying, it is only the visual medium.
Robert Sundquist
pooneil3(at)hotmail.com
evin Ahearn ("Science Fiction Needs New Tomorrows") managed to say some interesting things in his latest letter. Interesting in, unfortunately, a bad way. His letter contradicts itself in pretty key areas.
He seemed to bemoan that SF in the last half century has produced nothing to reach millions. Yet at the same he mentioned Dune, Moorcock and several others after that date. Even many of Heinlein's most widely read books came during or after the age of Star Trek and HAL.
Indeed, even if we are going with popular appeal there is still much he needs to be informed of I suppose. Like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That came out in the late '70s and I'd at least heard of it before I read any serious SF. There's also cyberpunk, which has influenced much of film for good or ill. Orson Scott Card, and Lois McMaster Bujold sold millions in the 1980s. Ender's Game is one of the bestselling SF novels of all time from what I can tell. I didn't like it, but it did tap into something. In the 1990s, the Mars series, by Kim Stanley Robinson, though it doesn't sound like my cup of tea, was even mentioned on the SCI FI Channel and is being optioned to film, I think.
Are any of these as big a name to the general public as Asimov, Bradbury or Clarke? I'd think Douglas Adams might be as people who never read SF know a bit about him. As for the rest, I'm not sure. Still, were Asimov, Bradbury and Clarke household names in the 1950s? Bradbury, maybe, as he wrote mainstream and film scripts. However, I'm reasonably certain in the 1950s nuclear disaster SF like Alas, Babylon was outselling Asimov by several degrees of magnitude. That in England Tolkien was far more read than Clarke or in least he would be before the film 2001. Heck, maybe even after.
It also seems strange to bemoan that SF has lacked awareness of the modern world yet have little awareness of the SF that has been written in the last years. Writers like Nancy Kress, who write about genetic engineering, and global economy. Or the myriad of authors who write about the fast-paced computer world, some of whom are quite popular. Writers like, heck, read even the shorter the stuff on this site's e-zine Sci-Fiction.
Don't misunderstand: I once felt this way, too. Although I don't think I was ever as extreme about it and wouldn't disparage modern SF as I didn't read it. Back then I might have said SF had produced little of popular appeal in 40 years. However, I was wrong. The fact that many of the people I knew who read SF read stuff from the 1980s and 1990s should have clued me in on that, but did not. I'm not denying that for the last five to ten years fantasy has eclipsed SF, but still, cheer up, Kevin. It hasn't been 50, and it hasn't been that bad.
Thomas Ranquin
TRanquin(at)bewilderingstories.com
alf-human aliens in science fiction have always had a unique appeal. Mr. Spock is the most original and arguably the most appealing (thanks to the Emmy-nominated performance of Leonard Nimoy). Since then, there was Elizabeth (Jennifer Cooke), the Star Child of V. B'Elanna (Roxann Dawson) is another special example in the Trek universe. Delenn (Mira Furlan) of Babylon 5 made a significant impact as well. And there is Doctor Who's revelation of being half-human (on his mother's side) by Paul McGann's incarnation in 1996.
The most recent addition to this category is Allie Keys (portrayed enchantingly by Dakota Fanning) of Taken. She is one of the most controversial child icons in science fiction classics along with Haley Joel Osment, Henry Thomas, Heather O'Rourke, Kate Maberly (Stephen King's The Langoliers) and Drew Barrymore. She will be remembered for her part in one of the most dramatic series resolutions for science fiction television. Steven Spielberg must be proud.
A feasible sequel miniseries to Taken, in which Allie Keys returns to Earth and to her human family, would truly be intriguing. As Allie said in her closing narration, it is wanting to know what's over the next hill that keeps us going. Truer words were never spoken.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
oes anyone out there know if the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films still exists? If so, how does one go about contacting them? This was, to my knowledge, the only fan-based academy to give nationally televised awards (the Saturn) to this genre of film. I used to be a member, years ago, but resigned in protest when the director and founder insisted that Superman: The Movie be given the award as Best Science Fiction movie of whatever year, whereas I considered Superman to have always been fantasy, not science fiction, and [that it] belonged in that catagory, which was not considered quite as prestigious at the time
Also, has there been any talk of making a TV series (or movie) based on Laurell K. Hamilton's delightful character Anita Blake's adventures? If properly written and cast, this could make a wonderful series. If I had a few extra million dollars laying around, I would produce it myself, trying to cast Susan Lucci as the female lead. As I read the books, I envision her having all these adventures and coming through them even stronger. I know it's quite a change from anything else Ms. Lucci has done, but she has shown herself to be a fine actress and I think this could serve to expand her horizons and fan base.
Feel free to send me any comments on any of these subjects. Thanks for your forum.
Terry B. McConnell
la99tbone(at)yahoo.com
omments, criticisms and cheap shots at Star Trek: Enterprise abound ("Darker Trek Channels Farscape", "Sexual Encounters Sink Enterprise"). Doesn't anybody out there in "sci-fi entertainment" land get it? Star Trek first launched nearly 40 years ago. Imagine Law & Order, The Simpsons or Saturday Night Live after a two-generation run. Could it be possible that after nearly 600 hours of TV episodes and movies that some of you might have actually outgrown Star Trek?
Is the irony of all this lost on everyone but me? In 1984, George Orwell gave us a classic dystopia and "sci-fi fans" have come to emulate, not the rebellious Winston Smith, but Big Brother ... always watching, watching, watching. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 showed us a science-fiction world completely devoid of the written word and people risking their lives to preserve books. In the new millennium, we're overwhelmed with printed data and nobody's reading science fiction.
Heaven forbid I should write anything controversial in this letters page, but why don't you lardy butt couch potatoes put down that remote, get up, go to a library or a mall and get yourselves a book!
Talk about "boldly going where far too many of you have never gone before."
Kevin Ahearn
Kevtoma(at)aol.com
he new season for (most) sci-fi TV is upon us. I'm sure that we all have many lingering questions that we'd like answered. Here are a few of my burning questions ...
Andromeda
Q: Why should anyone care about the Commonwealth?
Andromeda is on a crucial mission to restore the Commonwealth, but it's completely unclear why this matters. (Andromeda's seven-person writing team may benefit from studying scripts of writers who wrote with clarity and purpose, like Chris Brancato of First Wave or Terry Nation of Doctor Who and Blake's 7). Why is restoring the Commonwealth important?
Enterprise
Q: Is Trip gay?
If not, then it's totally inexplicable why he hasn't made a pass at T'pol. A single man, away from home, spending long nights by candlelight in the room of a beautiful and scantily clad woman—and he doesn't even try to kiss her?
Farscape
Q: What happens in the fifth season?
Goodness, Farscape's canceled! Many of us just can't stop thinking about what a great show it was. What does happen in the fifth season?
Jake 2.0
Q: Will viewers accept, by fiat, the farcical idea that nano and holodeck-like technology currently exist?
When I left the theater after seeing the outstanding 28 Days Later, I, oddly, could not help but to think about its "Mirror, Mirror," Jake 2.0. 28 Days Later, a completely believable and eerily realistic film, is everything Jake 2.0 is not—namely, believable. (Tremors: The Series is not believable, but at least it doesn't take itself seriously). What can we do to make this absurd premise comport with what we know about the world?
Jeremiah
Q: Is Straczynski really leaving next season?
Babylon 5 was the Pulp Fiction of sci-fi—brilliant, gritty, mind blowing and far ahead of its time. Everyone wants to know if Kill Bill recaptures the magic. Everyone wants to know if Jeremiah recaptures the magic. Alienate Straczynski and we'll never know.
Starhunter
Q: How did such an abomination ever get produced?
To say that Starhunter is worthless would be an over exaggeration. Unsubstantiated rumors are that Starhunter is a high-school extra-credit project gone awry. How is it possible that this insult remains on air?
John Edward (technically not sci-fi, but on the SCI FI Channel)
Q: Do people really believe that Edwards communicates with the dead?
It borders on unethical for this charlatan to have his own television show. But the wrong can be corrected: Give the folks from The Skeptic a 30-minute slot immediately afterwards.
Peter Boghossian
pete(at)boghossian.com
ater this month, we will see the release of the '70s sci-fi classic series UFO on DVD. It joins the ranks of many other classic series now remastered on DVD and I, for one, can't wait.
Yet, I have to ask a serious question. By early 2004, we will have the entire series of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, most of Stargate SG-1, The X-Files, the first four seasons of Babylon 5, Space: 1999, UFO, most of Farscape and the first season of Lost in Space on DVD. With all these boxed sets of classic series hitting the stands, where is a boxed set of Star Trek?
I've seen DVDs containing pairs of episodes, but why hasn't Paramount issued a box set of the original series of Star Trek? This could easily be one of the biggest-selling boxed sets in the short history of DVDs.
At the current rate of release, Voyager and Enterprise boxed sets will be available before we see the original series in a boxed set.
Please, Paramount, think about this!
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
n her letter entitled "Sexual Encounters Sink Enterprise," Ms. Hoffner uses a very liberal definition of the word "rape." In the most recent episode, T'Pol is "scanned" by the slave girl who was actually a Xindi spy, much as Archer and, one would assume, Hoshi were. Only through her superior Vulcan mind was T'Pol able to briefly resist this scan. No sexual act was involved.
I assume the other incident referred to was the forced mind-meld inflicted on the first officer by a rogue Vulcan. While this could be considered a "mind-rape," at no time was there any physical sex.
Complaints about Enterprise often dredge up the Vulcan concept of IDIC, "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations." Why does this not extend to the particular, diverse combination that is Enterprise?
Lee Russell
lrussell5(at)cfl.rr.com
agree with much of what Gloria Hoffner had to say about Enterprise ("Sexual Encounters Sink Enterprise"). They are substituting sex for good writing. If Enterprise has gone up in the ratings, that speaks poorly for the quality of the viewers, or perhaps they're just too young to know what really good sci-fi, like Babylon 5, is. I have not seen the slave-girl episode yet because I was out of town, but knowing about the rape scene, I may just tape over the show and not watch at all.
Beverly Byrum
bbyrum(at)ka.net
'm not sure what's more frustrating. The fact that every week the same outraged woman slathers false accusations all over the latest Star Trek series ("Enterprise Offers Nothing New But Sex", "Sexual Encounters Sink Enterprise"), or the fact that Science Fiction Weekly continually publishes her. In her latest letter, the writer claims T'Pol suffers a "lesbian rape" from the seductress Rajiin. This is completely false! Rajiin is a spy with the ability to scan lifeforms with her hands once she's hypnotized her victim into submission. Nowhere in the scene is T'Pol raped. Rather, Rajiin has difficulty in hypnotizing T'Pol because Vulcans are mentally more under control than humans. As such, T'Pol begins to resist and is thus physically attacked by Rajiin.
The writer also accused the episode of having near-nude women and thongs. Nope. Neither were in the episode. I actually watched it, something I doubt this woman has done. Rajiin is no more underdressed than anything seen in the original '60s Star Trek. Where she conjures up this idea that Enterprise takes on the subject of rape as lighthearted and silly is truly bizarre. For example, the "rape-driven" episode "Stigma" was recently nominated for a SHINE award, thanks to its positive symbolic outlook on AIDS. I doubt awards are given out for poking fun at rape victims.
Is Enterprise sexist? Hardly. What we had in "Rajiin" wasn't anti-women in the slightest. Here we have a seemingly defenseless woman with true underlying power over her captors. On the flip side, the seemingly powerful captain has no defense against the woman. It's amazing that I never read a single critic of Enterprise note that Rajiin was actually presented as a capable spy who proved a match for the entire ship's crew. How is this sexist? Because she's in a sexy outfit? When Scott Bakula receives orders to stop taking off his shirt then I might believe it.
Furthermore, this writer declares the ratings are plummeting by the episode. Not true! Beyond the fact that the ratings essentially stabilized last Spring, the key demographic ratings have gone up this season.
Mind you, there's nothing wrong with debating the quality of the show. But let's debate the real show here, not one that exists only in a certain reader's imagination.
Chris Jorgensen
jorgensc(at)ece.pdx.edu
ex and Trek: Television programming has dramatically evolved (or devolved, depending upon an individuals view point) over the last 20 years. Violence, sex and derogatory language run rampant in today's television shows. This has become the social norm in television production.
When Enterprise first aired, I was skeptical that the show would last more than a couple of years. The interactions and dialogue scripting between the show's main characters were stiff and unemotional. Star Trek: Enterprise has actually evolved into a very watchable show (if you can ignore all of the time-line discrepancies). The show has evolved into a dark, driven drama this season that now has a purpose. As for the sex, it is unfair to compare this show to any of its predecessors. The social norms have changed so drastically over the last 30 years and what is acceptable on television has changed with it. (I've at least noticed.)
Star Trek has lost touch with its core fan-base and I'm not sure if this can be reversed. Rick Berman is trying to capture a new audience and not re-tread on previous material of other Star Trek series.
Week after week, Science Fiction Weekly posts letters on their Web site from people who have nothing better to do in their lives than to constantly nit-pick about Star Trek. Let's face it, people: Star Trek is purely for entertainment purposes. If you don't like the show, then don't watch it. Complaining on a Web site isn't going to change the show. I think it is time to lay this issue to rest and move on to more interesting topics of discussion.
Dave Richmond
babcomdave(at)yahoo.com
Back to the top.
