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 send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
agree with Rob Shimer ("Wonder Actress Must Be Able to Act") that Julie Strain would be a great second (note, I said "second") choice to play Wonder Woman. As a matter of fact, she'll probably get the job, because people still aren't ready to see a woman that's pretty, tall and strong as a man, all at the same time yet. Hell, they can barely handle seeing two guys kiss on primetime.
As for the newer nominees:
Jessica Alba—sexy, yes, but not tall enough and has too much of the "cupie-doll look" thing happening to be believable. Cupie-dolls don't fight, they pout (unless they're genetically engineered).
Claudia Black—a little more like it, but she's too skinny. Granted, she could buff up for the movie, but with her angular features, she would run the risk of being too manly looking.
So, it's two votes for Chyna and two votes for Julie Strain. Hmmm, I wonder how we could break the tie? Oh, I know! Two words: mudwrestling, baby! Ooh, behave!
Adam Boudreaux
TrekAdamG(at)webtv.net
r. Clute: For all the great work you do writing your own novels, or being a living memory of science fiction with your irreplaceable Encyclopedia (I happen to own a copy and to me this has been a treasure trove of knowledge for many years), I believe you are quite unwillingly doing irreparable damage to the novels you set out to discuss every month or so in your "Excessive Candour" section of the site.
Mr. Clute, it may be that English not being my native language sets a barrier for my proper comprehension of your reviews, however, assuming that I do manage to understand at least a small number of them—as they were intended by you in the first place—I have to admit (sadly) that for the past five years that I have been a Science Fiction Weekly reader (not sure if "Excessive Candour" has been there that long though), I have never felt the slightest urge to run out and purchase any novel you took upon yourself to review.
I believe your prose, while most elegant and inspired, is ever so cryptic and riddled with unnecessary digressions that it just doesn't seem to me to give those novels a chance to breathe out their own potential: they are being strangled (and the reader worn out at the same time), killed in the egg by your own verbosity.
Your love of the written word (as I interpret it) takes up so much space in those pages that simple facts like actual plot or character information about these novels have to be dug out with teeth and nails. I often find myself doing archeology work poring through your monthly contributions in order to find a broken vase of a hint of whatever the novel is about....
Your style, in my view, just isn't suited to talk about recently published novels. It seems to me that the way you approach these reviews resembles that which might be used by a priest doing a funerary oration. You are, in effect, not reviewing these books, you are burying them, driving a nail in the coffin with each ponderous circumlocution....
It's a pity really because I feel that only the most confident of authors (or maybe the more desperate?) will dare hand over their novels to your widely regarded judgement, in hope of getting your undoubtedly much sought-after imprimatur, but they may not be realizing that being simply reviewed in the maybe less academic, less formal and authoritative, regular "Off the Shelf" section of SFW would get them a much, much wider audience... they may not be realizing, in fact, that for all the respectability aura gained by the appending of your signature at the end of their novel's review, they may lose (and in great numbers) what, after all, surely matters to most of them: readers.
Now—after years of unsuccessful attempts at trying to extract facts, if not sense, out of your rather challenging reviews, I have reluctantly resorted to skipping them altogether, knowing that I am quite probably missing some great reads by doing so. It doesn't fill me with much satisfaction to do that, as I am otherwise quite fond of your work. Nevertheless, it seems a small price to pay in comparison to that chilling feeling I get of witnessing the ritual sacrifice of an innocent, unaware novel with each new bout of excessive candour. ...
As a conclusion to this (admittedly biased) impression of your work, may I humbly suggest that you consider contributing to SFW in the way you most definitely (and verifiably, on account of your Encyclopedia) do best, that is, introducing readers to old jewels of science fiction, instead of drowning clueless newborns eager for an audience—I am aware this clashes with the "Classic Sci-Fi" section of the site, but that seems to me the most appropriate way to go so as to avoid more literary bloodshed.
And if you have read this far down and have felt a slight twinge of irritation over my own disproportionate verbosity, then I believe you have an idea of how I feel while struggling through your intimidating reviews.
Most respectfully despite what you may think,
Louis Jambier
louisjambier(at)yahoo.fr
Reviewer John Clute responds:
It is not out of disrespect to Louis Jambier that I don't try to respond at length to his letter. His feelings are perfectly clear about the work I do for SFW, and in the absence of any specific claim that I have gotten anything factually wrong, I think the expression of his feelings should be allowed to stand alone.
One very general thing, though. Louis Jambier does clearly have a view of the proper way to respond to a new book that just as clearly I don't share. There is no space here to go into these matters at any length—they have in any case been debated, back and forth and hither and yon, for as long as I've been around doing reviews. Obviously, I don't take this task lightly, and have never made it a secret that I think the act of reviewing should potentially engage the full talent—wit, wisdom, foolishness, passion, humor—of the reviewer. For anyone interested in a longer presentation of this genuinely deep-held conviction, a fairly long 1998 piece of mine called "What I Did on My Summer Vacation," which was published in Paradoxa, addresses these issues. In 2003, I completely rewrote this essay, which now serves as the introduction to Scores, my latest collection of book reviews and other stuff, where I have also reprinted about 70 of the "Excessive Candour" columns that have caused Louis Jambier to write his letter.
Best,
John
agree with what Mr. Michael Cassutt has stated in his article "The Value of Shared Experience." To quote Beverly, the human girlfriend of Marvel comics' Howard the Duck, "Man is not an island. Not even an archipelago."
While I have done and enjoyed some activities alone, there have been experiences that I have enjoyed doing with people of like-minded interests. I do not believe that one should fight for people's acceptance but at the same time one can deny oneself the benefits that result from social interaction through a deliberate attempt to avoid people.
Julian Gift
lira-b(at)tstt.net.tt
nlike some other fans, I have been delighted with this year's Angel episodes, thus far. If Angel were to continue on from season four with Angel Investigations intact and the crew pursuing its original "help the helpless" mission statement, I could see no reason for Cordelia Chase to be missing in action. However, Joss Whedon was pretty clear about the direction he would be taking the show this season and that direction does seem to preclude using Cordy in any way that would not make her a stumbling block for the personal growth of the other characters. We saw season four (the very last episode notwithstanding) ending with Angel refusing to compromise
in any way when dealing with Jasmine. Self-determination was something the primary characters were all unwilling to bend on. Season five is supposed to be about the evils of compromise as seen from within Wolfram & Hart's ethically challenged, legal arena. It's about taking the rose-tinted glasses off and dealing with the real world as an adult—an adult who has
to learn the fine art of compromise to survive in society.
Would anyone believe that Cordy, who sacrificed her own health to maintain stranger-saving visions, would be tempted to something untoward for personal gain? Could sales-savvy Cordy be persuaded that evil is a sliding-rule? Could she be enticed to buy into a cut-rate redemption plan? I could envision Cordy tempted into selling herself or her own well being for others—but that story has already been played and played beautifully. The other characters would be much harder to "get to" with Cordy there. She would be a formidable obstacle to anyone or anything trying to tempt the gang by seducing them into small acts of questionable morality.
Cordelia, as we knew her, wouldn't have been waiting for that limousine at the end of last season—and if she were, it would be to drag the rest of the cast back inside the hotel for a round of "What the frilly heck are you all thinking?" I see her as doing her utmost to prevent the people she cares about from making some necessary mistakes. How much more compelling is it to watch a character wrestle with a literal demon over one shoulder and nothing more than his or her own morality to act as a compass (particularly when that character's judgment has been very flawed in the past) as opposed to someone, who has both been there and done that, acting
as a knowledgeable guide?
This whole season is supposed to be about ethical bartering—a lesson that Cordelia has already learned and surpassed. Her presence, while certainly appreciated, just isn't necessary for the direction we seem to be headed and could even detract from the journeys of other, less enlightened characters. If Cordy were there, her very presence would serve to impart a wisdom that the other characters need to discover on their own. Accepting yourself for who you are and being secure enough in that knowledge to know when to say no to the difficult choices is one of the hardest things to learn. If no one stumbles, what is there onscreen to compel us to watch? There are other shows out there that have love and romance and people who make all the right
decisions ... I just don't tune into them. That painful, messy path to self-awareness makes for good television, especially in the Whedonverse. It's part of what reeled me in and it's certainly a major component in why I stay hooked.
Now what we've been given is, in my opinion, a much more fascinating dynamic. We have an ensemble of fallible characters that have been set apart from that which is familiar (Cordelia, the Hyperion, Buffy, Caritas, Sunnydale, the CoW, et al). Parallels can be drawn to young adults in the workforce cut adrift from their long-term peer groups, such as graduating from university or even leaving a home for the first time. Guidance is no longer readily available and the mile markers that a person uses to help bolster his/her sense of morality are no longer within easy reach. Those persons, upon whom they must rely, have spurious motives and hidden agendas. (Sounds just like corporate America to me.) Each of the characters is isolated after a fashion and may be headed for a serious slide. How many compromises can be made before the mission is out of sight? Is it OK to commit a small evil, if it is done for the "right" reasons? (And who gets to decide what the right reasons are?) I'm going to miss seeing Cordy, but I would be willing to bet that by the end of the season, Angel and the others will be looking back more than I and wishing she had been there to help save them from some of their more ignominious stumbles—stumbles that I will be glued to the television set every Wednesday night at 8 p.m. CST to see, without fail.
Sometimes I have been known to shout out errors in continuity. I read spoilers and chew my fingernails, wailing at the injustice of it all. DVD's will be watched, re-watched and hours of dialogue will be analyzed looking for those clues that I must have missed, because some plot points just continue to elude me, no matter how much I think I know or try to understand. Action figures will be addressed as if they could speak back to me and books will be consulted. Non fandom friends and relatives will be driven to hang up on me or cover my ranting mouth with masking-tape. But I digress ... my point is, that while I may not always love what the writers do to my favorite characters, (in fact I sometimes even revile the direction that they have chosen to go) neither Buffy nor Angel have ever failed to leave me engaged.
P.S. I don't see Spike as a replacement for Cordy. He's cute enough and snarky enough, but he's got a fair amount of personal growing to do before he reaches her level of maturity—ironic considering how long he's been around comparatively. (Of course, his development was rather stunted for several decades.) If he continues on from the leaps and bounds he attained last year, maybe next year he'll get to be a real man. Until then, I just
hope that they keep giving James Marsters great dialogue and more burrs to put under Angel's saddle blanket, because he and David Boreanaz spark so well off of each other that I swear I can see actual flames dancing in their eyes sometimes. My hope is for more screen time for all of our favorite characters, Wes, Fred, Gunn and Lorne, for new characters to be developed with depth and humor, Knox, Eve, etc.—and if we're really good, maybe we can see some lovely guest spots from Charisma Carpenter, Christian Kane, Stephanie Romanov and Eliza Dushku—and, of course, the gang from Sunnydale sure would be welcome, too! Gee, do you think that The WB would spring for shows that are two hours long with limited commercial interruption? What?! A girl's gotta dream, doesn't she?
Tonya Trummer
buffyfan(at)polartech.com
o Science Fiction Weekly: In response to Roman Gheesling's letter that "Duck Dodgers Shouldn't Be Bland," I agree. But he is sadly mistaken if he believes that the spirit of Warner Brothers animation lives on through Animaniacs, Histeria and Duck Dodgers.
The problem with these shows is the almost sitcom-like dialogue that the characters are saddled with. The writers do not seem to understand that animation is a visual medium utilizing the movements of the characters to carry the story. Will someone please take the animators at WB Studios and make them watch classic Daffy Duck cartoons with the sound off. They are hysterical! Then attempt to watch Duck Dodgers. You might as well watch NBC on a Tuesday night.
While I understand that Duck Dodgers requires more dialogue because of the sci-fi nature and length of the program, there's no reason why it shouldn't be funny. But it seems that the writers choose to get their yuks from semi-witty lines instead of a visual gag which is what classic WB was all about.
The closest example of an animated show that succeeds in visual storytelling is Samurai Jack. It's not a humor program but clearly their writers understood what is required of an animated show, something the creators at WB Studios do not.
James Babbo
Max_Meanie@yahoo.com
tar Trek: Enterprise ... what a quandary! I really wanted to like Enterprise, to find some good series that could fill the void in TV-land. So far, I have come so close to tuning out Enterprise. But for some reason, I keep going back, hoping it will get better.
One writer said that they saw a marked improvement in the last episode ("Enterprise Gets Back on Track"), one that addressed the moral issues of cloning. And while I agree that that episode was better and had some substance to it ... I am not at all comfortable with it mainly because the show was promoted using a variation of a bait-and-switch. We saw what appears to be Trip dead, and a eulogy being read. Oops, no he isn't dead, that was just his clone ... which was apparent about five minutes into the show. Going backwards, episode-wise, we get ... the captain is mentally incapacitated ... oops, no he isn't, we can fix that in the past so the last 10 years (or was it 20?) never really happened. Putting that aside, did anyone ever think that T'pol would give up her post to play nursemaid to Archer? Yeah, right. It is this type of writing that has plagued ST shows from away back, and actually links Enterprise with Voyager and The Next Generation. How many OOPS-we-were-blown-up-but-not-really, lets-go-back-through-the-temporal-rift and make-things-all-hunky-dory-again can we take?
On the other hand, Steven Spielberg's Taken has been a bright spot in sci-fi TV land. Too bad it will end next week.
After that, I have my Babylon 5 DVDs to fall back on.
Thanks for listening!
Debra J. Miller
milledj(at)athens.edu
ru Calling (with Eliza Dushku wisely cast as the pivotal character) is probably one of this new millennium's most ambitious attempts at science-fiction drama. Its premise about a human being with the miraculous power to change the past one day at a time and give life back to the dead is understandably provocative. If I were given that power, I would probably be questioning whether it was a gift or a curse to be endowed with such a responsibility. Because it is a responsibility. We must acknowledge the full potential that a serial like this bestows upon
everyone (from the fictional characters to the audience) involved.
Tru's power is also not absolute. She still has make choices and sacrifices with her newfound ability. Such as who can she save and how can she save him or her in the one day she is given one chance to relive. It comes to a choice whether to just be grateful for such a power or to question its true purpose which is entrusted to you. Just as Cole Sear (The Sixth Sense) and John Coffey (The Green Mile) had to grasp their respective abilities, to either view the dead or to feel and heal the pain of others, Tru's exploration of her power and
responsibility is sure to be an excellent drama for television.
It just goes to show that some of your questions can only be satisfied with your own answers.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
Back to the top.
