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 send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
'm 37. When I grew up, TV and movie bad guys were always Soviets and Germans. Today we live in a culture in which TV bad guys can be anyone except real-life bad guys—militant Islamic radicals.
In the much-hyped last episode of Jake 2.0, with Lee Majors having a guest role, the bad guys were disgruntled Soviet terrorists. Disgruntled Soviet terrorists?!
It's interesting that we live in a culture where TV bad guys can never be the real bad guys. (Similarly, our real-life allies, those who share our core values—democracy, pluralism, capitalism, egalitarianism—are very rarely our TV allies, e.g., the British in Stargate). My guess is that the writers' and producers' thinking goes something like this: If we depict Islamic extremists as the bad guys then viewers might be led to the conclusion all Muslims are extremists (therefore bad guys), or that all Muslims are bad guys. But the way to deal with this is not to never depict militant Muslim fanatics as bad guys, but to depict moderate Muslims as good guys, who help to stop radical Muslims from committing mass murder.
But of course even this would not be without controversy, and lighthearted shows like Jake 2.0 exist to entertain and not to deliver moral messages. That said, I know that I speak for many in the sci-fi community when I say that we're waiting for a sci-fi series that entertains us while engaging us both morally and intellectually. Is that unrealistic?
Peter Boghossian
Pete(at)Boghossian.com
feel I must reply to Mr. Parsons, in regard to his politically correct view of casting for Battlestar Galactica ("Galactica Needs More Diversity"). Does he mean to say that any writer, director or producer who wishes to produce any work of fiction should refer to world demographics so as to provide "proper" representation of ethnic groups?
Or perhaps he would require a "quota" of so many homosexuals, so many Chinese (aren't they about half the worlds population?), so many Eskimos, and so on. Perhaps a table could be developed giving the correct number of each for the size of the cast of characters.
Alternately, we could just leave the ethnicity of fictional characters to the authors whose creative vision has produced them. Any writer's work will reflect the world (they) see around them (think Mark Twain) or the fictional world they have envisioned and immersed themselves in (most science fiction from the '30s to date). Should not these fictional characters be presented as the author intended rather than as current fashion dictates?
Thus concludes my rant, to avoid being "flamed" by every guilt-ridden liberal who has managed to find this Web site, please do not publish my full name or address.
Carl [last name withheld by request]
Address withheld by request
ear Readers: I'm a long time science-fiction fan or just an interested party of entertainment. Mostly fictional (drama, suspense, mystery, etc.) story lines of entertainment.
This is my first, and most likely my last, letter on this type because I doubt if anyone will take the time to listen (read) or comprehend what is being said. The writers of the editorials [in the Science Fiction Weekly letters column] that I've been reading, on numerous topics, just seem to be trying to kill any possible enjoyment of a new idea just because they have a venue to express their opinion.
I just recently read two letters. One concerning the respect to women officers ("Seeking an Alternative to 'Sir'") and the other regarding the lack of African Americans in the latest SCI FI miniseries, Battlestar Galactica ("Galactica Needs More Diversity"). I think both topics were expressed well but they were still simple criticism. I challenge anyone to write a letter simply expressing what they like about a show.
The topic concerning the lack of African Americans in the Battlestar Galactica miniseries got my attention, but not in the way that most people would think. I hope that the future is a diverse collection of many races, but I didn't feel that the lack of a certain race in one show deserves a negative response. Nor should it have been a subject of concern. Whether a particular race is mentioned in a particular storyline doesn't diminish the entertainment or realistic (fictional in this case) view of the show. With consideration to this issues, I believe it is still my (our) responsibility to teach respect and equality to my (our) children and others, if they're willing to listen.
The BG miniseries wasn't flooded with African Americans in every scene nor did they play major characters in the miniseries. I personally was more interested in the direction of the storyline and it did keep me interested. I just recently saw the movie Samurai, which was truly moving and emotionally draining. My point here is that I don't believe every race was depicted in that movie but one would be hard pressed to criticize it based on the lack of one or two ethnic groups.
I simply think people are forgetting how to enjoy themselves. Sometimes a movie is just a movie; a book is just a book; and etc. A story needs to have a plausible line to follow as well as an entertaining point of view. But good grief. Have we become so intelligent that we can't enjoy the simple things? Learn to let one self laugh, cry, feel, wonder and enjoy the possibility of what may be? Quit ending the story with your own point of view. After all don't we go to the movies to see someone else's point of view? Look, learn, listen.
Oh! I just wanted the readers to know that I'm a 37 year old Black male (African American); graduate from a black university; married to a beautiful black woman; and we have a 15-year-old black son. I hope that I perpetuate the characteristics of respect, honor and equality to those who know and love me. Including those that I may meet in the future. And these aren't virtues that I've picked up from the television, book, movie, etc., but from 37 years of life experience. They are real values that have been taught to me by my father and mother as well as family and friends.
For the next person that takes the time to read this soap-box editorial (I know), I hope they take the time to uplift instead of tear down. "If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up!"
Robert Mathes Jr.
rmathesjr(at)msn.com
et me weigh in on the correct form of address for female officers ("Seeking an Alternative to 'Sir'", "Officer Etiquette Needs Education").
As a former Army officer and the spouse of a female Army Reserve Officer just returned from a tour of duty in Kuwait, I think that I have some expertise on this subject. Unless you are trying to insult the officer, you never call a female officer "sir." The implication is that the officer has given up her gender, in some manner, to serve in the military, which should not be the case. Women officers serve in 90 percent of the jobs available in the modern military, often in positions of grave responsibility such as the command of units, and the main staff (the famous "S" or "G" positions.)
While sci-fi, specifically Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek, does not represent the modern military, they clearly borrow the rank structure and chain of command from today's military, why not borrow the correct form of address as well?
As to "sir" being more respectful, that is not true.
Also I would add, it was in one of the early episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, that Capt. Janeway, told Harry Kim to not address her as "sir," but to use "ma'am" or if he couldn't manage, that to use "captain."
Patrick Baker
bakerpat62(at)yahoo.com
r. Jackson loses an entire star from [The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King]'s rating due to his continuing to re-write and misinterpret Tolkien.
[Warning: Spoiler follows.]
Eowyn does not kill the King of the Nazgul, but [rather] Merry [does]. It was the Elvish blade that he received when being saved from the Barrow Wights by Old Tom [Bombadil]. But that was cut out of the first movie as well. Amazing how small a detail causes the house of cards to begin to fail.
I am dismayed that [Jackson] thinks he can tell the story better than [the one] Tolkien himself wrote. I, for one, am glad that this [film trilogy] is over.
May Mr. Tolkien rest peacefully in his grave.
J. Lee Watts
jleewatts(at)hotmail.com
here had been talk for years about bringing J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings saga to live-action film. Peter Jackson, who is not only a fan of the books but a talented director as well, has worked with a talented cast and crew in creating cinematic history with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like Aragon the king, the Lord Of The Rings' time has come.
There are many memorable scenes from each of the movies. The one that will always be my favorite is the confrontation between Gandalf and the Balrog on the bridge of Khazad-dum in the Mines of Moria. Sir Ian McKellen's masterful performance and the special effects that go along with it make me enjoy it every time that I see it.
Julian Gift
lira-b(at)tstt.net.tt
hile I was entertained by this last in the film series [Return of the King], as an avid fan of the Lord of the Rings books, there was some disappointment. In particular, the ending was dragged out, and the ending of the book was more interesting. The first two movies and most of the last followed the books, but where it did not, it was less interesting. I have no problem with director going off course from a book to make it more entertaining for film, but I did not feel the changes here did the story justice.
Richard Stark
rns1225(at)myacc.net
aycheck is another significant tale by Philip K. Dick. This story combines the author's basics from Total Recall and Minority Report into an adventure that John Woo's direction makes irresistibly suspenseful. It may seem like a science-fiction version of The Bourne Identity, but it is considerably more than that, as it weaves many mysteries of the pivotal character's (Ben Affleck) past, present and future into another valued moral tale concerning time-tampering. Uma Thurman is a more decent action heroine here than in Kill Bill. The Core's Aaron Eckhart is a modest but effective villain. Colm Feore is chilling as his ruthless henchman. The Planet of the Apes' Paul Giamatti supplies sufficient comedy relief as one of the hero's remaining loyalties. And Ben Affleck scores once again as an action hero as he did in Daredevil.
Although Blade Runner should always be Philip K. Dick's unrivaled
contribution to the science-fiction universe, Paycheck, alongside Minority Report, could very well prove to be one of this new millennium's most impacting visions of the future. It will be interesting to see what other works from the acclaimed science-fiction author will be adapted for the big screen in due time.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
fter watching the recent Tremors marathon, I think the SCI FI Channel should order a second season of the show.
It's very difficult these days to find a good family entertainment program that both kids and adults enjoy. When the family is willing to park in front of the TV and watch 16 hours of Tremors for an entire day, I'd say there are many fans of your show out there.
Not sure what the ratings for Tremors: The Series are right now, but I'd be willing to bet it's one of the highest-rated shows on the SCI FI Channel. Since the production costs for Tremors is fairly low for an original series, I would think it's profitable to continue
production of a second season.
David Uhe
psiworld(at)yahoo.com
hank you, thank you!—for the wonderful article that [Science Fiction Weekly] wrote about the Tarzan series back in Oct. (I just now saw it at www.tarzantheseries.com.) I am totally astounded. Your article said everything that I said about the show. The WB has been foolish enough to actually pull it. (They say it's on "hiatus," but I, along with thousands of other fans, believe it's gone for good.) We (Team Tarzan) have been doing everything imaginable [to save the show]. (Sending toy animals, post cards, e-cards, etc.)
You have to go to the site to see what has been done by all these people just trying to get The WB to bring it back. I am a huge fan of Stargate SG-1. I am front and center every Monday (for the reruns) and on Friday for new and old [episodes]. I am looking very much forward to the new season. I have watched it since it was on Showtime. I think that the SCI FI Channel would be the perfect place for Tarzan—with the same actors and writers, of course.
Thank you, again.
Diane Violette
d.v.elfeyes(at)juno.com
Back to the top.
