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.
n your recent interview with Kim Stanley Robinson, he states: "Well,
nothing can constitute a productive combination with capitalism. It's parasitic by definition." A definition, by the way, that he fails to provide. In the definitions provided by dictionary.com, I see nothing that I could categorize as a parasitic system.
He then goes on to explain (sic) that capitalism is a sort of "late feudalism" and that its defenders are always privileged within the system.
What Mr. Robinson never provides are two very important things, if he'd like to convince anyone of his opinion: facts or examples. In fact, it isn't even clear to me from his argument what his beef is with capitalism. For example, does he believe that only a privileged few can make money in a capitalist society (this is implied by his choice of words, but never spoken outright)? If so, why does he believe this? What specific structures are in place to ensure that? Mr. Robinson does not even give us anecdotal evidence of any of his claims.
I'm also not sure what kind of a system Mr. Robinson advocates in capitalism's place. Perhaps one needs to read his books to know this.
Understand that I am not one of the "privileged" Mr. Robinson refers to, nor am I necessarily defending capitalism with this letter. I simply feel that the interviewer here, obviously very sympathetic to Mr. Robinson, let the famous writer get away with a very vague answer that, to me, smells a lot like propaganda. If he wants to convince me of the evils of capitalism, I'm willing to listen, but not to arguments based on some hidden private knowledge that only Mr. Robinson is privy too. Also, we should be sure to distinguish between capitalism per se and capitalism as it is enforced by governments today. They are not necessarily one and the same, but opponents of capitalism are very fond of forgetting this.
Patrick Minton
mail(at)pminton.org
read the Heinlein Almost Had It Right article with some amusement
but little satisfaction. Too much speculation by some overeducated critics.
The story that hooked me onto sci-fi was Have Spacesuit—Will Travel in 1963. I wanted more, so I found Heinlein's other books, then Asimov's, then Clarke's and Norton's and even Burroughs'. The reading only got better and better the more I found. They were stories from the age of pure science-fiction storytelling. Their speculations inspired others like myself. People who became pilots, astronauts, engineers, statesmen and ministers. People who made the technological advancements we enjoy today. That was the pre-drug era, the era in which writers told entertaining stories without 20-page dissertations about physics or religion wound into the stories.
Heinlein changed his style of writing as the times changed. Stranger in a Strange Land had a serious effect on the way I looked at my own beliefs. But then he changed even more. Peace, love and the druggist next door with too much emphasis on the love (sex) aspect. I quit reading Heinlein in the early '70s.
Having grown up in the '50s and '60s, I can say with some assurance that had he written Stranger in a Strange Land 20 years earlier, his books would have been banned or burned and he would have been called a heretic and never published again. Had he written his later works 20 years earlier, he would have been jailed by McCarthy. (A severe history lesson is due here).
Although I lost interest in Heinlein later, I am glad Heinlein wrote his stories when he did. His timing was perfect. I owe my love of sci-fi to Robert A. Heinlein as so many others do
throughout the past 50 years.
Joe Castleberry
biowolf(at)netzero.com
id anyone catch the over-riding theme of last week Saturday's bug movie marathon? We can believably beat megaladon sharks, crazed octopi, komodo dragons and resurrected dinosaurs, but we cannot beat insects and arachnids. Humans lost in every film.
You could argue it's a "monster movie cliche"—that the menace remains, leaving open the possibility for a sequel. But I think it's a gut-level, species reaction as to how little it would take for "bugs" to take over as the dominant species of the planet—a reminder about what really threatens us, other-species-wise, on this planet, not often brought to the conscious
level.
To look at it from the other side: the two times I can think of humans believably beating bugs were in Men in Black where the alien bug was alone without ability to reproduce, and some '50s monster movie where teens destroy the first hive of a mutation or alien species before it has a chance to reproduce. Key phrase—prior to reproduction.
None of the writers of those bug films collaborated with each other, yet none could not write an ending where humans won because we all feel—like hairs going up on the back of your neck—that if the delicate balance we have with bugs is breached, humans lose.
I see we're back to underwater monsters this week where we can likely prevail.
Pushing bug menace back to subconscious level ...
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
he review of the Art Asylum's Star Trek original series phaser was very good. The reviewer, Sean Huxter, says he doesn't know how accurate it is. Well, he can rest assured that all the dimensions and all the functioning buttons were correctly done. I have just purchased a master replicas prop reproduction of the original series phaser and a side by side comparison shows the amazing accuracy of the Art Asylum product. Both items are expertly executed when compared to photos and articles online and in the Star Trek Communicator magazine.
Jim McCain
jrmccain(at)cmaaccess.com
he reponses from Mr. Lazar ("Seeking an Alternative to 'Sir'") and Mr.
Sundquist ("BSG Offered Quality Entertainment") to Mr. Week's objection to the use of "sir" when addressing female officers in Battlestar Galactica ("Officer Etiquette Needs Education") misses the point. It isn't, as the responders would seem to imply, about women not being on an equal footing—it's about expressing that equality through a male-specific pronoun.
While I agree with his comments about science fiction not needing to be limited to any current cultural tradition, I disagree with Mr. Lazar's suggestion that what is needed is a gender-neutral pronoun. On the contrary, there already exists a word perfectly suited for addressing female officers—"ma'am." In my experience with English-speaking military personnel from the U.S., Canada, Australia, Britain, Belgium, and the Netherlands, I have yet to
see any evidence that addressing female officers as "ma'am" is any less respectful than addressing male officers as "sir."
This being the SCI FI Channel, it's proper to speculate that maybe someday we'll need a gender-neutral pronoun for situations not covered by "sir" or "ma'am." Let's save that discussion until it becomes relevant.
Christopher Weuve
caw(at)kentaurus.com
o all who wrote letters on the lack of race ("Diversity Must Be Reimagined", "'50s Stereotypes Just Won't Wash", "Letters Can Fix the Future") in the latest incarnation of Battlestar Galactica, I'd like to point out at least one thing: I counted at least two interracial relationships.
I think we all remember (or know about, or have seen) the very first interracial kiss on the original Star Trek. On Battlestar Galactica, I saw the producers carrying on that
groundbreaking tradition. You all are complaining about how (at least) two characters were turned into females, one of them replacing a black character and a third female lead introduced as a president—but did anyone take stock of the relationship scene? I agree that black actors usually take a backseat in casting, when they are cast in anything at all, but that also extends to Asians, Maoris, et cetera.
I am not even going to pretend to know what it's like to wear a different skin. But I would like to point out the interracial relationships as seen in BG this time around. It's been so long since I have seen the original Battlestar that I don't remember if there were any interracial couples in it—and BG aired at least 10 years after "The Kiss" on Star Trek. Not only is there a lack of good black casting, there's also still some sort of taboo on showing interracial couples in stable relationships.
I think Battlestar Galactica wins in the "Interracial Relationship" category.
Ronya F. McCool
liaphayle(at)yahoo.com
appreciate the argument that is being made on both sides of the issue of who killed the Black Rider, Merry or Eowyn ("Jackson Gets Rings Wrong Again", "Jackson's Trilogy Is Tight", "Jackson's Action Wasn't Always Wrong", "Tolkien's Words Tell the Tale"). It seems quite clear by Tolkien's book that it was a joint effort. Merry's attack from behind stunning the Rider and causing his strike against Eowyn to miss clearly sets up Eowyn to deliver the final blow. I think J. Lee Watts ("Tolkein's Text Tells the Tale") makes too many assumptions to make his/her case. Just because the Rider's "great shoulders bowed before her" does not mean that he was already gone and his armor empty when Eowyn struck. Read a few sentences further and you
will see that the cry that "went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind...." did not happen until after Eowyn struck the Rider. And, surely, Eowyn's sword would not have shattered if there was nothing for it to strike. I also think there are contradictory comments with J. Lee Watts's argument. Noting that Merry's sword was made for just such a foe as the Nazgul and that Eowyn's, being of common origin, was not made for fighting Nazgul does not immediately give credit to Merry. Looking at the passage cited about Merry's blow, "...cleaving the undead flesh and breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will," explains how Eowyn's common sword was able to finish off the Nazgul. Merry's first blow broke the spell, but left the unprotected Rider to his fate at the hands of Eowyn. So, yes, the smallest person can and did change the world, as without Merry, Eowyn would not have survived.
Anyway you look at it, there had to be compromises made as there are with any book turned into a movie, as I'm sure all agree. With books as complex as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, what we can hope for is that the spirit and meaning of the story survives the transition, which I think it did quite nicely. Peter Jackson should be given credit for changing the world in his own way with three wonderful movies.
Bob Williams
robalan(at)mindspring.com
am normally a lurker—you know the sort: all opinions and no actions. The debate about Lord of the Rings ("Jackson Gets Rings Wrong Again", "Jackson's Trilogy Is Tight", "Jackson's Action Wasn't Always Wrong", "Tolkien's Words Tell the Tale"), however, has me both enthralled and up in arms.
I love the books. I have read The Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings at least once a year since I was nine (I am now 28). The Hobbit less so, but still quite a lot.
I am also a New Zealander and therefore substantially biased.
[Peter] Jackson's works are the only movies I have bothered to watch in the last four years, and apart from endless reruns of Babyon 5 (the sci-fi version of Lord of the Rings), the only video entertainment I have had time for—the scenery in the movies is often my stomping grounds.
I have to reply to J. Lee Watts ("Tolkein's Text Tells the Tale") and his letter in Issue #351. He is absolutely right in his interpretation about the events. Merry's dagger
was forged by the Men of Westernesse (specifically the kingdom or Arnor) to fight the Witch King of Angmar—the Chief of the Nazgul. Yes, his sword was the one responsible for undoing the spell and finally laying to rest the tortured soul of a once proud king of man.
However the movie did absolutely nothing to go against this. What we saw on screen was exactly what happened (apart from Eowyn's dialogue about "Not being a man" which we could all clearly see anyway).
Tolkein explained the sword in a piece of writing that should have been in italics. For those of us that know what happened, we went "Go Merry!" in large capital letters. For those that only saw the movie, well then, it was still bloody good action.
My point is simple. Enjoy the movie for what it is. Or don't. If you could do a better job then do so. Jackson started out small (some of his first movies are both terrific and embarrassing—but I love Meet the Feebles) and so can anyone else.
I hope everyone has a great 2004 and I'll go back to lurking.
Bob Gilmore
gilmobob(at)snap.net.nz
he editorial ("The Return of the Guilt") was dead-on. It was great. There is much to be done in this world. There are many heroic deeds needing to be done. There are kids who need mentors in cities, there are poor on the streets needing compassion, there are children forced into prostitution in the Philippines. Do you feel like there's nothing you can do? You're wrong.
If you're reading this, and you're in America, you are blessed with resources beyond your imagination. Put these resources (time, money) into the fight. If you can't be there personally, support those who are. Somebody made all of those swords for the armies to go into battle in the War of the Ring. Check out International Justice Mission, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Compassion International, Amnesty International ... the list goes on. Wake up, this is a battle now and these are desperate times! Do I even need to say this? Thanks.
Steven Downer
stevenzx(at)juno.com
must take issue with Sumaiya Hashmi's letter regarding the virtue of courage
in today's world as compared to that in the world of the Lord of the Rings ("Yesterday's Wars Needed More Courage").
While it is true that we no longer fight wars with sword, bow and horse, I think it would be gravely mistaken to equate those methods of fighting wars with the pure intentions and courage of those portrayed in the Lord of the Rings movies and books. In real history, in the days when swords and horses and bows could decide a battle, people fought for a variety of reasons, but as often as not it was for profit or fear of punishment (or both). The soldier in the Roman
Legion received great benefits for his lengthy term of service (a lifestyle that probably was considerably above that of the common Roman) but also faced severe discipline if he failed to perform to the standards set for him. The medieval knight most often fought for personal profit and of course the barbarian tribes often did as well. The main exception, of course, would probably be groups like the crusaders who fought for religious causes ... but, of course, we know how bloody and violent those wars could be.
In contrast, the modern soldier is actually far more likely to be motivated by at least the idea of something larger than themselves. Even many of the conscript soldiers in WWII on both the Axis and the Allied side sincerely believed in the rightness of their country. And as for courage ... well, if anything, I think modern soldiers require more, not less, courage for they know that death can come at random and without warning.
The point here is not to try to belittle the courage of earlier ages nor praise the courage of our own. Rather it is to say that great deeds remain to be done and indeed are done every day. There are men and woman who risk their lives as firefighters, cops, soldiers and other careers to save the lives of complete strangers. There are others who devote their life to trying to cure disease, feed the hungry etc. These are people of real courage and every bit the heroes that Aragorn, Frodo and Samwise are.
Bill McHale
mchale(at)toad.net
Back to the top.
